Hey, for those of you who insist that you deserve $15/hour for your shitty, replaceable, skill-less role in some fast food establishment, you might want to pay attention.

Curious that you rant about stupid/ignorant people, yet ignore the direct refutation of your own statement. Et tu, Democrat?

You said: "The Republican Party won't have you."
I illustrated that not only am I in the party, I'm an active and positive participant.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of your quasi-religious beliefs.

FWIW, the Left cheerfully ignores science when it wants to as well. Shall we talk about GM foods? Nuclear power?

But I understand. The world is much, much simpler when you can just castigate people who disagree with you as "stupid", right?

"But you can't. The Republicans won't have you."

I believe in human induced climate change, and I'm a Republican - in fact, I''ve been a delegate to the last 3 conventions.

What was your point again?

I'd be curious to hear/meet any Democratic delegates who DIDN'T believe in anthropogenic climate change?

..if Louis del Monte says so, it +must+ be true.
I mean, it's not as if he is resurrecting a science fiction trope that's been extensively explored in hundreds, if not thousands of science fiction novels and short stories before this, right?

We need panic, and we need it now people.

"We don't put people in jail for their thoughts. We are not the thought police and the court system is not the deputy of the thought police."

Clearly, he doesn't understand the intent of modern American government.

You strike me as the kind of guy who has a 100k salary, commits to buying a house with payments of $10k a month and then tells his wife to "stop WASTING all our money buying a lottery ticket for $1" ...just because it's "mandatory" spending doesn't mean the promise was a wise one in the first place.

...so that now it's only men that are excluded from some events. Victory!

Hooray for "equality"....

You mistakenly (or disingenuously) left out that you only list 'discretionary' spending.

Mandatory spending - 2/3 of the budget - has bigger numbers:

Social Security -- $860 billion budgeted, and $852 billion was spent.
Medicare --$524 billion budgeted, $513 billion spent.
Medicaid --$304 billion budgeted, $308 billion spent.
Interest payments on national debt -- $223 billion budgeted and spent.
All other (mostly social programs like unemployment, etc.) -- $497 billion budgeted, $560 billion spent

Essentially, 'social spending' is nearly $2 trillion.

So while I understand the clearly political motivation behind the list you made, if we say spending explains our priorities, what does this do to your tendentious conclusion?

I'd agree, and even say it's beyond being simply limited to religion as well.

If Mary wants to run her business where everyone wears knit woolen stocking caps all day, that's her choice....even if it's silly. If you start working there, and that's laid out in the hiring discussion, then if you don't want to wear a silly hat, you shouldn't work there.

Regardless of if she does it in obeisance to an imaginary god, or because she loves Jayne from Firefly - doesn't matter.

Then again, I *personally* believe that one can have a club with all-men, or a college with only women, or an organization of only black people and the government has no constitutional right to interfere and force the former to accept women or the latter to accept whites. Crazy me.

Well, you got what you wanted - a right to be forgotten.

So while John the unfairly-maligned ex-husband can have all the nasty stuff his ex-wife said about him deleted from searches, so can Jim the pedophile, Jeff the corrupt politicians, and Jerry the worthless CEO.

In fact, this ruling has in a sense undermined the entire value of the internet where it comes to the power of journalism and public voice.

I guess it's worth it?

My kids' school, they ban using Wiki for research.

(Personally, I'd think that a perfect jumping-off point for teaching the difference between primary and secondary sources, critical reading, and source evaluation. But hey, what do I know, I'm not a teacher.)

I know it's trendy to say that "there's no reason this should be part of compensation" but the only people saying that are those that don't understand why it was first offered: it began as a benefit BECAUSE companies could negotiate collectively for 000's of staff and get far better deals than families could get individually.

So what might have cost a family (then) $50/mo, would cost the company $25/mo.

Of course, this wasn't just altruism on the company's part; it remained "worth" $50/mo to the employee, so could be negotiated to offset, say, $40 of the employee's salary while only costing the company $25. Everyone wins.

So this latest trendy whine that 'there's no reason to tie health insurance to employment' entirely ignores the practical history of the thing, and the cost benefits of collective negotiation.

You're being sarcastic, but the *point* of the US is (was) that you should have the choice to do that if you want, even if it's silly.

If you fund & run a private business on such precepts it's YOUR PROBLEM to find employees to work there/customers to buy from you. Not the government's role to constrain your otherwise-legal behavior to what they "think" you should be doing.

What the big-government Left doesn't seem to understand is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions; every time they expand government's ability to control/intervene in private life (for whatever good reason they have) that precedent can later be misused by people who are not so charitably inclined.

Someone doesn't have the slightest clue about how employer-provided healthcare works?

The employer arranges a health care plan using the employees as the collective pool.
The employee pays a portion of the cost, the rest being paid for by the company.

You're not REQUIRED to take their health care plan, you can obviously shop elsewhere.

I guess Detroit would clearly know what arrogance smells like, that's true.