To me that suggests that he was a politician taking actions to shore up public relations in an area where he perceived himself both weak and under attack.

Well, that explanation would confirm, that, at least, the rest of the nation was very Christian, whether the politician himself was or was not... If we weren't a Christian nation, then in front of who did Jefferson "pretend" to be a good Christian (sincerely or not)?

I do see a trend here... The deniers of Christianity's role in America seem to have two conflicting arguments: they reject the religion's role in our history, while at the same time lament its "undue influence"...

One right you do NOT have is to not be offended.

What's that supposed to mean? That I must be offended? You bet I am...

So fuck off.

Oh, how clever! The discussion is about swearing, so I must swear, get it?

The invitation extended above to another anus, applies to you as well... Be sure to get yourself wiped first, though...

I'm offended by people proselytizing their God. Do I have the right to have them ticketed or hauled away, too?

If your city decides, proselytizing is a civil offense as the City of Philadelphia decided, swearing is, your city's police may ticket them...

I repeat my example of the FCC regulating swearing. Their power to do that was challenged, but continues to stand... Philadelpia's action is only more defensible, because FCC is empowered by Federal Congress to whom the First Amendment directly applies, whereas the locales have more freedom in enacting laws, even though we extended the "Congress shall make no law" to lesser governments too a while ago.

You can get a pair of earphones and protect your right to not listen for yourself

Or, as the spammers so often say: "Just press delete..."

Fuck you.

Come to Westfield, NJ and say it to my face, brave anus...

Just as your fist's freedom of movement ends at my face, your speech's freedom ends at my ears, if I so choose.

If FCC can limit swearing on public airwaves, police can do it too — even if the waves are in different medium and frequency...

It's just traditional formula.

He didn't have to spell the formula out in full. That he did it anyway, does suggest, he was perfectly "in" Christianity — as is the GP's point.

BTW, every President since has also been a Christian. The current one was, reportedly, quite devout too — at least, until he moved to the capital.

You're going to have to use actual English

The comas, which I used, were appropriate. Check with your English teacher.

That neither addresses my point nor is what the comment you refer to actually said.

Not interested.

Is not "ways" a plural? Can article "a" be used in front of it? Ever?..

Could a native English-speaker kindly explain it to this Ukrainian immigrant?

Yeah, we're in serious danger of curing every major disease, thus putting medical researchers out of business.

Evidently, the people advocating a government takeover of medical research are sure, it is the big-pharma's sabotage, that prevents cures from becoming widely available...

So you're saying whatever government entity is doing this work is going to run out of diseases and ailments to cure? Doesn't sound too bad to me.

Of course it does not sound bad — whether the entity is governmental or private. My response was to the sentiment, that medical research must run by the government, because, somehow, government's employees are not as worried about losing their jobs, as the private industry ones...

The illogic goes like this:

• There is no money in cure, because, once everyone is healthy, people stop paying.
• Corporations care only about money.
• Corporations aren't looking for cure (worse, if they accidentally find one, they'll sabotage it).
• Therefor, all medical research must be done by the government.

I posit, that this cynical line of thinking is just as attributable to government as corporate managers... At least, corporations have to compete with each other, whereas the government can simply outlaw the competition...

and we can't possibly think in shades of grey or make exceptions where needed.

Ever heard of the Ptolemaic model of the world? It seemed correct, but new and new facts required more and more exceptions until collapsing under their weight. Once you begin talking about "shades of grey" and "exceptions where needed", you admit, your model is junk...

And surely stuff like a bunch of women unionizing will all be an evil bunch

The workers wanting to bargain collectively aren't evil — they are doing, what's best for them. What is evil are the laws, that recognize unions as anything more than a group of people willing to associate with each other... No such laws should exist. A "union" of New York City transit workers should have no more legal recognition, that the community of Slashdot posters.

Moreover, given that unions are organizations set up with the explicit goal of maintaining and raising the price of what their members are selling (their own labor), they should be viewed as monopolies, subject to "trust-busting" laws.

If Staples and Office Depot were prevented from merging with each other for fear, the price of office supplies would go up, why do we allow our supply of healthcare, education, transportation, as well as crime- and fire-fighting to be controlled by the price-fixing monopolies?

Wake me up when you have an argument that actually applies to genetic testing

My argument, for the last time is that we are all employers, and, when considering any employment-regulating law (such as the ban on the use of genetic-testing by employers, implicitly suggested at the top of this thread), we should apply it to ourselves from the other end too: do I want this (or similar) law to control my interactions with all these people I hire: food takeout, gardener, nanny, cab-driver?

For a particular example, I don't want my nanny to have above-average incidence of sickness — even it is not contagious — because, any time she can't show up, I have to skip my work. So if, when interviewing candidates, I can quickly check their health, I'd want to be able to do it. This makes me sympathetic to the other employers wanting healthy employees. Someone of poor health may try to compensate with something else (higher productivity, better education, willingness to accept lower pay, whatever), but any bans on the use of any criteria are just that: Illiberal.

You don't seem to understand this newfangled "burden of proof" concept.

It would've mattered in court. In our argument it is not as important, because it is not, what my point hinges on. The one-hour minimum overtime was just an example of a possible absurd rule.

If you actually support the claim, sure, then it stops being BS.

Are you, actually, denying, that the gross abuses in the Union-contracts exist? More like are simply trying to bog me down with this meaningless nit-picking... Here are some overtime-related examples for you:

• Up until this year, employees of Wall Street Journal had a 5-hour minimum overtime pay. That's gone now, but only in exchange for other concessions.
• If the employee works more than one-half of an extra consecutive shift, the time worked for the entire extra shift shall be paid at time and one-half of pay. Yep, round it up — AFL-CIO are proud of this one, they quote it, even if without the full text.
• Firefighters received overtime pay regardless of whether they worked more than scheduled because their union contract guarantees regularly scheduled overtime (emphasis mine).
• The union contract for Muni operators prevents the SFMTA from hiring part-time drivers, meaning overtime must be paid overtime

The last two, in particular, blow up your entire argument about employees "not caring" for employees, and "forcing" to work overtime... The examples show, how the unions consider the overtime rules as a "benefit".

Of course, you know, my example was valid. BS here is produced by you — at least, the bulls produce it through proper orifices...

This is why medical research should be publicly funded and public property.

Right. Because the selfless, benevolent government officials will be happy about losing their funding (and risk their cushy government jobs), when the cure is found — unlike those evil corporate drones, out to perpetuate our ills for, dare I say it, profit...

Back to the question at hand, the money, obviously, goes to raising awareness. Gee, the easiest question in a week!

I'm not aware of any place which rounds upwards to the nearest hour

You are not aware, therefor it must be BS...

At any rate, I think it was libertarians who were into everything being solved by contract not by regulation

Yes, a contract. A contract with the worker, not their union. Surely, workers are entitled (by freedom of association) to form any groups, etc. But no one — neither the giant automakers nor the nanny-hiring families — must be legally-bound to hire union-only. And any union-won contracts to that effect must be studied with the anti-monopoly bias.

Let's keep it simple this time: are you aware of such a situation where anyone anywhere was sued for changing their pizzeria, or ordering more Italian than Chinese? Or do you think that repeating the same falsehood

It is not any more of a "falsehood" than any other caricature. Individual consumers' tastes in food aren't (yet?) targeted, but the employers' tastes in employees already are. I argue, that these aren't different from each other.

When you call for a food delivery, you are employing the restaurant. If we were to consistently apply the same laws to all employers, we'd have to study such food-ordering habits for signs of bigotry in the same way, personnel-hiring of companies is already studied by Attorney Generals.