If Snopes were left-leaning, it would have been impossible for me to defend Bush all those years.
Sorry, but Snopes is left-leaning. What you've run across are examples so flagrant, they had to admit them to false. For example, "Trump to Repurpose USS Enterprise Into Floating Hotel and Casino" or "Donald Trump Was Born in Pakistan" are obviously fake and Snopes will label it as such.
The best way to check any "fact-check" site is to find the same quote said by two people on different sides of the aisle. What I have found is that many times, the same claim will receive a higher rating from the left, as the site will find an excuse as to why it may be true. The right receives no such courtesy.
I'm led to understand reality has a pretty strong left wing bias, also.
Do you mean the "reality" that says only white Republicans can be racist?
Maybe you mean the "reality" that every Republican candidate since Reagan is a racist/misogynist/elitist/Bible-thumper?
Oh, I know... You mean the "reality" of Obamacare cutting health care costs and everyone being able to keep their doctor, right?
Sorry, but when "the left wing" has played the bigot (racist, misogynist, homophobe, transphobe) card so hard and so long that it's color has worn off, I have hard time believing that they know what "reality" truly is. Don't believe me? Go back and look at the smears against Romney and look at what they are saying about him now. Back then, he was an animal abusing, woman suppressing, religious nut-job. Today, he's the sane pick for Secretary of State. Seriously, how long did you think the American public would believe the BS when you tell them same BS every four years, only to back off your claims a few weeks after the elections end? Well, the elections you win, anyway.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe they simply disagree with your policies for reasons other than hatred?
Well, I don't see too many Ammonites or Moabites around, so no worries!
Sorry to be the one to have to inform you of this, but this is not just about bathrooms. Sure, bathrooms are all you hear about on the news, because that's how it's framed. No one really cares the sex of the person in the stall next to you. Opinions change when you start talking about locker rooms, showers, and other facilities, especially when these facilities are used by children.
Sexual identity issues and bathrooms do not equal boys and girls in school showering together. You're literally making that up.
This is from the Charlotte non-discrimination ordinance:
"A place of public accommodation may not refuse to provide the full and equal enjoyment of its facilities based on a protected characteristic, such as gender identity and gender expression. Restrooms, locker rooms, and other changing facilities are covered by the ordinance."
Here is the source:
Oh, but you said boys and girls. OK. Let's look at what the Obama administration wants:
"Schools should let transgender students use bathrooms, locker rooms and other sex-segregated facilities consistent with their gender identity, according to the guidance."
"The letter does not carry the force of law but the message was clear: Fall in line or face loss of federal funding."
All the videos I saw looked to be the result of old and poorly calibrated touch screens. These things happen with older monitors.
Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Whenever i see it it's almost always people complaining about the fringe left like it's the mainstream.
Do you not know that the head of your party will cut off school funds if a school does not allow boys to shower with girls? That's pretty damn far to the left and definitely "mainstream" within your party.
Sorry, but I don't believe that all women must be forced to feel uncomfortable just because and EXTREMELY small minority of men feel uncomfortable undressing in front of those with the same biological equipment.
And no, I'm not sorry, but the first man that follows my little girl into the locker room at the local YMCA is not going to like the result. But I'll be one getting in trouble because your "mainstream" left doesn't see anything wrong with a grown man getting naked in front preteen girls who are trying to change for swim practice!
The sum chance, not the per-time chance, yes. The same is true of all stochastic processes.
It's like saying "the sum of flipping a coin every second and having at least 100 total tails results increases over time."
It's because more trials are constantly being held.
There's also a chance that life will emerge on Earth a second time.
So how does the new firm know that you were "unprofessional" in the timing of your departure?
That's an easy one. They ask if you're eligible to be rehired.
If you've done something bad or pissed off your management, the answer will be "no".
Since the company isn't disclosing any personal information or making any allegations regarding your conduct, there is nothing they can be sued over.
This is a fairly standard practice in corporate HR.
If you worked for a large business, you could probably dream up a not-entirely-terrible explanation since you know they will not provide any other details. It will still be a mark against, but you can mitigate it quite a bit.
I'm sure it varies by company, but you usually have to do more than just piss off management to be ineligible for rehire. Usually it's things like quitting without notice, stealing, etc.
About the time we think we can make ends meet, somebody moves the ends. -- Herbert Hoover