GOP sure gets dumber by the moment

[Truthseeker1]

Their new slogan :The GOP, now 5% less crappy than Democrats

 

[whitehall]

Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections.
Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
How much dumber can they get?

Got gay? Stay thirsty my friend.

 

[Mojo2]

You Maddow leeches crack me up. So ok, there's stupid freedom, or there's no freedom. I'll take stupid republicans over leftist control any day of the week.

LOL!!!


Hey buddy, what's "stupid freedom?"

Can you define that for me?

The thuggistic TeaPoCrap Party of the far right is not the Republican Party.

It doesn't count as thuggery when someone says to you in a tweet they want to muss your hair, okay?

Besides, the only thing NEUTRAL observers say about the Tea Partiers is that they are not a group associated with violence, law breaking, vile acts of desecration or whatever goes on courtesy of the Occupy movement.

The entrenched members of Congress in BOTH parties are going to be in for a fight of their political careers to win re-election if they supported Obama.

The Tea Party's message is resonating with the people!

When a defense of the Tea Party includes a bash of The Occupy Movement, NEUTRAL is the last thing to call it.

Objective is what I'd call it.

OCCUPY VIOLENCE VS. TEA PARTY RACISM?

May. 3, 2012 12:04pm

Meredith Jessup

In case you missed it…

Last night on Hannity, conservative author Michelle Malkin went head-to-head with Fox News contributor Juan Williams in a debate over the Occupy Wall Street movement — its organization, its violence, its lack of personal hygiene. But Williams dared to compare the Occupy movement to the Tea Party movement and Malkin pounced.

“Do not slander,” Malkin sternly announced. As Williams accused Tea Partiers of making “jokes about monkeys and the president,” Malkin demanded names and proof. “Name it or retract it, Juan.”

Here’s the video, via Fox News and Mediaite:



For the record, I don’t recall any stories about Tea Partiers being arrested for instigating violence. To date, however, there have been over 7,000 reported Occupy-related arrests.

http://occupyarrests.moonfruit.com/

Occupy violence vs. Tea Party racism? | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah, but they do. People hide their orientation at work all the time for fear of being fired. Either remove ALL employment non discrimination laws or pass ENDA.

No one gets fired for being gay. Sorry. They might get fired for sexually harassing a coworker. They might get fired for creating an unpleasant atmosphere at work. They might get fired for being incompetent. Or for insubordination. And all of those reasons are fine. But if we pass the Trial Lawyers' Jobs Act, aka ENDA, then it will only be because they were gay.
Personally I am against all interference with the employer-employee relationship. But this isnt law yet. Nor will it be.

So since no one gets fired for being gay you support a law that bans firing based on sexual orientation so that if it did happen you would want those gays to have legal remedies.
Welcome aboard.

No, idiot. If you pass a law like that people will sue for being fired because they were incompetent, because they harassed people at work, because they stole money. But they will file suits because they were gay.
Wake up.

 

[Gadawg73]

Now no doubt the Democrats bring back the GLBTG workplace law from 1996 as a stab at Republicans in the House but it passed in the Senate with 10 Republicans voting for it and another 2 dozen wishing they could vote for it as their states are still gay boogeyman states. And the prior "It will bring massive lawsuits" has now been proven a farce as Orrin Hatch first started that and has now retracted that and voted for the bill. In the House it will not come up for a vote and they will be slammed in the mid terms because of it. Boehner keeps to the "frivolous litigation and will cost American jobs" BS. This will send the GOP further down the deep hole they are already in. Reid allowed religious exemptions and US military.
Having voted Republican most of the time over the last 40 years I see this as the path to no where again for the GOP.
They are more interested in pleasing the religious right than winning elections.
Only a big tent Republican party wins. The bull shit "well, we need to stick to our strict conservative base" is great but it loses elections.
How much dumber can they get?

Got gay? Stay thirsty my friend.

Straight for all of my 59 years and I never had to choose my sexual orientation as I was born this way.
Same as everyone else.

 

[Gadawg73]

No one gets fired for being gay. Sorry. They might get fired for sexually harassing a coworker. They might get fired for creating an unpleasant atmosphere at work. They might get fired for being incompetent. Or for insubordination. And all of those reasons are fine. But if we pass the Trial Lawyers' Jobs Act, aka ENDA, then it will only be because they were gay.
Personally I am against all interference with the employer-employee relationship. But this isnt law yet. Nor will it be.

So since no one gets fired for being gay you support a law that bans firing based on sexual orientation so that if it did happen you would want those gays to have legal remedies.
Welcome aboard.

No, idiot. If you pass a law like that people will sue for being fired because they were incompetent, because they harassed people at work, because they stole money. But they will file suits because they were gay.
Wake up.

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

 

[Seawytch]

No one gets fired for being gay. Sorry. They might get fired for sexually harassing a coworker. They might get fired for creating an unpleasant atmosphere at work. They might get fired for being incompetent. Or for insubordination. And all of those reasons are fine. But if we pass the Trial Lawyers' Jobs Act, aka ENDA, then it will only be because they were gay.
Personally I am against all interference with the employer-employee relationship. But this isnt law yet. Nor will it be.

Bullshit. People have been and are fired when their orientation is discovered.

There are Federal workplace protections that prevent an employer from firing someone based on their race, religion, gender and country of origin. Either eliminate those laws or pass ENDA. If I can't fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for my sexual orientation.

Because you say so, yeah.

The two are not related at all. They actually have nothing to do with each other. There is no reason to pass this crap other than to affirm homosexuals' view of themselves as victims. And give lawyers something else to sue over.
Flush it.

No, not just because I say so, but I do have anecdotal evidence as well. I've known people fired or not hired because they are gay, but you don't have to believe me since there are plenty of lawsuits and news stories about people fired for being gay.

Of course they are "related". People are protected from being fired on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Either remove all of those protections or add gays and lesbians to it.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.

 

[The Rabbi]

So since no one gets fired for being gay you support a law that bans firing based on sexual orientation so that if it did happen you would want those gays to have legal remedies.
Welcome aboard.

No, idiot. If you pass a law like that people will sue for being fired because they were incompetent, because they harassed people at work, because they stole money. But they will file suits because they were gay.
Wake up.

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

Because we know black people never sue when they get fired, right?
ANd because the threat of a lawsuit has never made any defendent settle, just to avoid the cost, right?
The idea that you can beat me easily is as laughable as anything in your post.

 

[The Rabbi]

Bullshit. People have been and are fired when their orientation is discovered.

There are Federal workplace protections that prevent an employer from firing someone based on their race, religion, gender and country of origin. Either eliminate those laws or pass ENDA. If I can't fire someone for their religion, they shouldn't be able to fire me for my sexual orientation.

Because you say so, yeah.

The two are not related at all. They actually have nothing to do with each other. There is no reason to pass this crap other than to affirm homosexuals' view of themselves as victims. And give lawyers something else to sue over.
Flush it.

No, not just because I say so, but I do have anecdotal evidence as well. I've known people fired or not hired because they are gay, but you don't have to believe me since there are plenty of lawsuits and news stories about people fired for being gay.

Of course they are "related". People are protected from being fired on the basis of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Either remove all of those protections or add gays and lesbians to it.

Anecdote does not add up to evidence. Sorry.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.

At will means any valid reason that is legal under the law.
We do not condone protecting the benefits for a convicted child molester just because he is a union man.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, idiot. If you pass a law like that people will sue for being fired because they were incompetent, because they harassed people at work, because they stole money. But they will file suits because they were gay.
Wake up.

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

Because we know black people never sue when they get fired, right?
ANd because the threat of a lawsuit has never made any defendent settle, just to avoid the cost, right?
The idea that you can beat me easily is as laughable as anything in your post.

Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
Over the years I have seen juries give a boat load of money where the liability was clear but the damages not so clear AND give $2500 to a man that missed 6 months of work being hit by a forklift in a store with $20,000 worth of medical bills. It goes both ways.
But to claim that juries are too stupid to sit and determine the facts in a civil case is absurd.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it is kind of silly to have protections against being fired if you also have "at will" employment where an employer doesn't really have to give you a reason for firing you.

At will means any valid reason that is legal under the law.
We do not condone protecting the benefits for a convicted child molester just because he is a union man.

Quite right.

But here's the thing. The cases you whine about are usually cases where they couldn't make a legal case, but the school district didn't want to rehire them.

Not sure if there is an easy out to this.

The converse is, what if a teacher is falsely accused of something, the investigation clears him, but the school district won't put him back in a classroom for fear of litigation.

I do think teachers where there is a valid accusation should be fired, even if charges aren't pressed.

 

[The Rabbi]

That is not what will happen as the burden of proof in ALL civil litigation is on the plaintiff to prove their case and in this statute that burden is they have to prove they were fired because of their sexual orientation.
That is the first stage and if they offer no evidence of that before trial in the rules of civil discovery the Judge DISMISSES the case on a Motion for Summary Judgment which is filed by the defense in all civil litigation. And if it passes past that and goes to trial the jury first has to find that there is evidence of firing because of sexual orientation ONLY and rules on that liability stage.
The next stage would be the damages and the plaintiff has to prove damages. If they were fired and found a job the next week what are their damages? Little to nothing?
You might as well give up now Rabbi because on my worst day with one hand tied behind my back I can beat you easily. You come with rank hear say rhetoric only.

Because we know black people never sue when they get fired, right?
ANd because the threat of a lawsuit has never made any defendent settle, just to avoid the cost, right?
The idea that you can beat me easily is as laughable as anything in your post.

Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

 

[JoeB131]

Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
Over the years I have seen juries give a boat load of money where the liability was clear but the damages not so clear AND give $2500 to a man that missed 6 months of work being hit by a forklift in a store with $20,000 worth of medical bills. It goes both ways.
But to claim that juries are too stupid to sit and determine the facts in a civil case is absurd.

And you would be totally for frivilous lawsuits even if you weren't in the business of making someone's case for them.

here's the underlying problem. It's not just the absurd cases, it's the companies that decide to settle them rather than pay tens of thousands in legal fees.

 

[Gadawg73]

Because we know black people never sue when they get fired, right?
ANd because the threat of a lawsuit has never made any defendent settle, just to avoid the cost, right?
The idea that you can beat me easily is as laughable as anything in your post.

Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

 

[Gadawg73]

Amazing the fools that believe that juries routinely just award plaintiffs what they want without any evidence to prove it.
Over the years I have seen juries give a boat load of money where the liability was clear but the damages not so clear AND give $2500 to a man that missed 6 months of work being hit by a forklift in a store with $20,000 worth of medical bills. It goes both ways.
But to claim that juries are too stupid to sit and determine the facts in a civil case is absurd.

And you would be totally for frivilous lawsuits even if you weren't in the business of making someone's case for them.

here's the underlying problem. It's not just the absurd cases, it's the companies that decide to settle them rather than pay tens of thousands in legal fees.

A judge decides if the law suit is frivolous or not at summary judgment before the trial starts and shortly into the proceedings.
NO company pays tens of thousands in settlements on nuisance cases if their employer personnel records have them going by the book in compliance as ALL companies do this now law suit or not.
And companies DO NOT decide what to settle as they have liability insurance for this and the carrier jumps in and indemnifies the company same as anyone that gets sued and has insurance. The carrier hires the lawyers for the defense and these guys specialize in the defense of these cases.
You folks are not very swift in your you think you know everything LA LA world.
You also need to go back to what you know this because you have no clue how this works.

 

[The Rabbi]

Most all race discrimination cases are thrown out on summary judgment Rabbi. You are a hack that spouts what you hear at the barber shop, none of it is true but it matches your low information ideology.
These cases are in Federal court and NO lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a contingency case. How many of these plaintiffs have money to pay an attorney to take their case at a $300 a hour fee and a $10,000 retainer up front?
And the success rate for these cases is about 15-20% so how many lawyers are going to front $15,000-$20,000 of THEIR MONEY to take depositions, pay court reporters, pay transcript costs, pay filing fees, pay an investigator to take statements before the case is litigated and pay his staff before the case even makes it to the summary judgment hearing?
Most of the nuisance cases, and there are many, are pro se and are thrown out of court almost immediately with little or no costs of defense other than what they have already done pre litigation as most all businesses keep a record of employee hiring and firing without this law.
The "we will offer the cost of the defense" is not a real issue in these cases as Orrin Hatch finally admitted as he voted against it the first time in '96 and for it now.
Now go back to what you know best Rabbi because this ain't it. I am sure you are good at what you do but this is not it. I have worked on both sides of these cases for 34 years, never on the same case of course and 80%+ for the defense of them, and know how this works in the Federal courts. No lawyer takes any of these cases unless it is a good one and there are always the very, very few where you get some whore like Gloria Alred where she steps in for publicity only.
You have no clue and are winging it on sound bite spin.

OK so you admit that such cases exist. You admit that sometimes the plaintiff wins. Then you want to say that no one pays any attention to that because they often lose.
Really?
Lots of business decisions are made based on the likelihood of getting sued. Not the likelihood of losing the suit.
But since you know so much, surely you know that too.

As for anecdotal evidence, it took all of 7 seconds in a google search to turn up this gem. How many others will there be just like it?
Gay woman sued FedEx for discrimination, wrongful termination | West Virginia Record

Yeah, go have an argument with someone you might beat.

Your argument is ban all civil law suits and their jury trials in America because a jury has to decide if they are valid or not.
LOL, on this one Rabbi you are the complete fool.

And when your argument becomes reductio ad absurdum it means you've lost.
Better luck next time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Until I can fire someone for being Christian, they shouldn't be able to fire me for being gay.

Why would you want to fire someone for being Christian?

Why would you want to fire someone for being gay?

I don't. Name someone who did.