Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Vegas Employer: Obama Won, So I Fired 22 Employees Options · View
Guest
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 12:58:03 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,834
LadyX wrote:


In this post-election, about 95% of them are, though.

The more I think about it, the more I doubt this guy's story and the more I bet he's just some tea party loner type who felt like creating some political buzz from thin air. If he was so interested in being a political-economical martyr, then he should've just announced who he was, just like that hotel guy did. Then the Republicans could rally around his business a la Chick fil A, then he could tell his sob story on Fox, and we could all lament anew what will soon happen here in Obamaville! evil4

As has been said before, people get laid off all the time for lots of reasons. Assuming this is a real guy that employs real people, his reasons for laying people off are his business. But by doing it while invoking Obama publicly, butthurt-style, and doing it the day after an election (allegedly), he loses all credibility as a serious person. Guys like this should make the shun list.



Man that commercial!! How is that legal? What an asshole.
LadyX
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:21:46 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
naughtynurse wrote:
To the democrats here: I am truly curious(I consider myself an independent, and KNOW that I am not an economics major): How do we grow an economy and get people off of public assistance?

I know what makes sense to me. But since there are some very intelligent people on both sides, and no one purposefully wants us to fail, logically that means the left had to have some plan. I am curious what it is and how does it work?


The economy is already growing, albeit slower than we'd all like it to. If you look at our past recessions, starting with the end of the great depression, recovery has taken progressively longer each time, regardless of which party controlled the congress and/or the White House. I'm sure people will give differing answers as to why this is, but I think it can generally be chalked up to the ever-growing complexity of regional, national, and world economies. So, especially given the depth of this last one, it's simply unreasonable to expect us to snap out of it suddenly. But growth is occurring. Unemployment is shrinking. And, of course, as unemployment shrinks so do the welfare rolls. You'll always have a certain percentage needing assistance, as we'll never have zero-percent unemployment. We'll also always have a certain percentage of fraud and waste within our assistance programs. We try to minimize it, but as part of human nature, we just have to realize that the percentage makeup of true "takers" and scamsters within the system is small. You don't punish six deserving families to put the screws to one that bilks the system.

The closing of tax-loopholes for large corporations and the wealthiest Americans, coupled with friendly tax policy toward small businesses, the middle class, and the working class, all go toward bolstering consumerism, which grows the opportunity for those outside the very wealthiest group. It's no coincidence that as we've deregulated businesses, riddled our tax structure with loopholes, and lowered corporate and personal tax rates, that the total wealth in this country has steadily fallen into the hands of fewer and fewer people.
Guest
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:24:00 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 531,834
What is the big deal. Assuming the story is correct. Did he make a decision that was ethnically or morally right?

The only ethics in business is to make money, a profit. You may argue if this will help or hurt his business, but there is no way to tell except see what happens. Besides it doesn't matter if you think he made a good business decision, IT'S HIS BUSINESS AND NOT YOURS, it's his choice.

Is it morally right? I believe an argument could be made on either side of this debate, but probably the best indicator is his intentions. (was it a politically motivated protest against the other political party or does he truly believe he needs to make a preemptive move necessary for his business) If his intent is important to the morality issue, then all we have to do is read his mind. OK all of you who have equipment or an ability to read minds, please raise your hand. (Roland put down your hand, psychotic does not mean you can tell the future) So no raised hands. Without some proof of his intent you can accuse him of immorality, but then you lose any moral high ground that you may have had to start with.

The bottom line should be that the business is his, therefore it is his decision. You may disagree, (personally I do, but I respect his right to make that choice) but it only belittles your own self to make personal attacks on him.

Please let the person make his decision and he can reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences of his choices. You may not like what he did, (if indeed the story is true) but please respect his right to make his choice. I bet many of the people complaining that he should not be allowed to do this are also vehement about respecting others right to choose.

I hope I have not been rude, if so it was not my intent. Reading the previous responses, it seems most have made good points on the ethics and morality of the issue. We can all be a little more understanding and respectful to each others thoughts and beliefs. If there is a point that you disagree with me on, please add your thoughts to the debate or send me a PM. I would be more than willing to listen to your thoughts and discuss it with you.

Thanks for putting up with my long winded thoughts. I hope you have the best day you can today. Roland
LadyX
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:33:02 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
Roland, I totally agree that any employer is free to hire or fire as they see fit; I don't think anyone's disputing that. My only beef with him, or others that have come out in similar fashion, is that they're politicizing actions that should be matters of business course. Any number of things can cause layoffs to occur, but it strips the dignity from those he lays off (allegedly) by saying that it's due to the winner of the presidential elections, to say nothing of saying out loud that he's trying to make sure those he lays off voted for the candidate he opposed!

Besides that, it's all a bit drama-llama of him as well. It's not as if an Obama invoice, payable on receipt, showed up on his desk Wednesday morning. Nobody's sure what the burdens will be on small businesses, so if we agree that he's free to do what he wishes, I'll simply surmise that he's doing so mostly for grandstanding political purposes, with a dose of right-wing panic thrown in for good measure.
Dirty_D
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:40:34 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,108
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
LadyX wrote:


The economy is already growing, albeit slower than we'd all like it to. If you look at our past recessions, starting with the end of the great depression, recovery has taken progressively longer each time, regardless of which party controlled the congress and/or the White House. I'm sure people will give differing answers as to why this is, but I think it can generally be chalked up to the ever-growing complexity of regional, national, and world economies. So, especially given the depth of this last one, it's simply unreasonable to expect us to snap out of it suddenly. But growth is occurring. Unemployment is shrinking. And, of course, as unemployment shrinks so do the welfare rolls. You'll always have a certain percentage needing assistance, as we'll never have zero-percent unemployment. We'll also always have a certain percentage of fraud and waste within our assistance programs. We try to minimize it, but as part of human nature, we just have to realize that the percentage makeup of true "takers" and scamsters within the system is small. You don't punish six deserving families to put the screws to one that bilks the system.

The closing of tax-loopholes for large corporations and the wealthiest Americans, coupled with friendly tax policy toward small businesses, the middle class, and the working class, all go toward bolstering consumerism, which grows the opportunity for those outside the very wealthiest group. It's no coincidence that as we've deregulated businesses, riddled our tax structure with loopholes, and lowered corporate and personal tax returns, that the total wealth in this country has steadily fallen into the hands of fewer and fewer people.


I don't think there was ever a time when most of our wealth was not in the hands of the wealthier.

I am concerned that we are building a system that rewards less work not vice versa. I am not uncharitable and not against helping those who deserve it. But I fear we are building a society that more and more looks for someone else to do the hard work for them. We have made public assistance a trap. Once you start receiving it you almost can't break away. I worry about getting to the point where "there are more in the cart then pulling it." How do we help without getting to this step?

Democracies tend to only last as long as it takes the populace to discover they can vote themselves more and more largess.




TheGulfCoaster
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:50:25 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 581
Location: Sarasota County, United States
If some 'CEO' or 'Business Owner' laid off close to 20% of his employees, I've got to believe that by now at least 1 or those 22 would have come forward, considering how much 'publicity' this story got. (if you Google 'las vegas business ower fires 22 employees because Obama wins', you get 702,000 hits) I call bullshit on the guy who made the phone call to the radio station. I assume that he's simply a frustrated tea-bagger who doesn't have the slightest idea how the economy or U.S. government works.
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 1:53:53 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 748
Location: Massachusetts, United States
Neither claim seems remotely likely to be true to me.

If there was a boss who had called their workers in and told them that they were cutting hours because Obama was elected then we would know about it from the employees. And no, it is not legal to fire a person because you think they voted for someone. That is not only going to result in an expensive lawsuit, it is a criminal violation that would probably mean at least a year in jail.

Having been in the C-suite, I know that 'employment at will' means nothing of the sort. Basically you are going to get sued for discrimination if you dismiss any minority or woman without cause. That means that you have to have a process to demonstrate that your HR practices are fair and you will be sued by white men if the process or outcome discriminates against them. So US employment law turns out to be very similar to European only with a large random lottery factor. Under EU law there is a much greater probability of a successful claim but the likely damages are quite low, in the US there is a lower probability of an unfavorable verdict but the damages will be decided by 12 people too stupid to work out how to get out of jury duty and can quite possibly bankrupt you.

Nobody could get to the point of running a business with 50 people and not know that they are going to be in a whole heap of legal shit if they behave like the callers claimed. It would be particularly stupid to fire people now because of a law that comes into effect in 2014.

Most competent employers find that their biggest problem is how to find good staff. Firing people because your side lost the election is going to hurt the business more than it hurts the employee.

LadyX
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:05:16 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
naughtynurse wrote:


I don't think there was ever a time when most of our wealth was not in the hands of the wealthier.

I am concerned that we are building a system that rewards less work not vice versa. I am not uncharitable and not against helping those who deserve it. But I fear we are building a society that more and more looks for someone else to do the hard work for them. We have made public assistance a trap. Once you start receiving it you almost can't break away. I worry about getting to the point where "there are more in the cart then pulling it." How do we help without getting to this step?

Democracies tend to only last as long as it takes the populace to discover they can vote themselves more and more largess.



If you look at history, there was a wonderful and lengthy time the middle class held a much more generous percentage of the total wealth in this country. That time has faded, and it continues to get worse and worse. So, no, our current conditions are not just as they have always been.

-

This argument about welfare crops up here from time to time. I'll only say what I've always said:

I grew up on and off assistance. It was never, and is not, a 'trap'. It borders on ignorance and insult to suggest that public assistance amounts to some lap of luxury that rewards laziness with largesse. Life on welfare is not located on easy street. Yes, there is fraud, yes there are examples of those who take when they don't need to, or take more than they need. But to suggest that we have a class of people that are happy to stay poor is pure demagoguery that does nothing but further polarize this country. Welfare is part of a struggle in this country. It is not, in and of itself, the problem. This country is not failing to prosper because of a few too many single moms drawing a monthly check, no matter how much it may irk you that it occurs at all.

But if you play the game of "let's make it harder to get and stay on welfare", yes, you'll knock that small percentage of con artists out of the money. Congratulations, but you know what else you'll do? Starve kids and families, take people from the roof over their heads, and take away basic dignity of, and compassion for, the least fortunate among us. We have lots of structural problems in this country. Welfare fraud and enabled dependency are way, way, way down the list.

When I left home, I told myself I"d never be on welfare the way I had to as a child living with my dad. Not because of some self-satisfying "I have too much pride" reason, but because my plan was to always find a better way for myself. If welfare life was a good and easy lifestyle, I wouldn't have felt so strongly about it. Hard to break away from welfare? "Once you start receiving it you almost can't break away?" Come on, how demeaning.

But you do raise a valid question, that goes back to the question of general prosperity. How do we make sure that more pay into the system than receive the money from the system? We provide more opportunity for more people. The Republican ideal of "job creators" is limited at best and horseshit at worst. The real job creators, the real engine of this economy, are our middle and wage-earning classes. Strengthen them, or to put it better, give them the opportunity to strengthen themselves, and the number of folks that need assistance goes down.
Dirty_D
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 2:35:38 PM

Rank: Head Nurse

Joined: 4/15/2011
Posts: 7,108
Location: Soaking up the sun, United States
LadyX wrote:


If you look at history, there was a wonderful and lengthy time the middle class held a much more generous percentage of the total wealth in this country. That time has faded, and it continues to get worse and worse. So, no, our current conditions are not just as they have always been.

-

This argument about welfare crops up here from time to time. I'll only say what I've always said:

I grew up on and off assistance. It was never, and is not, a 'trap'. It borders on ignorance and insult to suggest that public assistance amounts to some lap of luxury that rewards laziness with largesse. Life on welfare is not located on easy street. Yes, there is fraud, yes there are examples of those who take when they don't need to, or take more than they need. But to suggest that we have a class of people that are happy to stay poor is pure demagoguery that does nothing but further polarize this country. Welfare is part of a struggle in this country. It is not, in and of itself, the problem. This country is not failing to prosper because of a few too many single moms drawing a monthly check, no matter how much it may irk you that it occurs at all.

But if you play the game of "let's make it harder to get and stay on welfare", yes, you'll knock that small percentage of con artists out of the money. Congratulations, but you know what else you'll do? Starve kids and families, take people from the roof over their heads, and take away basic dignity of, and compassion for, the least fortunate among us. We have lots of structural problems in this country. Welfare fraud and enabled dependency are way, way, way down the list.

When I left home, I told myself I"d never be on welfare the way I had to as a child living with my dad. Not because of some self-satisfying "I have too much pride" reason, but because my plan was to always find a better way for myself. If welfare life was a good and easy lifestyle, I wouldn't have felt so strongly about it. Hard to break away from welfare? "Once you start receiving it you almost can't break away?" Come on, how demeaning.

But you do raise a valid question, that goes back to the question of general prosperity. How do we make sure that more pay into the system than receive the money from the system? We provide more opportunity for more people. The Republican ideal of "job creators" is limited at best and horseshit at worst. The real job creators, the real engine of this economy, are our middle and wage-earning classes. Strengthen them, or to put it better, give them the opportunity to strengthen themselves, and the number of folks that need assistance goes down.


Lady X, I am not trying to demean you when I say that it is a hard trap to break free from. Congratulations! I am glad you did. Nor do I believe it is a "lap of luxury." There are hardships involved. I should know, I was there too. I worked three jobs to put myself(young mother) through nursing school. I completely understand. I have many friends/family who did not make it through and are continuing to receive assistance. Why? because they can do better staying at home. Not saying that they by Cadillac, or anything of the sort. But they bring in more $ staying at home with their children then going to a FT job and paying for childcare. So they stay home, with their college education. There has to be a better way. For them, the ones receiving and stuck between staying home with little or working and receiving less. For us, those working and paying more then we receive. Where is our happy median?

I am trying to understand and find hope. He's my president too and I WANT this country to flourish.

wildbill51
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:09:54 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 3/27/2012
Posts: 3
Location: United States
His business he needs to do what it takes to be profitable. More business will do the same when obummacare kicks in
keoloke
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 3:53:05 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/12/2010
Posts: 599
Location: United States
As a “result of Obama being reelected”

This company fired 22 workers and saved $1232 per month.

For $56 saved per month, possibly 22 families are without a paycheck. Hopefully it wasn’t their only bread and butter.

I’m curious to know this company Profit For Employee...If it’s a true news, but it does reflect companies views.


Choose n Practice Happiness

Life is simple; we are what we eat and what we read. Talk is superfluous.
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2012 7:31:09 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,304
Location: United States
keoloke wrote:
As a “result of Obama being reelected”

This company fired 22 workers and saved $1232 per month.

For $56 saved per month, possibly 22 families are without a paycheck. Hopefully it wasn’t their only bread and butter.

I’m curious to know this company Profit For Employee...If it’s a true news, but it does reflect companies views.


You're forgetting that the employer is also saving the salary of those 22 employees as well as the amount of money it would have cost him to be in compliance with the Affordable Care Act. Of course the other employees have to pick up the slack. If they are on hourly wages the cost of overtime might increase. At time and a half, if other employees have to work extra hours to make up for the work that those 22 did during their regular hours he will actually be spending more on wages. Poor service might result from the layoffs resulting in loss of business, this would decrease his gross, resulting in less profit.
TheGulfCoaster
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:05:43 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 581
Location: Sarasota County, United States
Even if this is/was true, which I doubt, there is one other factor to consider - that 'backlash effect'. There was nothing that happened between the election and when this alleged businessman allegedly fired the alleged employees that affected his bottom line. If it did actually happen, his bottom line wouldn't have been affected for some time to come, making this a knee-jerk, butt-hurt tantrum because he didn't get his way in the election. This does not appear to be the kind of business that I would want to do business with. Given the reported ethnic make up of his employees ("mostly Hispanic") I still believe it was in the service industry as opposed to the retail or manufacturing industry and if I was a customer of his company and found out he was the CEO of the company at the focus of this incident, I would immediately find another company to meet my needs and send his company packing. If it is true, I hope his business fails as a result of his childish tantrum.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 6:47:06 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
TheGulfCoaster wrote:
Even if this is/was true, which I doubt, there is one other factor to consider - that 'backlash effect'. There was nothing that happened between the election and when this alleged businessman allegedly fired the alleged employees that affected his bottom line. If it did actually happen, his bottom line wouldn't have been affected for some time to come, making this a knee-jerk, butt-hurt tantrum because he didn't get his way in the election. This does not appear to be the kind of business that I would want to do business with. Given the reported ethnic make up of his employees ("mostly Hispanic") I still believe it was in the service industry as opposed to the retail or manufacturing industry and if I was a customer of his company and found out he was the CEO of the company at the focus of this incident, I would immediately find another company to meet my needs and send his company packing. If it is true, I hope his business fails as a result of his childish tantrum.



It's not just the 22 that he let go, had he kept them on he is forseeing with the introduction of Obamacare into his costs of doing business a huge increase in tax. That 2.8% on 114 employees is going to cost him at least $60k/year and could go up to$150k a year, depending on their combined salaries. It may be common for government to wait until the last minute to correct something, but in business that would be suicide. He's preparing for a huge non-revenue making cost of business increase. He is butt hurt and it was a tantrum that he went on the radio to talk about it. But that doesn't negate the prudence and necessity of his business decision. His business, his money, his decision on how to spend it and how not to spend it. The consumers in his area are free to decide whether or not to buy or use his services/products.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
TheGulfCoaster
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 7:49:39 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 581
Location: Sarasota County, United States
lafayettemister wrote:



It's not just the 22 that he let go, had he kept them on he is forseeing with the introduction of Obamacare into his costs of doing business a huge increase in tax. That 2.8% on 114 employees is going to cost him at least $60k/year and could go up to$150k a year, depending on their combined salaries. It may be common for government to wait until the last minute to correct something, but in business that would be suicide. He's preparing for a huge non-revenue making cost of business increase. He is butt hurt and it was a tantrum that he went on the radio to talk about it. But that doesn't negate the prudence and necessity of his business decision. His business, his money, his decision on how to spend it and how not to spend it. The consumers in his area are free to decide whether or not to buy or use his services/products.

Exactly! I for one would find another business for whatever needs his company used to provide and urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. If true (again, I think it was all a sore-loser conservative lying about the whole deal) I doubt if he was as concerned for the business as he was in maintaining his own level of (most likely obscenely higher than his employees) income. A search through Google still has not turned up any of the 22 fired employees which is why I doubt this 'callers' story from the beginning. I know if I had been fired by this jerk, I would have gone for as much publicity as I could get to cause as much damage as possible to the guy's business and I'm sure the media would have been interested in hearing the other side of the story, again, because I'm sure the 'caller' was not telling the entire truth, if any of it at all was true.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:11:12 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
TheGulfCoaster wrote:

Exactly! I for one would find another business for whatever needs his company used to provide and urge my friends and neighbors to do the same. If true (again, I think it was all a sore-loser conservative lying about the whole deal) I doubt if he was as concerned for the business as he was in maintaining his own level of (most likely obscenely higher than his employees) income. A search through Google still has not turned up any of the 22 fired employees which is why I doubt this 'callers' story from the beginning. I know if I had been fired by this jerk, I would have gone for as much publicity as I could get to cause as much damage as possible to the guy's business and I'm sure the media would have been interested in hearing the other side of the story, again, because I'm sure the 'caller' was not telling the entire truth, if any of it at all was true.


If this turns out to be false, then we've all been had. But if it is true, I don't think it's right to try to ruin his business. We don't know if he makes and obscene amount of money, and that's subjective anyway. But in fairness, if we're upset that he laid off 22 people then what responsible thinking person would be ok with him losing his business thus costing the other 92 people their jobs in the process. If he does make an obscene amount of money, he'll be fine and go onto another job or business, but the little guy will have a harder time. Financially speaking.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
TheGulfCoaster
Posted: Saturday, November 10, 2012 8:28:37 AM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 1/2/2011
Posts: 581
Location: Sarasota County, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


If this turns out to be false, then we've all been had. But if it is true, I don't think it's right to try to ruin his business. We don't know if he makes and obscene amount of money, and that's subjective anyway. But in fairness, if we're upset that he laid off 22 people then what responsible thinking person would be ok with him losing his business thus costing the other 92 people their jobs in the process. If he does make an obscene amount of money, he'll be fine and go onto another job or business, but the little guy will have a harder time. Financially speaking.


It would be good for his more ethical and fair minded competitors, the ones who will happily serve the customers the jerk lost as a result of his tantrum and most likely pick up many of the employees displaced by this guy's action to serve the customer's who left the jerk and sought out a better managed and operated company,
tazznjazz
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 7:10:58 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States
The man sounds like the same one who said he was going to shut down his business and retire to a tropical island if President Obama won. I think this is a sour grapes posting and not real, the man is a fraud.
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:16:20 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 748
Location: Massachusetts, United States
lafayettemister wrote:
I have no idea about the Washington Times, no clue if they lean left or right. If that matters. Here is an article on other businesses that will lay people off to account for the loss of money spent on national healthcare.

Washinton Times


Washington Times is a far right wingnut publication owned by the Moonies. It has absolutely zero credibility even in the Republican party.

nicola
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 5:24:37 PM

Rank: Matriarch

Joined: 12/6/2006
Posts: 25,420
Location: The Orgasmatron
ByronLord wrote:


Washington Times is a far right wingnut publication owned by the Moonies. It has absolutely zero credibility even in the Republican party.


laughing9 Good to know!
ByronLord
Posted: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:15:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 748
Location: Massachusetts, United States
nicola wrote:


laughing9 Good to know!


Heh, the way that they lost their cred with the GOP was that Moon invited the GOP leadership over for a newspaper event. This turned out to also be a Moonie ceremony to recognize Moon as the returned messiah (no I am not making this up). So they expected to get an award and it turned out to be a 'tear down that cross' event.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:16:56 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,281
Location: Cakeland, United States
[ *edit* obviously I failed to read this entire thread, having stopped at your remark (above & below). Sort of lost most of your credibility there, LM - hence my post. This story about the fictional employer is just more anonymous horseshit. ]

lafayettemister wrote:
I have no idea about the Washington Times, no clue if they lean left or right. If that matters.


If you're going to quote from a source which is so blatantly right wing fucking nut & then claim you don't know anything about 'them' - as if it matters... shaking



Google it, Lafayette, FFSs 588-rolleyes

The Washington Times: Sanctuary of the Far Right in the Nation's Capital since 1982 - owned by The Moonies!

Gene Grabowski, who resigned in 1988 over the misleading alternation of an article, said of the Washington Times: "It's the Fox News of the print world."

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:29:45 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


If you're going to quote from a source which is so blatantly right wing fucking nut & then claim you don't know anything about 'them' - as if it matters... shaking



Google it, Lafayette, FFSs 588-rolleyes

The Washington Times: Sanctuary of the Far Right in the Nation's Capital since 1982 - owned by The Moonies!

Gene Grabowski, who resigned in 1988 over the misleading alternation of an article, said of the Washington Times: "It's the Fox News of the print world."


I didn't know their political leanings or affiliations. It wasn't a "claim", it was the truth, I didn't google it. As you've pointed out. You make a good research assistant, thanks. evil4





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:34:07 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,281
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


I didn't know their political leanings or affiliations. It wasn't a "claim", it was the truth, I didn't google it. As you've pointed out. You make a good research assistant, thanks. evil4


Know your sources which are feeding you what you consider to be 'news' and not propaganda, is all I'm saying, man. When you repeat misinformation, you're only adding to the noise - not providing anything new or substantial to a possible solution.

Even if it is just serious anonymous chatter on an erotic story forum. evil4

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:40:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,372
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


Know your sources which are feeding you what you consider to be 'news' and not propaganda, is all I'm saying, man. When you repeat misinformation, you're only adding to the noise - not providing anything new or substantial to a possible solution.

Even if it is just serious anonymous chatter on an erotic story forum. evil4


You know what, I can agree with that. That's a fair criticism. Honestly, truth be told, I'm not sure how I came across that link. I don't go to Washington Post for news, or anywhere really. I just browse through headlines on yahoo, and one link leads to another then to another. I'm not beholden to any particular news outlets, I don't really trust any of them to present truthful, unbiased, or objective information.

You're still a good research assistant but I'm going to have to let you go, your rack isn't big enough.







When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
tazznjazz
Posted: Thursday, December 13, 2012 11:46:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/30/2012
Posts: 329
Location: under bright lights, United States

The CEO who wrote the email was David Siegel of Westgate resorts who had sold timeshares and overextended his company badly and when the banking industry fell, found himself unable to stay solvent when no more easy money was available. He also claimed to have elected Pres. Bush in 2000 by''illegal means'' in Florida. He and his wife are the subjects of a documentary called the Queen of Versailles, depicting his fall after the banking crisis.
foxjack
Posted: Friday, December 14, 2012 11:16:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/25/2010
Posts: 712
Location: Pierre, United States
My company laid off 19 people, they didn't give us a big talk about who gets elected, but they waited until after the elections to lay the people off.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Friday, December 14, 2012 12:29:37 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,281
Location: Cakeland, United States
foxjack wrote:
My company laid off 19 people, they didn't give us a big talk about who gets elected, but they waited until after the elections to lay the people off.


A fine patriotic telecommunications company I used to work for, laid off / shed close to 25,000 employees in the 6 months after 9/11/2001.

But they were just doing what all fine, proud corporations in America were doing in the immediate aftermath of that day...for the next 12 months.

Dave Siegel -- Now there's a real patriotic piece of shit.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
ByronLord
Posted: Friday, December 14, 2012 4:15:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 11/14/2010
Posts: 748
Location: Massachusetts, United States
tazznjazz wrote:

The CEO who wrote the email was David Siegel of Westgate resorts who had sold timeshares and overextended his company badly and when the banking industry fell, found himself unable to stay solvent when no more easy money was available. He also claimed to have elected Pres. Bush in 2000 by''illegal means'' in Florida. He and his wife are the subjects of a documentary called the Queen of Versailles, depicting his fall after the banking crisis.


Quite, the guy is an utter shit and I don't see why anyone should think we should surrender to his blackmail here.

It would be pretty obnoxious for Bill Gates to build that mansion. For a guy to do it with borrowed money he can't pay back should be criminal.

vines
Posted: Saturday, December 22, 2012 4:07:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2012
Posts: 151
Location: United States
What's obamacare? Can someone post up a link to the bill. I wold like to read it first hand. Also I would like to know how small business will be taxed. Will it be based on the company’s income or each and every employee’s income? The reason I ask that question is because one of the posts made it sound like it was going to be based on the employee’s income. However, if the new tax will be based on the company’s overall income that’s good because having to get heal care for the employees will lower the company’s overall income and that will lower the taxed amount. Really it’s a win-win. The owner has more health employees and all his taxes will be lower. The drawback is the owner gets less. Another thing owners can do is buy new equipment for their companies. They can write that off as business expenses. Things like this will lower the amount their business will be taxed. Putting back into the business and expanding is one great way to lower taxes. At any rate please someone post up a link to this bill. I need to read up on it as I know nothing about it so I cannot talk about it until I know what I’m talking about.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.