- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Our founding fathers ratified the founding documents which set down the process by which issues could be addressed and corrected.
:lol:I am sure they will stay off your lawn.
but you're gay so I suppose selective tolerance is always the par for the course with you types.
Normally, I would presume someone is misconstruing another's words with such a claim.
You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?
"Required?"
They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?
"Required?"
Or if the board of directors expects a loss of discernible profits. Which they did expect.
And for some reason you don't feel as though you are infringing upon the rights of CNN's CEO by not watching.
Shouldn't you be studying the difference between free and criminal speech?
ecofarm said:You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.
Lursa said:They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?
"Required?"
No, he was accountable for a set of opinions. He was accountable to his company.
It's all really silly, though. As I've said before I believe he could have diffused the situation easily. One political contribution years ago is not the end of the world, but he blew it up with an "eat me" approach when he was well aware that his beliefs ran contrary to the image the company was trying to project.
Please allow me the pleasure of introducing you to Mr. Ecofarm. It's clear that you haven't met him yet. One thing you should know, when an idea pops into his mind, then that idea is as solid as reality, it serves as proof and of how righteous Mr. Ecofarm is. So if he says that CEOs are required to do X, then that's the way it is and you had better adjust yourself to reality, Missy.
You mean where I proved you wrong and you ignored it
No, he was held accountable to a set of opinions that were recently established.
I am not aware of the "eat me" attitude he took. At least I didn't see that in the article. Perhaps you could enlighten me.
Frankly, given the issue and the outrageous way people have acted towards those who joined the majority in passing Prop 8, I'd probably tell the PC police more than "eat me" in response.
Consider the source. He believes that if a politician contributes to the Nazi Party his constituency has no right to vote him out in the next election.
Care to link to my post where that comment exists, or admit you're lying?
Normally, I would presume someone is misconstruing another's words with such a claim.
I mean where several people corrected you and you still remain clueless.
ecofarm said:You don't seem to understand that CEOs are required to disclose non-criminal personal information in the hiring process. You're still ignoring context and pretending a CEO is the same as a cashier.
Lursa said:They are? Like what? Do you have sources for this?
"Required?"
So you deny it then?
It takes an idiot to believe that absolute terms mean anything but, absolute.
I kind of lean towards the thinking that if you say that every CEO has to do such and such, then that's what you mean, since it's just as easy to say "most" or "almost every". Otherwise, who the hell knows what the f**k you mean?
There's nothing to deny, since no where does that comment exist in any of my posts.
Want to keep playing reaindeer games, or address comments that I actually posted?
That's irrelevant. No one should lose their livelyhood for donating to a political campaign.
"No one?" Are you sure you don't want to think that one through a little bit longer?
Senator Ultra Liberal donates to the Nazi Party. Should he lose his job over this, yes or no?
Yes, no one.
Why didn't you answer my earlier question?
I did give you an answer.
If you did, it was vague as hell. So you agree that voters don't have a right to vote out a politician for holding beliefs that aren't representative of their own?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?