Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This just makes me sick

So pretty much if you don't vote for Romney and if he doesn't win, you're fired. I know Obama shouldn't be re-elected but that's pretty extreme to make Americans not vote for him in this election. God forbid influencing the public in a good way. No, be a jerk.

There have actually been employers bragging on message boards that they went out to their parking lots, noted all cars with Obama stickers, doctored up or pulled any infractions they could dig up, and fired those employees making sure they couldn't collect unemployment benefits. That was going as far back as the last election. One of these guys' business has never been better than it has in the last four years and actually pays his employees via complex loans while paying himself and his expenses out of the company coffers first (he owns the biggest house in North America).

Yeah, it's these republicans are getting pretty bad, about two weeks ago while at work, someone put a Romney 2012 sticker over my wife's Obama 2012 sticker on her car.

Elections need major reform in America with the level of corruption but the constant voter suppression and coercion exhibited since 1998 is just beyond the pale. It should legally be considered terrorism and sedition. I mean a country founded on Democracy as a basic principle where you can go to jail for life for smoking pot but if you disenfranchise a million people while running for office you can get elected or just change your name and move?
I really think these crimes should be pursued, all the perpetrators should be charged under the Smith Act and possibly the RICO Act if it was a concerted effort and penalties should start with seizure and auctioning of assets and anywhere between 20 years in prison and the death penalty (where as with my opinion of bankers and CEO's, the severity of punishment should not only match the severity of the crime, but the magnitude as well). I don't even care if it results in the criminalization of both major parties.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Elections need major reform in America with the level of corruption but the constant voter suppression and coercion exhibited since 1998 is just beyond the pale. It should legally be considered terrorism and sedition. I mean a country founded on Democracy as a basic principle where you can go to jail for life for smoking pot but if you disenfranchise a million people while running for office you can get elected or just change your name and move?
I really think these crimes should be pursued, all the perpetrators should be charged under the Smith Act and possibly the RICO Act if it was a concerted effort and penalties should start with seizure and auctioning of assets and anywhere between 20 years in prison and the death penalty (where as with my opinion of bankers and CEO's, the severity of punishment should not only match the severity of the crime, but the magnitude as well). I don't even care if it results in the criminalization of both major parties.

Problem with that, you're essentially asking the people in power to jail themselves.

While 'we' the citizens technically have the power, the fear of debt, instability and not having that 55" flat-screen keeps us in check. If 'we' got our shit together and rose up; demanded change, demanded that these people we entrust to do our will, actually do our will, shit would have to change; that's not happening though.

Well you can start small. If on election day you see assholes with cameras from truth the vote trying to intimidate voters or if your legitimacy is questioned, take pictures, try to get names, call the police, and file reports with both your state bureau of investigation and the FBI. Hell pull a Jon Lovitz and put their pictures up on Twitter.

Originally posted by Nemesis X
So pretty much if you don't vote for Romney and if he doesn't win, you're fired. I know Obama shouldn't be re-elected but that's pretty extreme to make Americans not vote for him in this election. God forbid influencing the public in a good way. No, be a jerk.
Their platforms are nearly identical anyways. Besides, I'm certain that this move will motivate the comfortable U.S. citizen more than any selfless sacrifice on Romney's part.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
This just makes me sick

The truth makes you sick? "Truth" being that big business will probably suffer more under Obama than Romney?

The Koch brothers did nothing wrong nor are they wrong in what they are telling their employees (about Obama).

I myself and hoping that Romney is elected over Obama because I need more money.


But we need someone even more big-business like than Romney, to be honest. We need someone like Cheney to be president for 8 years.

I expected something much more scandalous than what was in that link.

Assuming that Obama being in office for another four years would indeed put a hurting on big businesses, fact of the matter is that layoffs might be necessary for the sake of the company.

It isn't as simple as "Hurdur you vote for Obama and yer fired". It's simply stating a fact (Or rather, what Koch (hurdur) believes to be fact).

Originally posted by NemeBro
I expected something much more scandalous than what was in that link.

Assuming that Obama being in office for another four years would indeed put a hurting on big businesses, fact of the matter is that layoffs might be necessary for the sake of the company.

It isn't as simple as "Hurdur you vote for Obama and yer fired". It's simply stating a fact (Or rather, what Koch (hurdur) believes to be fact).

How dare you post a thought out and even-tempered post on the topic instead of knee-jerk reacting. Obama can do no wrong and he's the best thing there is for big businesses!

Well it is five in the morning, and I did just get done with my nightly writing, and I am masturbating to dickgirl hentai, so it is possible all of those factors mitigated what should have been an enraged post of unmitigated, berserking fury.

"nightly writing", lol.

Like this nigga knows how to even read.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
"nightly writing", lol.

Like this nigga knows how to even read. Reported for talking like a jive turkey.

If you want to live like an animal, go back to the jungle, you thick ****.

Leave my voluptuous figure out of this, you ineffably lascivious cretin.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The truth makes you sick? "Truth" being that big business will probably suffer more under Obama than Romney?

The Koch brothers did nothing wrong nor are they wrong in what they are telling their employees (about Obama).

I myself and hoping that Romney is elected over Obama because I need more money.


But we need someone even more big-business like than Romney, to be honest. We need someone like Cheney to be president for 8 years.

Bullshit! It isn't about Romney or Obama. It isn't about Republicans or Democrats (who are pretty much the same thing). It's about a large corporation muscling it's employees on how to vote. F.U.C.K. the Koch brothers and all of their ilk. They ARE wrong. And this type of thing should carry criminal consequences.

It is a bit ridiculous: "Vote how we say or you will lose your job." Shame veiled threats don't equate to legally enforceable threats.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I myself and hoping that Romney is elected over Obama because I need more money.

Didn't you say that in your last tax return you actually made money, ie the government paid you to be a smuck.

Obama, helping out thankless smucks since 2008.

Originally posted by Robtard
Didn't you say that in your last tax return you actually made money, ie the government paid you to be a smuck.

Obama, helping out thankless smucks since 2008.

The reason I got money would still be in place even after Romney is elected. And unless he pulls a Bush Sr., I may even get less of a tax burden. WEEEEE!

Also, those tax cuts for me...are there...mostly from Bush's days.

Now who's the schmuck?




Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Bullshit! It isn't about Romney or Obama. It isn't about Republicans or Democrats (who are pretty much the same thing). It's about a large corporation muscling it's employees on how to vote. F.U.C.K. the Koch brothers and all of their ilk. They ARE wrong. And this type of thing should carry criminal consequences.


Originally posted by Ascendancy
It is a bit ridiculous: "Vote how we say or you will lose your job." Shame veiled threats don't equate to legally enforceable threats.

It does not appear that either of you two read the news article posted in the opening post.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reason I got money would still be in place even after Romney is elected. And unless he pulls a Bush Sr., I may even get less of a tax burden. WEEEEE!

Also, those tax cuts for me...are there...mostly from Bush's days.

Now who's the schmuck?


Yup, would just kill you to admit Obama is better for the middle-class. It's okay, he doesn't demand your thanks, smuck.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The truth makes you sick? "Truth" being that big business will probably suffer more under Obama than Romney?

The Koch brothers did nothing wrong nor are they wrong in what they are telling their employees (about Obama).

I myself and hoping that Romney is elected over Obama because I need more money.


But we need someone even more big-business like than Romney, to be honest. We need someone like Cheney to be president for 8 years.


Hahahaha

Originally posted by BackFire
Hahahaha

Same thing I do when I read people saying how awesome of a president Obama has been.

What you said is funnier than that. You should take pride in your ability to make me laugh.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Same thing I do when I read people saying how awesome of a president Obama has been.

When did you change? Cos around a year to 18 months ago you were all over Obama's nuts for being a relatively decent president who keep a large portion of his promises. One of the first to dig up news articles and slap down the "Obama is destroying America' type of ranters. What were the major factors in that change?

I wish Obama would take a hammer to big business.

Edit: DDD is a contrarian--haven't you noticed, Rob?

Oh no, the CEO of a huge corporation may have to forgo their (completely unearned) bonus or take a smaller one, however will they survive. Let me shed a tear for these poor, put-upon multimillionaires...hahahaha no **** them. The babies need to just suck it up.

Big businesses will hurt but they can handle it and they'll survive. Try looking up wage discrepancies between the top and bottom of the ladder in other developed countries and compare it to the US.

Yeah, if all CEOs stopped giving themselves pay raises starting tomorrow then the number of potential layoffs would decrease dramatically.

Originally posted by Robtard
When did you change? Cos around a year to 18 months ago you were all over Obama's nuts for being a relatively decent president who keep a large portion of his promises. One of the first to dig up news articles and slap down the "Obama is destroying America' type of ranters. What were the major factors in that change? The Plague is a contrarian.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The reason I got money would still be in place even after Romney is elected. And unless he pulls a Bush Sr., I may even get less of a tax burden. WEEEEE!

Also, those tax cuts for me...are there...mostly from Bush's days.

Now who's the schmuck?









It does not appear that either of you two read the news article posted in the opening post.

No, I did. We can be 100% literal, but that's basically the matter as it stands.

Originally posted by BackFire
What you said is funnier than that. You should take pride in your ability to make me laugh.

You laughing at what I said was funnier than what I said. It gets me every time. It's like...you're trying too hard and you fall in line with typical behavior of Super Democrats. I didn't think you were one, though.

Originally posted by Robtard
When did you change? Cos around a year to 18 months ago you were all over Obama's nuts for being a relatively decent president who keep a large portion of his promises. One of the first to dig up news articles and slap down the "Obama is destroying America' type of ranters. What were the major factors in that change?



Defending unwarranted attacks against Obama for breaking "almost of of his promises" by posting a link to political fact check (the Obameter) that clearly showed Obama kept at least a simple majority of his promises is definitely not "being all over Obama's nuts." It is like I'm the only one with an even head in these discussions.


But if you'd like me to be biased and knee-jerk react with polarizing words that fall in line with party lines, I could do so. At least give me the proper credit for not doing that instead of exaggerating both my position and my words to fit your seeming pro-Obama agenda.



Maybe I have not posted it enough...but I do not want Obama or Romney as president. I wanted Ron Paul as my president. I was quite sure I made that obvious over the last 5+ years since I've been discussing that on KMC. derp?


Originally posted by Omega Vision
I wish Obama would take a hammer to big business.

Edit: DDD is a contrarian--haven't you noticed, Rob?

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
The Plague is a contrarian.

I detect butthurt.


You guys made because I'm not swinging from Obama's nuts like pretty much everyone in the GDF? Lame.

Originally posted by marwash22
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/are-you-shtting-me-eccbc87e4b5ce2fe.gif

Originally posted by Tzeentch._


You are not relevant to this discussion: your case is from other arguments, not this one.


"Derp, dudemon is a contrarian!"
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/search.php?action=showresults&q=I+and+agree+userid%3A66591

Originally posted by dadudemon

I detect butthurt.


You guys made because I'm not swinging from Obama's nuts like pretty much everyone in the GDF? Lame.
I don't know how you could be more incorrect short of saying that my first name is Paulie.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You laughing at what I said was funnier than what I said. It gets me every time. It's like...you're trying too hard and you fall in line with typical behavior of Super Democrats. I didn't think you were one, though.

I dunno what you're talking about. I thought you were joking, because I didn't think anyone would ever think that what America is missing right now is, indeed, more Dick Cheney. The only other time I laughed at something you said was when you were joking in a dry way that a lot of people missed. I assumed this was the same thing because of the way you made your particular point here, without citing evidence or reasoning as to why Cheney would be good for America, or why Romney will get you more money. I simply thought you were being sarcastic.

Originally posted by BackFire
I dunno what you're talking about. I thought you were joking, because I didn't think anyone would ever think that what America is missing right now is, indeed, more Dick Cheney.


Oh, that? My bad.

Yes, the Dick Cheney comment was a joke.


Why did you quote the whole post?

Originally posted by BackFire
The only other time I laughed at something you said was when you were joking in a dry way that a lot of people missed. I assumed this was the same thing because of the way you made your particular point here, without citing evidence or reasoning as to why Cheney would be good for America, or why Romney will get you more money. I simply thought you were being sarcastic.

But I do think Romney will get me more money.* Did you get an Obama phone? I think not. If Romney is elected, you'll definitely get you a Romney-Phone.

Not Cheney. He's the real Anti-Christ. He scares the shit out of me.


*I'm serious about this part.

its unethical for a business owner to impose their political beliefs on their employees. i cant believe you are actually debating this horseshit.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
its unethical for a business owner to impose their political beliefs on their employees. i cant believe you are actually debating this horseshit.

Is that what the Kock brothers did?


And if it is unethical to do as you say, do you have any legal precedence to back that up?

what a rebel

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that what the Kock brothers did?


And if it is unethical to do as you say, do you have any legal precedence to back that up?

Actually the Kock brothers just pulled this shit with their employees. One of those delightful Kock brothers is hopefully about to be charged with kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment of an employee too.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that what the Kock brothers did?


And if it is unethical to do as you say, do you have any legal precedence to back that up?


a non sequitur in the form of a question is still a non sequitur.

unless you're going the route of circular argument?

"if it was unethical it would be illegal and its legal because its ethical"?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
a non sequitur in the form of a question is still a non sequitur.

unless you're going the route of circular argument?

"if it was unethical it would be illegal and its legal because its
ethical"?

A dodge, no matter how colorful, is still a dodge.

Unless you're going the route of meaning your own personal set of business ethics?

"When I posted, 'its unethical for a business owner to impose their political beliefs on their employees", I was not meaning it to soun legally authoratative; I actually meant, 'I personally believe it is unethical for a business owner to impose their political beliefs on their employees.'"


Here, I'll help:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFUQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oge.gov%2FLaws-and-Regulations%2FStatutes%2FCompilation-of-Federal-Ethics-Laws%2F&ei=XZN_UPPgA4mK2wX0y4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNGngdCMwoKmIwmA70WCFUH2JGxZJA&sig2=363Dn_d-d-gxl38mzDrcGA

Originally posted by dadudemon
And if it is unethical to do as you say, do you have any legal precedence to back that up?

Why would he need legal precedent for a discussion of ethics?

indeed, i dodged your silly circular argument.

dadudemon, are you going to spend the next 3 pages furiously and enthusiastically proving that you dont understand that 'unethical' does not consistently accord with 'illegal'?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would he need legal precedent for a discussion of ethics?

Why doesn't he need judicial precedence for an authoritative statement on business ethics as it contextually applies to the US?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
indeed, i dodged your silly circular argument.

dadudemon, are you going to spend the next 3 pages furiously and enthusiastically proving that you dont understand that 'unethical' does not consistently accord with 'illegal'?

I have nothing to add: ball is still in your court. You seem stuck on dodging with a non sequitur accusation of circular argument.

Edit - I don't think we've ever argued for 3 pages: you peter out before we get that far.

Actually in this case it IS illegal. You have several tactics by a party and its independent, but colluding parties that use both blatant and implied force and coercion to change the government by voter suppression and election fraud. Not only have these tactics been employed and approved by the central party, but also by their presidential candidate (in a leaked recording of Romney asking business owners to tell their employees how to vote). Many of these groups and individuals also advocate racism and other forms of prejudice and are currently accused of other felonies, including the Vice President leading a group of his colleagues in a concerted and organized effort to sabotage the economy and security of the nation.
Under precedent from the 1940's and 1950's, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can be charged under Title I of the Smith Act and using RICO, those charges can extend down to the entire Republican Party leadership and associated Super PACs and PACs.

I honestly can't see firing or coercing an employee based on their political beliefs as being legal. Sounds like lawsuit material, if it can be proven.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually in this case it IS illegal. You have several tactics by a party and its independent, but colluding parties that use both blatant and implied force and coercion to change the government by voter suppression and election fraud. Not only have these tactics been employed and approved by the central party, but also by their presidential candidate (in a leaked recording of Romney asking business owners to tell their employees how to vote). Many of these groups and individuals also advocate racism and other forms of prejudice and are currently accused of other felonies, including the Vice President leading a group of his colleagues in a concerted and organized effort to sabotage the economy and security of the nation.
Under precedent from the 1940's and 1950's, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan can be charged under Title I of the Smith Act and using RICO, those charges can extend down to the entire Republican Party leadership and associated Super PACs and PACs.

I'd hate to see the product of a government with the powers you want that wielded them in a way you disagreed with...

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd hate to see the product of a government with the powers you want that wielded them in a way you disagreed with...

I'm sure there's a real life example of that government.

Originally posted by Oliver North
I'd hate to see the product of a government with the powers you want that wielded them in a way you disagreed with...

Regardless of ideology, if you try to influence voting by force or coercion, or otherwise influence government by force, coercion, or willful sabotage, particularly if it's in a manner that also incites prejudice against other Americans, you get fined and you go to jail for 20 years. If it's an organized effort by a group of people or a conspiracy who is also engaged in other lawbreaking, the whole operation can be charged under RICO.

I feel weird arguing about subversion, conspiracy, and racketeering with "Oliver North" btw. It feels like discussing the finer points of proper condom use with someone who has Ceausescu as an avatar even if it is ironic.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Actually in this case it IS illegal.

Okay, cool: I'm just not aware of how it could be illegal nor do I have any legal or judicial evidence to support what you're saying.


Since Focus is intent on dodging, maybe you're willing to help me out, here: how is it illegal? Use specific rulings and/or laws to support your position.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, cool: I'm just not aware of how it could be illegal nor do I have any legal or judicial evidence to support what you're saying.


Since Focus is intent on dodging, maybe you're willing to help me out, here: how is it illegal? Use specific rulings and/or laws to support your position.
Let's forget RICO because that's a broader law and would only apply to a situation where you wanted to take down an entire organization or party.
Title I of the Smith Act basically says that it's illegal to advocate sedition or subversion of the US government by a foreign power or ideology by use of coercion, force, or violence (Titles II and III don't apply here because they mainly have to do with with registration and deportation of enemy aliens engaged in this kind of sabotage). In this case the way that many people have perceived these emails is as a coercive threat rather than a suggestion, meaning the coercion is implied rather than blatant. Now for the most part, the Smith Act has been used to prosecute Fascists, Nazis, Communists and their sympathizers. During the 40's in a multitude of cases against Nazis and fascists, notably the Crusader White Shirts case and US v. McWilliams (which ended in a mistrial due to the judge's death), it was established that the dissemination of prejudice in order to cause discord, in those cases notably blacks and Jews, in this case blacks, Hispanics, and gays by the parent party, can be used as further evidence of coercive force and violent intent. The general behavior of people with shared Republican ideology, such as voter caging, intimidation, spreading false voter information, falsifying votes via machines and purging lists can be used to further establish a pattern by advocates of the Republican ideology of disrespect for law and order and the design to subvert the government illegally.

Most cases in which Smith rulings were thrown out were against communists when the government overreached its bounds by claiming base teaching and advocacy of communism was treasonous.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Regardless of ideology, if you try to influence voting by force or coercion, or otherwise influence government by force, coercion, or willful sabotage, particularly if it's in a manner that also incites prejudice against other Americans, you get fined and you go to jail for 20 years. If it's an organized effort by a group of people or a conspiracy who is also engaged in other lawbreaking, the whole operation can be charged under RICO.

thats sort of my point, your broad interpretation of laws, along with fairly strong opinions of the motivations of the people you disagree with, leads to what seem like excessive powers you want the government to have...

yet it seems ok to you because you think it will only be used against the people you want them to. I don't think giving the government the ability to prosecute political parties as criminal organizations under RICO is a power we should really want the state to have.

like, the reps would have RICO'd the dems over ACORN... right?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I feel weird arguing about subversion, conspiracy, and racketeering with "Oliver North" btw. It feels like discussing the finer points of proper condom use with someone who has Ceausescu as an avatar even if it is ironic.

who said anything about it being ironic?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Why doesn't he need judicial precedence for an authoritative statement on business ethics as it contextually applies to the US?



I have nothing to add: ball is still in your court. You seem stuck on dodging with a non sequitur accusation of circular argument.

Edit - I don't think we've ever argued for 3 pages: you peter out before we get that far.

...and then i repeat that your entire challenge to me is based on a non sequitur/circular argument, then you type another story, on and on and on until (to your relief) i tire of your antics.

can you ever just admit you made an error in logic? does it really have to amount to this?

maybe you should just reported me?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
...and then i repeat that your entire challenge to me is based on a non sequitur/circular argument, then you type another story, on and on and on until (to your relief) i tire of your antics.

can you ever just admit you made an error in logic? does it really have to amount to this?

maybe you should just reported me?

You'll have to do better.

Let's get back:

"its unethical for a business owner to impose their political beliefs on their employees."

Is this what the Koch Brothers did?

If not, what did they do and how is what they did do unethical?


Your court, mang.


I'll add: keep American Business Ethics in mind, not your own personal brand.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Let's forget RICO because that's a broader law and would only apply to a situation where you wanted to take down an entire organization or party.
Title I of the Smith Act basically says that it's illegal to advocate sedition or subversion of the US government by a foreign power or ideology by use of coercion, force, or violence (Titles II and III don't apply here because they mainly have to do with with registration and deportation of enemy aliens engaged in this kind of sabotage). In this case the way that many people have perceived these emails is as a coercive threat rather than a suggestion, meaning the coercion is implied rather than blatant. Now for the most part, the Smith Act has been used to prosecute Fascists, Nazis, Communists and their sympathizers. During the 40's in a multitude of cases against Nazis and fascists, notably the Crusader White Shirts case and US v. McWilliams (which ended in a mistrial due to the judge's death), it was established that the dissemination of prejudice in order to cause discord, in those cases notably blacks and Jews, in this case blacks, Hispanics, and gays by the parent party, can be used as further evidence of coercive force and violent intent. The general behavior of people with shared Republican ideology, such as voter caging, intimidation, spreading false voter information, falsifying votes via machines and purging lists can be used to further establish a pattern by advocates of the Republican ideology of disrespect for law and order and the design to subvert the government illegally.

Most cases in which Smith rulings were thrown out were against communists when the government overreached its bounds by claiming base teaching and advocacy of communism was treasonous.

NICE! Though not sweeping or decisive, this is still something more along the lines of what Focus should have been replying with.

I still have not come across any legal of judicial reasons to say the Koch Brothers were in error with their statements...baring personal standards of "ethics", of course.



What you've done is the closest I've seen it get but still nothing definitive. It is as if the writers of that distribution were aware of the laws and judicial precedences in America. lol (Yes, I'm being snarky with that last comment)

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is that what the Kock brothers did?


And if it is unethical to do as you say, do you have any legal precedence to back that up?

Originally posted by dadudemon

Is this what the Koch Brothers did?

If not, what did they do and how is what they did do unethical?


Your court, mang.


I'll add: keep American Business Ethics in mind, not your own personal brand.


so you realized the futility in attempting to pass off the milton friedman business model (do whatever you want, as long as you dont get fined/jailed) as the universal standard of business ethics?

terrific

now to make the next leap and realize that there is no universal sweeping standard of business ethics.

coercion of employees to vote a certain way under threat of losing their jobs is corporate interference with democracy. it is not swaying of opinion or even mudslinging, but a direct threat.

if your point is "the ethics of this are arguable" then i agree, but so are the ethics of NAMBLA.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
milton friedman business model (do whatever you want, as long as you dont get fined/jailed) as the universal standard of business ethics?

thats the one he won the Nobel prize for, right?

i dont think he won it for that philosophy. and i must correct myself. he believed that business should be conducted within the bounds of custom as well as law.

damn right

Originally posted by focus4chumps
so you realized the futility in attempting to pass off the milton friedman business model (do whatever you want, as long as you dont get fined/jailed) as the universal standard of business ethics?

terrific

Nah, more like the American Business Ethics (which includes norms, legal and judicial precedence). I've made that apparent for a while, now. I thought you drove a Ford, not a Dodge?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
now to make the next leap and realize that there is no universal sweeping standard of business ethics.

Yeah, well, except for the ones that can get you into deep shit, right?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
coercion of employees to vote a certain way under threat of losing their jobs is corporate interference with democracy.

Is that what happened? Isn't that a very slanted interpretation of what actually happened?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it is not swaying of opinion or even mudslinging, but a direct threat.

Is that what happened in the Koch Brothers e-mail?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
if your point is "the ethics of this are arguable" then i agree, but so are the ethics of NAMBLA.

Simply stating something is arguable is not good enough. I asked you to step up with something tangible but you just wanted to relegate yourself to personal feelings. Cool, but that doesn't get a legal discussion going, at all. There's nothing tangible or even meaningful when it comes to personal ethics discussion: we really do not care about each other enough to warrant such a discussion.

yes that is what happened.

"if obama is elected you will be jobless" is a direct threat. you are clinging to the technicality that they did not email each employee and say "if we find out you voted for obama you will be fired". however im sure you would be unconditional apologist even if that had occured.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have nothing to add: ball is still in your court. You seem stuck on dodging with a non sequitur accusation of circular argument.

Edit - I don't think we've ever argued for 3 pages: you peter out before we get that far.

Dadude, you are skirting the area of trolling again. Focus is doing nothing of the sort and your attempt to say he needs a legal backing for something he simply said was unethical was your mistake, not his. For you to then claim he is dodging you is ridiculous and is the latest example of you leading an argument astray with such ridiculous behaviour.

I've taken you to task for this sort of behaviour before. It will be a formal warning if you keep doing it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dadude, you are skirting the area of trolling again. Focus is doing nothing of the sort and your attempt to say he needs a legal backing for something he simply said was unethical was your mistake, not his. For you to then claim he is dodging you is ridiculous and is the latest example of you leading an argument astray with such ridiculous behaviour.

I've taken you to task for this sort of behaviour before. It will be a formal warning if you keep doing it.

Cool. I appreciate your input.

Please consider this before making a decision, though:


I said this, later:

"...American Business Ethics (which includes norms, legal and judicial precedence). I've made that apparent for a while, now."

and this:


"I'll add: keep American Business Ethics in mind, not your own personal brand."


And this:

"I still have not come across any legal of judicial reasons to say the Koch Brothers were in error with their statements...baring personal standards of "ethics", of course."




So when you, Ushgarak, say, "..and your attempt to say he needs a legal backing for something he simply said was unethical was your mistake, not his..." would not be a correct characterization of my position.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
'unethical' does not consistently accord with 'illegal'

this is what i stated. this is fact. adding modifiers to my statement will not eventually make you correct. but when did that ever stop you?

No, dadude, I bore in mind everything you said, and that was just your nonsensical assertion after the fact. The bottom line is- stop being like that in future. It was enormously obvious what focus meant by 'unethical'. If you wanted to challenge focus on the definition of ethics, you should have said as much in your reply to him. As it is, you replied in an obscure and inaccurate way, and using that as an excuse to attack him and trying to justify it later really is just part of the borderline trolling.

so, if all the Koch brothers did was send out this package, isn't the problem more with them sending political propaganda to their employees than with the fact they said people might lose their jobs?

what I mean is, are we in some supposed agreement that it would be ok to propagandize your employees so long as you don't, even indirectly (as is the case here), threaten their jobs?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, dadude, I bore in mind everything you said, and that was just your nonsensical assertion after the fact. The bottom line is- stop being like that in future. It was enormously obvious what focus meant by 'unethical'. If you wanted to challenge focus on the definition of ethics, you should have said as much in your reply to him. As it is, you replied in an obscure and inaccurate way, and using that as an excuse to attack him and trying to justify it later really is just part of the borderline trolling.

No problem. I respect your decision and will not continue down that path of conversation. You won't read another word about that subject from me. Again, thank you for your input.

Originally posted by Oliver North
so, if all the Koch brothers did was send out this package, isn't the problem more with them sending political propaganda to their employees than with the fact they said people might lose their jobs?

what I mean is, are we in some supposed agreement that it would be ok to propagandize your employees so long as you don't, even indirectly (as is the case here), threaten their jobs?

I agree with you there- employers sending propaganda to workers is something I would class as ethically dodgy. They didn't actually make any direct threats based on how people vote- this can be seen in that the implied threat would involve firing Romney supporters as well- and for Siegel, the bigger embarrassment, I feel, is that he actually copied 98% of that mail from a chain letter I saw on Snopes years ago.

In fact, rather than trying to couch it in such ways, I'd prefer it if a business just outright said "If x comes in, I will cut jobs", rather than trying to wrap it up like this. It is honest, it is direct and it is fair enough- and I'd simply call their bluff. Like I said, the original mail was from years back and I bet no-one actually followed through on it for 2008.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this is what i stated. this is fact. adding modifiers to my statement will not eventually make you correct. but when did that ever stop you?

I can't respond to this topic. If you wish to continue with this particular aspect of the discussion, feel free to PM me.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs7/2579553_o.gif

I think the Koch brothers have bigger things to worry about than voter coercion charges. Namely potential RICO charges for among other things, kidnapping and interrogating an employee and bribing local police to go along with it as their private enforcers.

Also, must remember to open Oliver North thread regarding why it's a travesty of justice that he and his friends are still alive (to say nothing of successful).

since there is essentially nothing to discuss on the matter beyond that here or in PM, consider the matter closed.

Originally posted by Darth Jello

Also, must remember to open Oliver North thread regarding why it's a travesty of justice that he and his friends are still alive (to say nothing of successful).

I can't recall off the top of my head, but was he found guilty of treason or just being a fall-guy-puppet-boy?

Originally posted by Robtard
I can't recall off the top of my head, but was he found guilty of treason or just being a fall-guy-puppet-boy?

he was granted limited immunity for his testimony and any remaining charges were dropped

the only things he was found guilty of, though later had the convictions reversed, were related to destroying the documents related to Iran-Contra and the anti-Sandanistra funding...

Originally posted by Oliver North
he was granted limited immunity for his testimony and any remaining charges were dropped

the only things he was found guilty of, though later had the convictions reversed, were related to destroying the documents related to Iran-Contra and the anti-Sandanistra funding...

America, **** yeah?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
since there is essentially nothing to discuss on the matter beyond that here or in PM, consider the matter closed.


HOORAY! Friends again.







On the topic: I do not consider what the Koch Brothers did to be even remotely unethical. I would consider, if they said nothing, to be borderline unethical. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, if we generously apply an elastic clause, would make it illegal if executives (or those with a controlling interest in the company) did not disclose that an action or inaction would be detrimental to the company. They feel that Obama's direction is hurting both their short term and long term strategic goals. That can be at least partially substantiated. So in not telling their employees, the greater "unethical" behavior lies.

Originally posted by dadudemon
On the topic: I do not consider what the Koch Brothers did to be even remotely unethical. I would consider, if they said nothing, to be borderline unethical. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, if we generously apply an elastic clause, would make it illegal if executives (or those with a controlling interest in the company) did not disclose that an action or inaction would be detrimental to the company. They feel that Obama's direction is hurting both their short term and long term strategic goals. That can be at least partially substantiated. So in not telling their employees, the greater "unethical" behavior lies.

you think sending editorials supporting the Romney campaign to employees is an acceptable way to do this?

Originally posted by Robtard
America, **** yeah?

he is a frequent Fox news contributor?

Originally posted by Oliver North
you think sending editorials supporting the Romney campaign to employees is an acceptable way to do this?

If they have reviewed Romney's policies and determined that they fit well (not okay..but well) with their strategic goals, that is quite ethical.


A quid pro quo, however, is not ethical.

I can definitely see how it can be unethical. Sending that note can be read as pretty much saying 'Vote Romney or you might just lose your job.' Pretty damn shady.

I must have missed the apparently obvious threat. There's no way for the Koch brothers to determine who voted for which candidate, so there's no real way for them to enforce whatever people think is being implied here.

On the topic: I do not consider what the Koch Brothers did to be even remotely unethical. I would consider, if they said nothing, to be borderline unethical. The Sarbanes-Oxley act, if we generously apply an elastic clause, would make it illegal if executives (or those with a controlling interest in the company) did not disclose that an action or inaction would be detrimental to the company. They feel that Obama's direction is hurting both their short term and long term strategic goals. That can be at least partially substantiated. So in not telling their employees, the greater "unethical" behavior lies.

WOW...just WOW. The implied threat that many would lose their jobs if Obama were re elected is highly unethical and if it isn't illegal it certainly should be. Employers should NEVER get involved in their employees politics beyond encouraging them to vote, and leave it at that.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I must have missed the apparently obvious threat. There's no way for the Koch brothers to determine who voted for which candidate, so there's no real way for them to enforce whatever people think is being implied here.

Saying there will be layoffs if Obama is elected and Romney isn't is an implied threat. It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
I must have missed the apparently obvious threat. There's no way for the Koch brothers to determine who voted for which candidate, so there's no real way for them to enforce whatever people think is being implied here.

Lacking follow-through is irrelevant.

They could have said "Vote for Romney or we'll have your father raped"; that's still an obvious threat regardless if the employee secretly still votes for Obama but tells them he went Romney to save the structural integrity of his/her father's anus.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
WOW...just WOW. The implied threat that many would lose their jobs if Obama were re elected

Again, as it has been pointed out...how in the world would they be able to enforce that "threat" you claim that they are making?

On top of that, how would they be able to get away with that when it is illegal to do so?



Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Employers should NEVER get involved in their employees politics beyond encouraging them to vote, and leave it at that.

That's your personal belief and I will respect that but that is not really a legal or judicial statement.

Originally posted by dadudemon
On top of that, how would they be able to get away with that when it is illegal to do so?

You... do know who the Koch's are right?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Again, as it has been pointed out...how in the world would they be able to enforce that "threat" you claim that they are making?

On top of that, how would they be able to get away with that when it is illegal to do so?





B]

They could cut some staff even if it meant hiring new ones even if it had to be done randomly. It would send a clear message though it could open them up for a class action lawsuit, though such cases are usually very hard for the plaintiffs to prove.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
They could cut some staff even if it meant hiring new ones even if it had to be done randomly. It would send a clear message though it could open them up for a class action lawsuit, though such cases are usually very hard for the plaintiffs to prove.

lol


Well...I guess that would work but it is a very poor way to go about doing it. That's an extremely expensive way to "send a message". Do you think they are dumb enough to do that?


And, no, that would not be hard to prove: in a court case, the plaintiff can get a subpoena to get that information (assuming the information sits somewhere, digitally or physically, anywhere).

Originally posted by dadudemon
lol


Well...I guess that would work but it is a very poor way to go about doing it. That's an extremely expensive way to "send a message". Do you think they are dumb enough to do that?


And, no, that would not be hard to prove: in a court case, the plaintiff can get a subpoena to get that information (assuming the information sits somewhere, digitally or physically, anywhere).


Funny, Nevada casinos do it all the time with their non union employees

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Funny, Nevada casinos do it all the time with their non union employees

Is it a 'right-to-work' state?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it a 'right-to-work' state?

Unfortunately, yes

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.

But that's NOT a threat if they believe Obama's policies will actually cause them to lose revenue.

A lot of people seem to labor under the delusion that everyone secretly believes everything they believe but it arbitrarily evil.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Unfortunately, yes

Well...then it is legal to term for no reason at all. I don't like RtW laws...for the most part.


Good news: right to work states show, when most other measures are controlled, increase pay and and increase jobs.


So right to work may not be that bad.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...then it is legal to term for no reason at all. I don't like RtW laws...for the most part.


Good news: right to work states show, when most other measures are controlled, increase pay and and increase jobs.


So right to work may not be that bad.

What other measurs might those be? Based on the data I've seen, pay rates are generally lower in RTW states.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But that's NOT a threat if they believe Obama's policies will actually cause them to lose revenue.

.

Wrong. It doesn't matter WHY the company is doing it. If that is the case why aren't companies all over the country doing it.

Telling people they may lose their job if a certain person is elected and thus coercing them to vote a certain way is indeed a threat, even if only implied.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Saying there will be layoffs if Obama is elected and Romney isn't is an implied threat. It doesn't matter of they know how their employees voted or not, saying some of them will have to go if Obama wins IS a threat.

Originally posted by Robtard
Lacking follow-through is irrelevant.

They could have said "Vote for Romney or we'll have your father raped"; that's still an obvious threat regardless if the employee secretly still votes for Obama but tells them he went Romney to save the structural integrity of his/her father's anus.



This is not a threat. This is a potential reality- a consequence of tax burdens that Robertson believes may be imposed if one candidate is elected over another.



This is not a threat, either.



Again, no threat in sight. This is not a declaration of vengeance or a punitive measure against anyone who doesn't vote Republican in November, this is a CEO saying that taxes levied against him will lead him to make financial decisions to accommodate that loss. Is it shitty that an inordinately wealthy CEO may cut jobs in order to maintain his exorbitant lifestyle down to the decimal point? Definitely, but it's not a threat.

The part about taxes and shrinking the company thus implying on how they should vote is indeed a threat, I don't see how you can say it isn't.

And like it or not, companies usually grow or shrink based on the level of demand for their products and services. Taxes play far less of a role.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
The part about taxes and shrinking the company thus implying on how they should vote is indeed a threat, I don't see how you can say it isn't.

And like it or not, companies usually grow or shrink based on the level of demand for their products and services. Taxes play far less of a role.

The part about fiscal consequences resulting from a particular candidate's policies is a very real possibility; this is simply reminding a group of voters of potential consequences. You're confusing a warning for a threat and there is a clear difference.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
Wrong. It doesn't matter WHY the company is doing it.

Yes it does.

There is a very large difference between "If you vote for Obama we will fire you." and "If Obama wins we will be forced to make cutbacks."

Do you really think that the Koch's secretly believe Obama will resurrect this country's economy and wish to oppose him in order to watch it fall apart? They don't, they think he's bad for the country and big business in particular.

They have the right to express their political views.
They did not send out a threat.

I'd agree that the letter is ethically gray but given that it is unarguably free speech I'd say stopping it is worse than allowing it.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
If that is the case why aren't companies all over the country doing it.

The Koch brothers are highly political on the conservative/libertarian economic front. It's a thing they do. This shouldn't be news.

Originally posted by The_Tempest
Again, no threat in sight. This is not a declaration of vengeance or a punitive measure against anyone who doesn't vote Republican in November, this is a CEO saying that taxes levied against him will lead him to make financial decisions to accommodate that loss.

There's a reason for that: if they did "levy" a consequence, it would be illegal.

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
What other measurs might those be? Based on the data I've seen, pay rates are generally lower in RTW states.

good question. shame it was ignored. oh well.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
good question. shame it was ignored. oh well.

Is it?

When they came through OK with this stuff, I researched it (this was several years back). Here is what my results were:


1. Cost of Living was lower in RtW States - Good.
2. Pay was lower, but not significantly - Bad.
3. Unemployment was lower - Good
4. People now had the option to associate or not associate with unions (with or without fees) - Good
5. You can be fired more easily - Bad. Very Very Bad



#5 is the main reason why I do not like RtW laws. That pretty much does it, for me. That's why I said, "I don't like RtW laws...for the most part." There are obviously good things an the libertarian sympathies I have make me get a chubby over reason #4. But that's just not enough when you consider the dick punch in #5.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it?

When they came through OK with this stuff, I researched it (this was several years back). Here is what my results were:


1. Cost of Living was lower in RtW States - Good.
2. Pay was lower, but not significantly - Bad.
3. Unemployment was lower - Good
4. People now had the option to associate or not associate with unions (with or without fees) - Good
5. You can be fired more easily - Bad. Very Very Bad



#5 is the main reason why I do not like RtW laws. That pretty much does it, for me. That's why I said, "I don't like RtW laws...for the most part." There are obviously good things an the libertarian sympathies I have make me get a chubby over reason #4. But that's just not enough when you consider the dick punch in #5.

{{Citation needed}}

regardless:

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well...then it is legal to term for no reason at all. I don't like RtW laws...for the most part.


Good news: right to work states show, when most other measures are controlled, increase pay and and increase jobs.


So right to work may not be that bad.

this was the statement archae questioned. care to address it?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
{{Citation needed}}
regardless:

No thanks. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.



Originally posted by focus4chumps
this was the statement archae questioned. care to address it?

State exactly what you are wanting me to answer for you. Type, in your own words and not by quoting me, what it is you are wanting me to talk about. Try to avoid strawman arguments and I will give your question an honest consideration. You may wonder why I am asking this: it is so we can avoid ambiguity from the beginning and I know exactly what you are wanting.


Edit - I could answer your supposed question immediately by posting a study. That may not be what you want. You may just want to troll and go "herpy derp, derp do" just like you always do. So it is better if you make it to where you are unable to troll from the onset by having you either directly ask your questions instead of hiding behind troll tactics or for you to drop it because your game will fail if you have to directly state what you want.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No thanks. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
im fairly certain that its up to you to substantiate your own claims, not everyone else.




Originally posted by dadudemon

State exactly what you are wanting me to answer for you. Type, in your own words and not by quoting me, what it is you are wanting me to talk about. Try to avoid strawman arguments and I will give your question an honest consideration. You may wonder why I am asking this: it is so we can avoid ambiguity from the beginning and I know exactly what you are wanting.


Edit - I could answer your supposed question immediately by posting a study. That may not be what you want. You may just want to troll and go "herpy derp, derp do" just like you always do. So it is better if you make it to where you are unable to troll from the onset by having you either directly ask your questions instead of hiding behind troll tactics or for you to drop it because your game will fail if you have to directly state what you want.

ok, but you claimed that you knew that RTW states, "when most other measures are controlled", have "increase pay and and increase jobs".


so as arch asked:

"What other measurs might those be?"

and may i add, where have you seen evidence of this breakthrough? citation?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
im fairly certain that its up to you to substantiate your own claims, not everyone else.


But I have no interest in doing so and you cannot force me to do it. If you want to know, research it yourself. As for me, I'm off it.






Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok, but you claimed that you knew that RTW states, "when most other measures are controlled", have "increase pay and and increase jobs".


so as arch asked:

"What other measurs might those be?"

and may i add, where have you seen evidence of this breakthrough? citation?

Oh, that's what you want to know? Like I said, I could just direct you to the study, but I'm not interested in doing so. If you're curious, you'll find it in 5 seconds.

As I can tell, your initial bait troll comment was just that: bait trolling. You want to argue with someone but I'm not up for it.

Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue this discussion: we are off-topic and I do not want to discuss this topic in the open with you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
But I have no interest in doing so and you cannot force me to do it. If you want to know, research it yourself. As for me, I'm off it.

hmmm....i would never presume to have the ability to force people to cite evidence, but you kinda rendered your own claim useless. its not like you stated an opinion or speculated, but rather you claimed it as a matter of fact.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, that's what you want to know? Like I said, I could just direct you to the study, but I'm not interested in doing so. If you're curious, you'll find it in 5 seconds.

As I can tell, your initial bait troll comment was just that: bait trolling. You want to argue with someone but I'm not up for it.

Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue this discussion: we are off-topic and I do not want to discuss this topic in the open with you.

so basically when someone requests a citation for a claim of fact, they are "bait trolling". ok...i guess.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
hmmm....i would never presume to have the ability to force people to cite evidence, but you kinda rendered your own claim useless. its not like you stated an opinion or speculated, but rather you claimed it as a matter of fact.

I have no interest in making "claims of persuasion". It was only a commentary on how I arrived at what I did.




Originally posted by focus4chumps
so basically when someone requests a citation for a claim of fact, they are "bait trolling". ok...i guess.

"Feel free to PM me if you wish to continue this discussion: we are off-topic and I do not want to discuss this topic in the open with you."

In otherwords, your above implied complaint is invalid. you know what you did. PM me if you want the answer. I'll even provide the study for you and discuss it at length.

well maybe you can pm your proof to me then and i'll post it here for you? really i dont understand this. you were asked to drop the imposed legal/ethical circular arguement, and in good form you did. with that said, i dont see how posting citation for your claim is going to land you in hot water.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
well maybe you can pm your proof to me then and i'll post it here for you? really i dont understand this. you were asked to drop the imposed legal/ethical circular arguement, and in good form you did. with that said, i dont see how posting citation for your claim is going to land you in hot water.

No, if you are legitimately interested, PM me. I will not initiate the conversation.

That is the last I'll post on this particular conversation in this thread.

According to my research right-to-work states that contain dadude have ten times the rate of butthurt as others.

There's totally proof of it but I'm not going to post it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
According to my research right-to-work states that contain dadude have ten times the rate of butthurt as others.

There's totally proof of it but I'm not going to post it.

You left out that I'm a "f*g" and that you want me dead.

You are a "f*g" and you do want me dead.

New development. Apparantly some of those guys weren't just wanting votes, Arthur Allan is pressuring his employees to each donate $2500.00 to Romney. Also, anyone remember Blankenship and some of the other coal butchers threatening their employees with firings or worse if they didn't take an unpaid day and go to a Romney rally?