A new low even for corporate America

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?

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

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.

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"?