A new low even for corporate America

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.

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.