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.
Re: Re: Re: BAM!
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 focus4chumps
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.
I looked for those quotes or even something that slightly resembled that: it doesn't exist. Where did you get those quotes?
So let me get this straight:
A company; that has a political action committee, that seeks out candidates that will best support Koch's strategic goals, and then supports those candidates as "electables"; that says something like this:
“We believe any decision about which candidates to support is—as always—yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you. Second, we do not support candidates based on their political affiliation.”
Is unethical, depraved, evil, etc.?
I'm having a hard time putting the dots together, here. Help me out, please?
Re: Re: Re: Re: BAM!
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.
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.
Re: Re: Re: BAM!
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.
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).
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 droppedthe 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 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.