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 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. 🙂
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, "[b]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? [/B]
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.
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.
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?