Klown
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 982
- Reaction score
- 202
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I hope that you are not suggesting that the CEO monster that detests the democratic rights of workers is a new phenomenon?
Unions were targeted a long long time ago - there is a direct relationship between the demise and crushing of workers Unions and the emergence of the fascist Corpocracy
View attachment 67136265
Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
Your posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
you misrepresent what he saidI believe this is wrong. We live in a nation where we have the right to freedom of speech. A CEO telling his workers that they cannot vote for someone violates that right.
that's right. he has NO way of knowing how they actually votedHe may have no way of knowing who votes for who, but the threat is still there and should be handled accordingly.
wait, if the listener is too ignorant of their rights, the nannystate is supposed to step in and make sure things are not said to them which exploits their stupiditySome of those workers might believe that he, the CEO, can find out who they vote for and give in to his threat causing that employee to not vote based on their beliefs.
it is the RIGHT of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choiceThe goal of this nation is to have our people vote for who they wish to vote for, not to vote for someone they were told/forced to vote for.
He can fire whoever he wants, but not because of the way they vote.
why should that be found offensiveYour posted image is offensive, not just because it is incorrect, but you don't even know the difference between fascism and nazism. Board rules prevent me from characterizing you further.
sure he can
what prevents him from doing so?
A) How will he know who they voted for?
B) Even if he did know, it would still probably be covered under discrimination laws. You can't fire someone for their political beliefs. You have to find a real reason.
why should that be found offensive
There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century
Bolshevism
Nazism
Corporatism
Youre living in one now and yet it doesnt offend you. Your concern for symbols is touching as your once great nation yields to the tyrannical corporate fascists and yet you sit there and do nothing
now that is interesting!
I suppose a photo equating mild liberalism with communism and Stalinism is also unoffensive
Its every American's right to act like an asshole.
There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century
Bolshevism
Nazism
Corporatism
Youre living in one now and yet it doesnt offend you. Your concern for symbols is touching as your once great nation yields to the tyrannical corporate fascists and yet you sit there and do nothing
now that is interesting!
Bolshevism is Fascism? The US, one of the most liberal countries in the world, is now a fascist country?
I have to say, the standards of DP has gone down
"There were 3 major forms of fascism to emerge in the 20th century" I can't find that you have ever expressed that before. As for what you consider interesting...
Romney to bosses: Tell workers how to vote | The Raw Story... “I hope you make it very clear to your employees what you believe is in the best interest of your enterprise and therefore their job and their future in the upcoming elections,” Romney told members of the ostensibly nonpartisan National Federation of Independent Business, an anti-union group whose endorsements tend to align with Republicans.
“And whether you agree with me or you agree with President Obama, or whatever your political view, I hope — I hope you pass those along to your employees,” he added. “Nothing illegal about you talking to your employees about what you believe is best for the business, because I think that will figure into their election decision, their voting decision and of course doing that with your family and your kids as well.” ...
you misrepresent what he said
but that is also possible since you possess freedom of speech
... just like the CEO
that's right. he has NO way of knowing how they actually voted
so, who is going to handle it accordingly
and what the hell does 'handle it accordingly' mean. what exactly do you propose be done to that CEO
wait, if the listener is too ignorant of their rights, the nannystate is supposed to step in and make sure things are not said to them which exploits their stupidity
who is in charge of the group assigned to fulfill this function and what is its standard operating procedure
it is the RIGHT of citizens to vote for the candidate of their choice
we get told to vote for someone every day via commercials on the net, print media, radio and televisions. why not just allow individuals to exercise their right instead of asking for a nannystate response to a non-issue
he is conveying to them how their jobs are at risk if the 'wrong' candidate prevailsMedia and other sources tell us to vote for everyday. However, you fail to notice that the CEO is not just telling them who to vote for, he is threatening their jobs.
yes, because i wanted to know how you would propose that person's legitimate comments be 'handled'You also asked what I meant by handled accordingly (please calm down by the way lol)
and who in authority would you deem appropriate to restrict this person's legitimate free speech. for extra credit, tell us what standard operating procedures would be used to ensure the next victim of this person of authority was not you, inhibiting how you are able to speak. and for a gold star, explain for us what prevents this employer from firing his employees if the candidate he does not support win the election... and what I meant was someone of authority should remind him that he can't threaten peoples' jobs indirectly to make them vote for who he wants to win the election.
and despite all of your words you have been unable to share with us why the comments of that CEO are found to be other than protected by the free speech provisions of the ConstitutionThe CEO did say in the video that he caused George Bush to win the elections before and it may have been illegal. I'm just paying attention to details, sorry if I have been upsetting you in any way.
he is conveying to them how their jobs are at risk if the 'wrong' candidate prevails
how is that not within the bailiwick of his right to free speech
yes, because i wanted to know how you would propose that person's legitimate comments be 'handled'
and chances are good that i am stoned when responding, so be assured i have no need to calm down ... if i could only find some chocolate to snack on
and who in authority would you deem appropriate to restrict this person's legitimate free speech. for extra credit, tell us what standard operating procedures would be used to ensure the next victim of this person of authority was not you, inhibiting how you are able to speak. and for a gold star, explain for us what prevents this employer from firing his employees if the candidate he does not support win the election
and despite all of your words you have been unable to share with us why the comments of that CEO are found to be other than protected by the free speech provisions of the Constitution
the only thing upsetting about your posts is your continued inability to offer anything of substance to defend them
I have mixed feelings about this...Unions endorse candidates...and by that endorsement they are for all intents and purposes telling the membership who would be good for them in their opinion.
A CEO is a bit different however. the union is not your employer, they do not hire and fire and promote. The CEO does as the boss he has a position of authority and has the ability to make you or break you...Having said that if the ceo puts out a memo saying I want you all to vote for Romney...I dont see how thats much different than what the union does...but if he tells employees if I find out you voted for obama you done here...thats different. I can see both sides...
opposite side of the same coin
union can exercise "negative" control. it withholds union representation. no longer acts on behalf of your interests
while illegal under the federal statutes, try proving it
and unfortunately, as a union officer, it is too prevalent to pretend such union official attitudes do not exist
Interesting point.I have mixed feelings about this...Unions endorse candidates...and by that endorsement they are for all intents and purposes telling the membership who would be good for them in their opinion.
A CEO is a bit different however. the union is not your employer, they do not hire and fire and promote. The CEO does as the boss he has a position of authority and has the ability to make you or break you...Having said that if the ceo puts out a memo saying I want you all to vote for Romney...I dont see how thats much different than what the union does...but if he tells employees if I find out you voted for obama you done here...thats different. I can see both sides...
Are employers in the USA required to accept and file voter registration forms for employees?Well, OK. I like how he admits to illegalities in helping Bush by not turning in registrations for Democrat employees. Can you say "fraud?" I know someone will defend him for that. In 3,2,1...