I don't think Harry Reid would appreciate that very much.

You do get that those statements I posted are actually racist, right? And that the ones you did aren't?

 

What is my one-off post even supposed to be a distraction from? My own post about Jefferson from yesterday immediately above being a huge racist slave-owner who treated his slaves worse than is commonly portrayed?

 

HE'S A WITCH, BURN HIM!

My own post about Jefferson from yesterday immediately above being a huge racist slave-owner who treated his slaves worse than is commonly portrayed?

 

I want to link this again because it's a very interesting read!

 

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-arch...story=fullstory

 

It's completely devoid of modern politics, it's strictly a historical review of Jefferson's evolving views on slavery, how he ran Monticello and how some of the true history was covered up or glossed over by a lot of early and mid-20th century historians.

HE'S A WITCH, BURN HIM!

 

Who is a witch? What are you talking about?

 

Man, it's really weird that you would get so super-defensive over a img of a couple of morons on facebook saying racist things.

I don't think Harry Reid would appreciate that very much.

 

Youre either with me or against me. Its not like Senator Reid is some great friend of mine, doubt we have much in common.

Who is a witch? What are you talking about?

 

Man, it's really weird that you would get so super-defensive over a img of a couple of morons on facebook saying racist things.

 

And I find your need to highlight idiot teenagers saying stupid things on twitter, as desperate to advance an agenda. Do people not know that there are stupid teenagers out there? Do people now know that posting on twitter can open up people to saying extraordinarily stupid things?

 

Thank GOD you are here to point out the one side of what stupid people say. I don't know what we would do with out it.

I don't know what we'd do without your meltdown over an image of some people saying some dumb things. I have a "desperate agenda" to post some lulz about some dumb racists.

I don't know what we'd do without your meltdown over an image of some people saying some dumb things. I have a "desperate agenda" to post some lulz about some dumb racists.

 

Keep calling everyone who doesnt agree with you a racist?

SS, how does this fit into the ceo/union argument from yesterday?

 

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

 

Seems to me a union telling someone how to vote, or whether to attend a rally, with the threat of a fine, is pretty s***ty. https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

Keep calling everyone who doesnt agree with you a racist?

 

I'm starting to worry that you don't actually think those statements are racist. Otherwise this post and the other two calling things racist that are clearly not racist make no sense.

SS, how does this fit into the ceo/union argument from yesterday?

 

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

 

Seems to me a union telling someone how to vote, or whether to attend a rally, with the threat of a fine, is pretty s***ty. https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

 

That can't be right. Unions don't have any power or control.

I'm starting to worry that you don't actually think those statements are racist. Otherwise this post and the other two calling things racist that are clearly not racist make no sense.

 

Yep, that's it. It is totally about the micro of that one post, and not the macro of the theme that everyone who doesn't buy into is a racist of some sort. It isn't the years and years of this crap that you have been posting... it is totally that I don't think those 4 posts from no one of any substance at all are racist.

SS, how does this fit into the ceo/union argument from yesterday?

 

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

 

Seems to me a union telling someone how to vote, or whether to attend a rally, with the threat of a fine, is pretty s***ty. https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/are-un...ren_654203.html

 

It is incredibly s***ty and probably illegal.

Yep, that's it. It is totally about the micro of that one post, and not the macro of the theme that everyone who doesn't buy into is a racist of some sort. It isn't the years and years of this crap that you have been posting... it is totally that I don't think those 4 posts from no one of any substance at all are racist.

 

Well at least you finally came out and said they're racist, because for a while there you were making a bunch of bad arguments that would imply that they weren't actually racist, like comparing them to non-racist things.

 

That can't be right. Unions don't have any power or control.

 

Unions don't have the power and control over a company that a CEO/owner has. You know this and you are being intentionally dishonest again because you are desperate to push your agenda.

Unions don't have the power and control over a company that a CEO/owner has. You know this and you are being intentionally dishonest again because you are desperate to push your agenda.

 

I have embraced the left. I only need half of the truth now.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone meltdown this bad on SoxTalk before

I don't think I've ever seen anyone meltdown this bad on SoxTalk before

 

But am sure you have found one on twitter!

:.melts down some more:

Edited October 11, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

:posts more non sequitors:

 

lulz all around

Here's some more from David Siegel:

 

As for the notion that the divide between the wealthy and everyone else is grotesquely wide, David says: “There’s always been rich and poor, the 1 percent and the 99 percent.” And then he adds, “It’s like a prison. If you only have prisoners and no guards, you’d have chaos.

 

It should be noted that he made his fortune in the giant scam world of timeshares:

 

These days, Westgate’s buyers have an average income of about $75,000; Siegel describes them as Wal-Mart (WMT) customers. A time share is the right to a property for a given amount of time, sold by the week. To purchase the right to an annual week at one of Westgate’s resorts costs an average of $25,000 for a two-bedroom, two-bath apartment. (That does not include maintenance, which might run $700 a year). A typical buyer puts 10 percent down and takes out a 10-year mortgage from Westgate with a 16 to 18 percent interest rate. Westgate borrows against the mortgage, at a rate of 5 or 6 percent. More than half of what Westgate makes every year comes from that interest rate spread, according to the company’s chief financial officer, Tom Dugan.

 

What would the world ever do without brave entrepreneurs selling incredibly overpriced vacation rentals with long-term, high-interest loans to middle-class families?

Edited October 11, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

This is blowing up haha. I think the best part are his alleged quotes from July:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,4209465.story

 

Siegel told Reuters in July that Westgate was faring well.

 

He said in an interview his company had rebounded from the recession and was now the most profitable it had been in its 30-year history. He said Westgate was hiring 1,500 new employees this year and fending off banks that "are throwing money at us."

 

So under Obama his company has been the most profitable, yet Obama is hurting him.

 

You dont have to be smart to be rich, but it never hurts to be a shyster.

This is blowing up haha. I think the best part are his alleged quotes from July:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/bre...0,4209465.story

 

 

 

So under Obama his company has been the most profitable, yet Obama is hurting him.

 

You dont have to be smart to be rich, but it never hurts to be a shyster.

 

If he has to give up even one more dime of those profits that he's taking back out of the company for himself, why, it's not even worth it.

 

edit: that he cribbed much of this letter from a 2008 chain mail makes that all the more ridiculous. The very same allegations he's making now were made in 2008, yet now he's the most profitable ever (at ripping off middle-class families with timeshare rentals).

Edited October 11, 201213 yr by StrangeSox

Something else on employer political coercion up at Volokh today:

 

Suspending Employee for Signing a Referendum Petition

 

 

Gallaudet University’s “chief diversity officer,” Angela McCaskill, was suspended (with pay) for signing a petition that sought a referendum vote on whether to undo Maryland’s new same-sex marriage law. Is it legal for a private employer to suspend or fire an employee for signing a referendum or initiative petition?

 

It depends on the state. As I’ve discussed in a good deal of detail in a recent article, Private Employees’ Speech and Political Activity: Statutory Protection Against Employer Retaliation, about half the states impose some restrictions on private employers’ ability to retaliate against employees for the employees’ speech or political activity. Some state laws cover a large range of speech and political activity, while some cover only a small range. (Some, which I didn’t discuss in the article, only ban discrimination based on how an employee voted.) But nearly all the states that do impose such restrictions — beyond a mere ban on discrimination based on voting — would apply to referendum or initiative signatures.