# Consequence Culture - Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda



## JoeB131

So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need. 





_*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_

Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.

Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.





Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act. 

Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.





Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.

Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.





Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980. 

Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it. 

So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!



Those are all good points but I do wonder what did  Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?



Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.  










						The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
					

Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.




					www.sportskeeda.com


----------



## occupied

The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


----------



## Desperado

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

Bt what exactly did she say?


----------



## Jets

This isn’t complicated. 

Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.


----------



## Canon Shooter

While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.







Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...


I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.


----------



## Thoth001

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.



Both wings are off the same bird. That is why it is best not to be a part of any wing and use your own logical thinking skills and what is best for freedom and liberty for all. All we all really want is to just be left alone and live our lives the way we want as long as we aren't hurting others.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.



Except nobody insisted on firing him. 




Canon Shooter said:


> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...



Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal. 

Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game. 

Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa. 


It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.



Um, yeah, people get very upset when you endanger their health by breathing over them.


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, people get very upset when you endanger their health by breathing over them.
Click to expand...


You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.



525,000 people died.  This isn't a fraud.  

Most people with Covid are asymptomatic.  They have the germs but they aren't showing symptoms. 

Wearing masks was good policy. 

The Japanese had 100% mask usage. They were into wearing masks even before this started.  And low and behold, they didn't have massive infections even though the virus got there earlier. 

But you and Carano think this is a conspiracy to take your "Freedom"...  and we have more cases than any country in the world.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...



Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.


----------



## petro

Racists Jane, Ted and the Peanut farmer all mocking Indians at an Atlanta Braves game.
No consequences for that display. 
Of course, this was before everyone became thin skinned victimized assholes.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Except nobody insisted on firing him.



Sure they did. I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster...



> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.



I won't speak to what someone's God is invested in. I will, however, say that this has nothing to do with what God is invested in and everything to do with what Kaepernick and Tebow were invested in...



> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?



Man, I just love dipshit idiots like you.

I don't have a God, dumbass. I'm Agnostic. But ignorant little nippleheads like you will jump to such a conclusion simply because I choose to come down more in support of someone who kneels in prayer as opposed to the little whining bitch who kneels in protest.

Idiot...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.



Cry me a river.

The fact remains that, by and large, the left (not just "left wing idealists") took great exception to Tebow's quiet display of faith.

I hope Kaepernick never plays another down as an NFL quarterback and, the way it's looking, he's not going to. I absolutely support his right to do what he wants to; if he wants to kneel in protest, so be it. I don't have to like it.

But, as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions. The fact is that a lot of football fans gave up on the game because of this kneeling nonsense, and it's hurt the bottom lines of NFL teams. Well, they're not there to bring about social change. They're businesses, and they're there to make money. If Kaepernick's antics result in him not being able to find a job, because those antics will negatively impact the bottom line of an NFL team, well, he needs to be man enough to accept that.

Whining that he can't get a job is pathetic...


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

Canon Shooter said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cry me a river.
> 
> The fact remains that, by and large, the left (not just "left wing idealists") took great exception to Tebow's quiet display of faith.
> 
> I hope Kaepernick never plays another down as an NFL quarterback and, the way it's looking, he's not going to. I absolutely support his right to do what he wants to; if he wants to kneel in protest, so be it. I don't have to like it.
> 
> But, as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions. The fact is that a lot of football fans gave up on the game because of this kneeling nonsense, and it's hurt the bottom lines of NFL teams. Well, they're not there to bring about social change. They're businesses, and they're there to make money. If Kaepernick's antics result in him not being able to find a job, because those antics will negatively impact the bottom line of an NFL team, well, he needs to be man enough to accept that.
> 
> Whining that he can't get a job is pathetic...
Click to expand...


So, by your assessment, you agree that Gina Carano deserves the same fate?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.



Here's the difference between you and me:

I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?

You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.

You're nothing but an ignorant child...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cry me a river.
> 
> The fact remains that, by and large, the left (not just "left wing idealists") took great exception to Tebow's quiet display of faith.
> 
> I hope Kaepernick never plays another down as an NFL quarterback and, the way it's looking, he's not going to. I absolutely support his right to do what he wants to; if he wants to kneel in protest, so be it. I don't have to like it.
> 
> But, as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions. The fact is that a lot of football fans gave up on the game because of this kneeling nonsense, and it's hurt the bottom lines of NFL teams. Well, they're not there to bring about social change. They're businesses, and they're there to make money. If Kaepernick's antics result in him not being able to find a job, because those antics will negatively impact the bottom line of an NFL team, well, he needs to be man enough to accept that.
> 
> Whining that he can't get a job is pathetic...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, by your assessment, you agree that Gina Carano deserves the same fate?
Click to expand...


Does she deserve it? I dunno'.

Then again, I've never taken the position that Kaepernick "deserves" to be kicked out of the NFL.

In both instances, I believe that their employers "deserve" to have the right to determine what will hurt their bottom line and act accordingly. If that means firing them, so be it...


----------



## occupied

Thoth001 said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both wings are off the same bird. That is why it is best not to be a part of any wing and use your own logical thinking skills and what is best for freedom and liberty for all. All we all really want is to just be left alone and live our lives the way we want as long as we aren't hurting others.
Click to expand...

Freedom and liberty for all is a work in progress that only exists because busybodies and agitators can't just selfishly mind their own business while others get trampled. It's messy, arbitrary, often petty but in the end these social conflicts have to happen for the operating system of society to remain strong.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.



I also think it's funny that, while you seemingly support Disney for making their decision to avoid controversy, you're unwilling to accept that the NFL has treated Kaepernick in the same manner, and for the same reason...


----------



## jknowgood

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 525,000 people died.  This isn't a fraud.
> 
> Most people with Covid are asymptomatic.  They have the germs but they aren't showing symptoms.
> 
> Wearing masks was good policy.
> 
> The Japanese had 100% mask usage. They were into wearing masks even before this started.  And low and behold, they didn't have massive infections even though the virus got there earlier.
> 
> But you and Carano think this is a conspiracy to take your "Freedom"...  and we have more cases than any country in the world.
Click to expand...

Does China state that a person commits suicide, but has covid. Mark them as dying from covid? Oh well since Biden is president, they are counting covid deaths as people that die from covid. So we will soon see that we have been duped.


----------



## jillian

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


All true. And we can’t forget that mother of all cancel culture events. The black list that came out of HUAC and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody insisted on firing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal.
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.
> 
> 
> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Tebow was ostricized but behind the scenes. Most players kneeling. Are they of two parent families? Are they of single parents? Mostly moms who had children as young teenagers. Do many have no father figures? And of those who did, did the father or father figure stay through thick and thin with the kids? There are children in areas by the time they are six or seven who profess nasty racial words towards other cultures. Someone has to teach them. But all of this is cleansed in the name of political correctness. And since there can be no improvement from this level without improving the nuclear family, the point is moot.


----------



## JOSweetHeart

Jets said:


> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.


Sadly, it isn't just freedom speech that can cost a person their popularity. Country singer LeAnn Rimes took one heck of a nosedive when she and her current husband first got together.

God bless you and her and her family always!!!

Holly (a day one fan of LeAnn)


----------



## Darkwind

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


Not anymore.

Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.

It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with.  It cannot get more unAmerican.


----------



## Godboy

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

When did she say she was scared of trans people? Do you have any actual quotes to support your wild claims?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between you and me:
> 
> I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?
> 
> You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.
> 
> You're nothing but an ignorant child...
Click to expand...


Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I've been telling Joe he's an ignorant dumbass for over a year now and it's for just such crap he's been saying in this discussion.


----------



## jbrownson0831

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


There you go.....proof that the only thing breathing in months of facediaper CO2 accomplishes is the melting of brain cells.  You libbers are nuts.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!



So you had to give this "Consequence Culture" thing its own discussion? Jesus please us.

I told you in the other discussion (what discussion? Ha Ha) that this ploy can and will work against you as much as it does for you. Be prepared to have this ploy thrown back in your face.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Sure they did. I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster...



Okay... so did that have any real effect?  Um. No.  People got Kap fired.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I won't speak to what someone's God is invested in. I will, however, say that this has nothing to do with what God is invested in and everything to do with what Kaepernick and Tebow were invested in...



I agree.  Kap was addressing a real, honest to God (pun intended) problem.  Tebow was trying to waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Man, I just love dipshit idiots like you.
> 
> I don't have a God, dumbass. I'm Agnostic. But ignorant little nippleheads like you will jump to such a conclusion simply because I choose to come down more in support of someone who kneels in prayer as opposed to the little whining bitch who kneels in protest.



Again, I could see someone who actually believes in a Magic Sky Fairy being offended by Tebow.  Who wins a football game is trivial... in the "cosmic" scheme of things.  But of all the things to pray for, you know instead of World Peace or a Cure for Cancer, he prays for winning a football game.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Here's the difference between you and me:
> 
> I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?



Oh, I don't know, maybe because religion is used by those in power to keep people complacent instead of demanding needed change.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.
> 
> You're nothing but an ignorant child...



I mock them because their beliefs are silly.


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you had to give this "Consequence Culture" thing its own discussion? Jesus please us.
> 
> I told you in the other discussion (what discussion? Ha Ha) that this ploy can and will work against you as much as it does for you. Be prepared to have this ploy thrown back in your face.



As pointed out, you guys have been doing this for years.... you are just unhappy it is now being thrown back in your face.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I also think it's funny that, while you seemingly support Disney for making their decision to avoid controversy, you're unwilling to accept that the NFL has treated Kaepernick in the same manner, and for the same reason...



The problem is, we DID need the controversy that Kapernick was stirring up.  We needed to have addressed police brutality and misconduct YEARS ago.  Instead, we let it fester until it exploded last year.  



Darkwind said:


> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with. It cannot get more unAmerican.



yet that is EXACTLY what you guys did with Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda.  

And you guys kept punishing them even after they were more or less vindicated by events.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you had to give this "Consequence Culture" thing its own discussion? Jesus please us.
> 
> I told you in the other discussion (what discussion? Ha Ha) that this ploy can and will work against you as much as it does for you. Be prepared to have this ploy thrown back in your face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As pointed out, you guys have been doing this for years.... you are just unhappy it is now being thrown back in your face.
Click to expand...


Again, who is "you guys"?

And again, tell us why you think Carano's tweet was antisemitic. From there maybe we can see if it is justifiably being "thrown back in our faces". If you can give a reasoned argument as to why it was antisemitic, maybe you have a point. But if you can't or won't, then I have no recourse but to continue seeing Carano's case as bullshit and wokeness on overload.

What do you say? Or are you going to continue running from the question?


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, who is "you guys"?
> 
> And again, tell us why you think Carano's tweet was antisemitic. From there maybe we can see if it is justifiably being "thrown back in our faces". If you can give a reasoned argument as to why it was antisemitic, maybe you have a point. But if you can't or won't, then I have no recourse but to continue seeing Carano's case as bullshit and wokeness on overload.
> 
> What do you say? Or are you going to continue running from the question?



Nope, still not playing that game with you. your gaslighting is tiresome.  

Disney found it offensive enough to finally fire her.


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody insisted on firing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal.
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.
> 
> 
> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

How many times does your ignorant ass have to be told that the no talent bitch Kraperlimpdick was only crying because the team told him he wasn’t going to start. As revealed by his teammates who thought him a crybaby. Here’s an idea. Leave the country. Nobody will miss you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Well, she was proven right. The war was a bad idea.



Communism was the bad idea.


----------



## Lesh

They cancelled the HELL out of Colin K


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Lesh said:


> They cancelled the HELL out of Colin K



They sure did!

After he was canceled, how much did he get from Nike?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it's funny that, while you seemingly support Disney for making their decision to avoid controversy, you're unwilling to accept that the NFL has treated Kaepernick in the same manner, and for the same reason...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we DID need the controversy that Kapernick was stirring up.  We needed to have addressed police brutality and misconduct YEARS ago.  Instead, we let it fester until it exploded last year.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with. It cannot get more unAmerican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet that is EXACTLY what you guys did with Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda.
> 
> And you guys kept punishing them even after they were more or less vindicated by events.
Click to expand...


Well, someone should've put a bullet through Fonda's head, traitorous bitch.

What, exactly, did I do to "punish" Kaepernick? Criticize him on an internet forum? Oh, my, that poor little snowflake.

As for the Dixie Chicks, I was always under the impression they were conservative. I didn't but their albums before I knew otherwise, so the fact that I didn't buy them afterwards can't really be considered "punishment"...


----------



## JoeB131

lantern2814 said:


> How many times does your ignorant ass have to be told that the no talent bitch Kraperlimpdick was only crying because the team told him he wasn’t going to start. As revealed by his teammates who thought him a crybaby. Here’s an idea. Leave the country. Nobody will miss you.



Actually, my side won the election, so maybe you should leave.  

So his response to not starting was to make himself the subject of public anger?  Let's keep in mind, when he started kneeling, it wasn't a popular position.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> Communism was the bad idea.



Oh, wait, you think the Vietnam War was about "Communism"? You silly boy.


----------



## JustAGuy1

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...


Naaa, none of us is afraid of you Joey.


----------



## JustAGuy1

JoeB131 said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does your ignorant ass have to be told that the no talent bitch Kraperlimpdick was only crying because the team told him he wasn’t going to start. As revealed by his teammates who thought him a crybaby. Here’s an idea. Leave the country. Nobody will miss you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my side won the election, so maybe you should leave.
> 
> So his response to not starting was to make himself the subject of public anger?  Let's keep in mind, when he started kneeling, it wasn't a popular position.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism was the bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, you think the Vietnam War was about "Communism"? You silly boy.
Click to expand...


Oh wait, you think Jane posing on an AA Gun while they killed Americans was a good idea? You truly are an unamerican piece of shit.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, someone should've put a bullet through Fonda's head, traitorous bitch.



Why?  

Frankly, she was completely in the right.  The Vietnamese were no threat to us.   It really wasn't out business to get in the middle of their civil war, and, oh, yeah, the government routinely lied to us about what was going on over there.  



Canon Shooter said:


> What, exactly, did I do to "punish" Kaepernick? Criticize him on an internet forum? Oh, my, that poor little snowflake.


.
And boycotted the NFL until he was fired.   Did you all forget that part?  



Canon Shooter said:


> As for the Dixie Chicks, I was always under the impression they were conservative. I didn't but their albums before I knew otherwise, so the fact that I didn't buy them afterwards can't really be considered "punishment"...


.
Again, more revisionist history. 

It wasn't because they were 'liberal', it was because they questioned George W. Bush's war in Iraq.   I know you guys forgot you all enthusiastically supported that because the one thing you can say about Trump is he didnt' start any new wars.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, wait, you think the Vietnam War was about "Communism"? You silly boy.



You should ask the Vietnamese Boat People what it was about.


----------



## JoeB131

Toddsterpatriot said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, you think the Vietnam War was about "Communism"? You silly boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should ask the Vietnamese Boat People what it was about.
Click to expand...

.
Most of them were economic refugees, not political ones...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who is "you guys"?
> 
> And again, tell us why you think Carano's tweet was antisemitic. From there maybe we can see if it is justifiably being "thrown back in our faces". If you can give a reasoned argument as to why it was antisemitic, maybe you have a point. But if you can't or won't, then I have no recourse but to continue seeing Carano's case as bullshit and wokeness on overload.
> 
> What do you say? Or are you going to continue running from the question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, still not playing that game with you. your gaslighting is tiresome.
> 
> Disney found it offensive enough to finally fire her.
Click to expand...


I guess the answer is: Continue running. Coward.


----------



## XponentialChaos

For once, I’d like to see conservatives give a consistent argument about cancel culture.

They whine when the left does it and they’re in full support of it when the right does it.


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 525,000 people died.  This isn't a fraud.
> 
> Most people with Covid are asymptomatic.  They have the germs but they aren't showing symptoms.
> 
> Wearing masks was good policy.
> 
> The Japanese had 100% mask usage. They were into wearing masks even before this started.  And low and behold, they didn't have massive infections even though the virus got there earlier.
> 
> But you and Carano think this is a conspiracy to take your "Freedom"...  and we have more cases than any country in the world.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should actually look at the science and stop believing what the lying MSM tells you.

*FACE MASKS DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD OF AIRBORNE PATHOGENS*

Numerous randomized control trials (RCTs) analyzed the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of an aerosol pathogen.

Below is a partial list of such trials found in professionally-reviewed literature, published by the following internationally-recognized organizations. I encourage you to click on any of the links to learn more:

A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers

Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372

Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf

Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures

Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed

ACP Journals

*9 Potential and Proven Dangers to Muzzling Yourself*


1. *Cavities*: New York dentists are reporting that half their patients are suffering decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath from wearing masks. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Dr. Rob Ramondi told FOX News.

'Mask mouth': Dentists coin new term for smelly side effect of wearing a mask

2. *Facial Deformities*: Masking children triggers mouth breathing which as been shown to cause “long, narrow faces, narrow mouths, high palatal vaults, dental malocclusion, gummy smiles, and many other unattractive facial features,” according to the Journal of General Dentistry.

Mouth breathing: adverse effects on facial growth, health, academics, and behavior - PubMed

3. *Acne Vulgaris*: Moisture and germs collecting in the mask cause “facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis… or worsening acne” (according to Public Health Ontario) which stresses the immune system, can lead to permanent scarring and has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts (according to the Journal of Dermatologic Clinics). Children also develop impetigo, a bacterial infection that produces red sores and can lead to kidney damage (according to the Mayo Clinic).

Mouth breathing: adverse effects on facial growth, health, academics, and behavior - PubMed

Quality of life measures for acne patients - PubMed

Impetigo - Symptoms and causes

4. *Increased Risk of COVID-19:* “Mask use by the general public could be associated with a theoretical elevated risk of COVID-19 through… self-contamination,” states Public Health Ontario in Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain,” theorizes nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD (in an article at The Centre for Research on Globalization).

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...hat-we-know-public-masks-apr-7-2020.pdf?la=en

Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy - Global Research

5. *Bacterial Pneumonia*: At an Oklahoma Press Conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testified: “Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise” as a result of moisture collecting in face masks.









						CDC Admits: No Conclusive Evidence Cloth Masks Work Against COVID - The New American
					

The CDC suggests what experts have stated all along: There is no conclusive evidence that cloth masks protects users from coronavirus. ...




					thenewamerican.com
				












						Bacterial Pneumonia and Other Health Risks of Wearing Masks Alarm Doctors - Word Matters!
					

Serious health issues arise when people suffer reduced oxygen supply due to wearing masks. These include dental damage and gum disease.




					www.ernestdempsey.com
				




6. *Immune Suppressing*: Masks are often worn by criminals trying to hide their identity while perpetuating an offence (theft, violence, rape, murder, etc.). They produce subconscious anxiety and fear. Fear and anxiety activate the fight-or-flight nervous system which down-regulates the immune system, as shown in a study by the American Psychological Association.

APA PsycNet

7. *Germophobia*: Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask. (See the paper in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders titled “COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self”).

COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self

8. *Toxic*: Many (if not most) masks and face coverings (including cloth) are made with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including fire retardant, fibreglass, lead, NFE, phthalates, polyfluorinated chemicals and formaldehyde that will outgas and be inhaled by the wearer. (See “5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named” by Fashion United).

5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named

9. *Psychologically Harmfu*l: “I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of… our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. “Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.”

How Would You Prefer to Spend Your Last Thanksgiving?

Read more:

John C. A. Manley, 20 Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral - James Fetzer

     Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That. Germ Theory Is A Fraud.                                                                                                                                                                                     *Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That.*









						Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That. Germ Theory Is A Fraud.
					

.




					worldtruthvideos.org


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> For once, I’d like to see conservatives give a consistent argument about cancel culture.
> 
> They whine when the left does it and they’re in full support of it when the right does it.



You should really look up what happened in Nazi Germany with cancel culture. Funny for years these people have been calling Trump a Nazi while being Nazis themselves.









						How the Nazis pioneered 'cancel culture'
					

Two well-known women were degraded last week as Britain continues to be ethically cleansed. The first was Nancy Astor, whose statue in Plymouth was dubbed with the word ‘Nazi’. The second was Baroness Nicholson, honorary vice-president of the Booker Prize Foundation, who was relieved of her...




					www.spectator.co.uk
				












						Nazi Germany lives in BLM cancel and woke cultures and school indoctrinations, Statues toppled, Books banned, Children brainwashed, Modern Nazi brownshirts
					

Nazi Germany lives in BLM cancel and woke cultures and school indoctrinations, Statues toppled, Books banned, Children brainwashed, Modern Nazi brownshirts “When an opponent declares, “…




					citizenwells.com
				












						Culture in the Third Reich: Disseminating the Nazi Worldview
					

In Nazi Germany, a chief role of culture was to disseminate the Nazi worldview. Arts and cultural organizations were to be synchronized with Nazi ideology and policy.




					encyclopedia.ushmm.org


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once, I’d like to see conservatives give a consistent argument about cancel culture.
> 
> They whine when the left does it and they’re in full support of it when the right does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really look up what happened in Nazi Germany with cancel culture. Funny for years these people have been calling Trump a Nazi while being Nazis themselves.
Click to expand...


Then you should have no problem condemning it when conservatives do it.


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> For once, I’d like to see conservatives give a consistent argument about cancel culture.
> 
> They whine when the left does it and they’re in full support of it when the right does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should really look up what happened in Nazi Germany with cancel culture. Funny for years these people have been calling Trump a Nazi while being Nazis themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem condemning it when conservatives do it.
Click to expand...


I do not, I don't claim to be a conservative or a liberal. I have been condemning the Neocons for years for their endless wars and I don't think it is right to teach religions in schools. That is just a few examples I can think of. I think we label each other to much. Labels are what divide people. We all should want liberty and freedom for all.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!




She didn't post racist, transphobic or any other kind of offensive remarks.....why don't you post exactly what she did post so we can all see what  lying sack of shit you are....you assholes keep saying things about what she posted instead of showing us what she posted....cause if you did, everyone would know you are lying sacks of shit......


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> I do not



That’s great. Let me know when you actually call them out for their cancel culture and compare them to Nazis for doing so.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!




Um....no.....

Kapernick is now richer than he ever was before.....the dixie chicks actually insulted their own audience and their audience stopped buying their music......at a time when their actual career was down the toilet...and jane fonda posed with the fucking communist vietnamese who butchered innocent men, women and children and had a long career after that...you dipshit....

And George Floyd wasn't murdered by anyone but himself....he took 2X the lethal dose of fentanyl....since he was a drug addict, and the cops had nothing to do with his death...he was dead before they showed up...


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That’s great. Let me know when you actually call them out for their cancel culture and compare them to Nazis for doing so.
Click to expand...


What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain? In fact the Conservatives have become more liberal and it seems the left has gone so far left that they went to the right. Almost a complete flip flop. That is just what it looks like to me. Democrats are definitely not what they were 30 years ago.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...



You are insane..........as are the other like you who lie about Carano......


----------



## Thoth001

2aguy said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um....no.....
> 
> Kapernick is now richer than he ever was before.....the dixie chicks actually insulted their own audience and their audience stopped buying their music......at a time when their actual career was down the toilet...and jane fonda posed with the fucking communist vietnamese who butchered innocent men, women and children and had a long career after that...you dipshit....
> 
> And George Floyd wasn't murdered by anyone but himself....he took 2X the lethal dose of fentanyl....since he was a drug addict, and the cops had nothing to do with his death...he was dead before they showed up...
Click to expand...


Those are great points!


----------



## 2aguy

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.




No....the people they targeted actually were communists supporting the Soviet Union at a time when they held large parts of Europe as slave states....you idiot.  They sided with Stalin, the guy who murdered 25 million innocent men, women and children....


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody insisted on firing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal.
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.
> 
> 
> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?
Click to expand...



The police are not murdering people you idiot....13 unarmed blacks were killed by police...at least 8 of them were in the process of attacking the police.......you moron.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?



See the OP.


----------



## 2aguy

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
Click to expand...


Are you guys fucking stupid......he was a lousy quarterback looking at the end of his career who used false allegations of racism to get rich....

The NFL offered him a private try out and he refused to show...you lying assholes...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it's funny that, while you seemingly support Disney for making their decision to avoid controversy, you're unwilling to accept that the NFL has treated Kaepernick in the same manner, and for the same reason...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, we DID need the controversy that Kapernick was stirring up.  We needed to have addressed police brutality and misconduct YEARS ago.  Instead, we let it fester until it exploded last year.
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with. It cannot get more unAmerican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yet that is EXACTLY what you guys did with Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda.
> 
> And you guys kept punishing them even after they were more or less vindicated by events.
Click to expand...



Moron....jane fonda had a long career after she sided with the mass murdering communists in Vietnam, you idiot....

She starred in films and was an exercise sensation...you dumb ass....she is the least canceled person in the world....

*1972 was when she posed with the mass murdering communist vietnamese...*

Now......tell us this is how she was canceled....you dumb ass...you don't even know what you are fucking talking about....

*Through her production company, IPC Films, she produced films that helped return her to star status. The 1977 comedy film Fun With Dick and Jane is generally considered her "comeback" picture. Critical reaction was mixed, but Fonda's comic performance was praised; Vincent Canby of The New York Times remarked, "I never have trouble remembering that Miss Fonda is a fine dramatic actress but I'm surprised all over again every time I see her do comedy with the mixture of comic intelligence and abandon she shows here."[33] Also in 1977, she portrayed the playwright Lillian Hellman in Julia, receiving positive reviews from critics. Gary Arnold of The Washington Post described her performance as "edgy, persuasive and intriguingly tensed-up," commenting further, "Irritable, intent and agonizingly self-conscious, Fonda suggests the internal conflicts gnawing at a talented woman who craves the self-assurance, resolve and wisdom she sees in figures like Julia and Hammett."[34] **For her performance, Fonda won her first BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, her second Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama, and received her third Best Actress Oscar nomination.[35]*

*During this period, Fonda announced that she would make only films that focused on important issues, and she generally stuck to her word. She turned down An Unmarried Woman because she felt the part was not relevant.

In 1978, Fonda was at a career peak after she won her second Best Actress Oscar for her role as Sally Hyde, a conflicted adulteress in Coming Home,

 the story of a disabled Vietnam War veteran's difficulty in re-entering civilian life.[35] Upon its release, the film was a popular success with audiences, and generally received good reviews; Ebert noted that her Sally Hyde was "the kind of character you somehow wouldn't expect the outspoken, intelligent Fonda to play," and Jonathan Rosenbaum of the San Diego Reader felt that Fonda was "a marvel to watch; what fascinates and involves me in her performance are the conscientious effort and thought that seem to go into every line reading and gesture, as if the question of what a captain's wife and former cheerleader was like became a source of endless curiosity and discovery for her."[36] Her performance also earned her a third Golden Globe Award for Best Actress as well, making this her second consecutive win. Also in 1978, she reunited with Alan J. Pakula to star in his post-modern Western drama Comes a Horseman as a hard-bitten rancher, and later took on a supporting role in California Suite, where she played a Manhattan workaholic and divorcee. Variety noted that she "demonstrates yet another aspect of her amazing range"[37] and Time Out New York remarked that she gave "another performance of unnerving sureness".[38]*

*She won her second BAFTA Award for Best Actress in 1979 with The China Syndrome,** about a cover-up of a vulnerability in a nuclear power plant. Cast alongside Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas, in one of his early roles, Fonda played a clever, ambitious television news reporter. Vincent Canby, writing for The New York Times, singled out Fonda's performance for praise: "The three stars are splendid, but maybe Miss Fonda is just a bit more than that. Her performance is not that of an actress in a star's role, but that of an actress creating a character that happens to be major within the film. She keeps getting better and better."[39] This role also earned her Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for Best Actress. *

*The same year, she starred in the western adventure-romance film The Electric Horseman with her frequent co-star, Robert Redford. Although the film received mixed reviews, The Electric Horseman was a box office success, becoming the eleventh highest-grossing film of 1979[40] after grossing a domestic total of nearly $62 million.[41]*

*In 1980, Fonda starred in 9 to 5 with Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton. The film was a huge critical and box office success, becoming the second highest-grossing release of the year.**[42] Fonda had long wanted to work with her father, hoping it would help their strained relationship.[35] She achieved this goal when she purchased the screen rights to the play On Golden Pond, specifically for her father and her.[43] The father-daughter rift depicted on screen closely paralleled the real-life relationship between the two Fondas; they eventually became the first father-daughter duo to earn Oscar nominations **(Jane earned her first Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination) f**or their roles in the same film. On Golden Pond, which also starred four-time Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn, brought Henry Fonda his only Academy Award for Best Actor, which Jane accepted on his behalf, as he was ill and could not leave home. He died five months later.[35]

Fonda continued to appear in feature films throughout the 1980s, **winning an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for The Dollmaker **(1984), and starring in the role of Dr. Martha Livingston in Agnes of God (1985). The following year, she played an alcoholic actress and murder suspect in the 1986 thriller The Morning After, opposite Jeff Bridges. In preparation for her role, Fonda modelled the character on the starlet Gail Russell, who, at 36, was found dead in her apartment, among empty liquor bottles. Writing for The New Yorker, Pauline Kael commended Fonda for giving "a raucous-voiced, down-in-the-dirty performance that has some of the charge of her Bree in Klute, back in 1971".[44] For her performance, she was nominated for yet another Academy Award for Best Actress. She ended the decade by appearing in Old Gringo. For many years Fonda took ballet class to keep fit, but after fracturing her foot while filming The China Syndrome, she was no longer able to participate. To compensate, she began participating in aerobics and strengthening exercises under the direction of Leni Cazden. The Leni Workout became the Jane Fonda Workout, which began a second career for her, continuing for many years.[35] This was considered one of the influences that started the fitness craze among baby boomers, then approaching middle age. *

*In 1982, Fonda released her first exercise video, titled Jane Fonda's Workout, inspired by her best-selling book, Jane Fonda's Workout Book. Jane Fonda's Workout became the highest selling home video of the next few years, selling over a million copies.*


* The video's release led many people to buy the then-new VCR in order to watch and perform the workout at home. The exercise videos were directed by Sidney Galanty, who produced the first video and 11 more after that. She would subsequently release 23 workout videos with the series selling a total of 17 million copies combined, more than any other exercise series.[35] She released five workout books and thirteen audio programs, through 1995. After a fifteen-year hiatus, she released two new fitness videos on DVD in 2010, aiming at an older audience.[45]









						Jane Fonda
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*
*It would help if you would do 5 seconds of research before you posted....you dumb ass...*


----------



## 2aguy

Lesh said:


> They cancelled the HELL out of Colin K




No.......his team said he sucked and they weren't going to play him...........you idiot......


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
Click to expand...


So, you don't have any yourself?


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
Click to expand...


So, you can't address the ones in the OP?


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
Click to expand...



I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....

kapernick sucked as a QB and was losing his spot........

the Dixie Chicks offended their actual audience and they were already on the downward slope of their career, looking to try to get traction by becoming political...just like Taylor Swift...also on the downward side of her career and trying to become relevant by pretending to care about politics...

and jane fonda?  Are you as stupid as joe?

Read the long list of how fonda wasn't canceled after she betrayed her country.....you idiot.  See post #64...

After her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists of Vietnam...

*Through her production company, IPC Films, she produced films that helped return her to star status. The 1977 comedy film Fun With Dick and Jane is generally considered her "comeback" picture. Critical reaction was mixed, but Fonda's comic performance was praised; Vincent Canby of The New York Times remarked, "I never have trouble remembering that Miss Fonda is a fine dramatic actress but I'm surprised all over again every time I see her do comedy with the mixture of comic intelligence and abandon she shows here."[33] Also in 1977, she portrayed the playwright Lillian Hellman in Julia, receiving positive reviews from critics. Gary Arnold of The Washington Post described her performance as "edgy, persuasive and intriguingly tensed-up," commenting further, "Irritable, intent and agonizingly self-conscious, Fonda suggests the internal conflicts gnawing at a talented woman who craves the self-assurance, resolve and wisdom she sees in figures like Julia and Hammett."[34] **For her performance, Fonda won her first BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, her second Golden Globe Award for Best Actress in a Motion Picture – Drama, and received her third Best Actress Oscar nomination.[35]

During this period, Fonda announced that she would make only films that focused on important issues, and she generally stuck to her word. She turned down An Unmarried Woman because she felt the part was not relevant.

In 1978, Fonda was at a career peak after she won her second Best Actress Oscar for her role as Sally Hyde, a conflicted adulteress in Coming Home,

the story of a disabled Vietnam War veteran's difficulty in re-entering civilian life.[35] Upon its release, the film was a popular success with audiences, and generally received good reviews; Ebert noted that her Sally Hyde was "the kind of character you somehow wouldn't expect the outspoken, intelligent Fonda to play," and Jonathan Rosenbaum of the San Diego Reader felt that Fonda was "a marvel to watch; what fascinates and involves me in her performance are the conscientious effort and thought that seem to go into every line reading and gesture, as if the question of what a captain's wife and former cheerleader was like became a source of endless curiosity and discovery for her."[36] Her performance also earned her a third Golden Globe Award for Best Actress as well, making this her second consecutive win. Also in 1978, she reunited with Alan J. Pakula to star in his post-modern Western drama Comes a Horseman as a hard-bitten rancher, and later took on a supporting role in California Suite, where she played a Manhattan workaholic and divorcee. Variety noted that she "demonstrates yet another aspect of her amazing range"[37] and Time Out New York remarked that she gave "another performance of unnerving sureness".[38]

She won her second BAFTA Award for Best Actress in 1979 with The China Syndrome, about a cover-up of a vulnerability in a nuclear power plant. Cast alongside Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas, in one of his early roles, Fonda played a clever, ambitious television news reporter. Vincent Canby, writing for The New York Times, singled out Fonda's performance for praise: "The three stars are splendid, but maybe Miss Fonda is just a bit more than that. Her performance is not that of an actress in a star's role, but that of an actress creating a character that happens to be major within the film. She keeps getting better and better."[39] This role also earned her Oscar and Golden Globe nominations for Best Actress.

The same year, she starred in the western adventure-romance film The Electric Horseman with her frequent co-star, Robert Redford. Although the film received mixed reviews, The Electric Horseman was a box office success, becoming the eleventh highest-grossing film of 1979[40] after grossing a domestic total of nearly $62 million.[41]

In 1980, Fonda starred in 9 to 5 with Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton. The film was a huge critical and box office success, becoming the second highest-grossing release of the year.[42] Fonda had long wanted to work with her father, hoping it would help their strained relationship.[35] She achieved this goal when she purchased the screen rights to the play On Golden Pond, specifically for her father and her.[43] The father-daughter rift depicted on screen closely paralleled the real-life relationship between the two Fondas; they eventually became the first father-daughter duo to earn Oscar nominations (Jane earned her first Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination) for their roles in the same film. On Golden Pond, which also starred four-time Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn, brought Henry Fonda his only Academy Award for Best Actor, which Jane accepted on his behalf, as he was ill and could not leave home. He died five months later.[35]

Fonda continued to appear in feature films throughout the 1980s, winning an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for The Dollmaker (1984), and starring in the role of Dr. Martha Livingston in Agnes of God (1985). The following year, she played an alcoholic actress and murder suspect in the 1986 thriller The Morning After, opposite Jeff Bridges. In preparation for her role, Fonda modelled the character on the starlet Gail Russell, who, at 36, was found dead in her apartment, among empty liquor bottles. Writing for The New Yorker, Pauline Kael commended Fonda for giving "a raucous-voiced, down-in-the-dirty performance that has some of the charge of her Bree in Klute, back in 1971".[44] For her performance, she was nominated for yet another Academy Award for Best Actress. She ended the decade by appearing in Old Gringo. For many years Fonda took ballet class to keep fit, but after fracturing her foot while filming The China Syndrome, she was no longer able to participate. To compensate, she began participating in aerobics and strengthening exercises under the direction of Leni Cazden. The Leni Workout became the Jane Fonda Workout, which began a second career for her, continuing for many years.[35] This was considered one of the influences that started the fitness craze among baby boomers, then approaching middle age.

In 1982, Fonda released her first exercise video, titled Jane Fonda's Workout, inspired by her best-selling book, Jane Fonda's Workout Book. Jane Fonda's Workout became the highest selling home video of the next few years, selling over a million copies.


The video's release led many people to buy the then-new VCR in order to watch and perform the workout at home. The exercise videos were directed by Sidney Galanty, who produced the first video and 11 more after that. She would subsequently release 23 workout videos with the series selling a total of 17 million copies combined, more than any other exercise series.[35] She released five workout books and thirteen audio programs, through 1995. After a fifteen-year hiatus, she released two new fitness videos on DVD in 2010, aiming at an older audience.[45]*


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

Nobody is afraid of them. What are they gonna do, beat you to death with fake fur?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!




You lying sack of shit...he left the team you fucking moron.....

*The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.
------

Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*









						Colin Kaepernick indeed opting out of 49ers contract
					

Colin Kaepernick's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport.




					www.nfl.com
				





*As part of the deal's reconfiguration,** Kaepernick traded $14.5 million in injury guarantees during the 2017 season for the opportunity to opt out of the deal early. *

*His decision saves the Niners his $14.5 million base salary in 2017 though he will still count nearly $2.5 million in dead money for the remainder of his signing bonus proration.*
*
From the moment Kaepernick and the Niners struck that agreement, the expectation was that Kaepernick would explore his options. Even if he elects to stay, the 49ers still would have the ability to release him with minimal salary cap repercussions.
*
*Even after the restructure, Kaepernick insisted he wasn't thinking about anything beyond the season. At the end of the year, he expressed gratitude toward 49ers CEO Jed York and executive vice president Paraag Marathe.*










						Kaepernick to opt out of contract, source says
					

Colin Kaepernick will be a free agent for the first time in his career as the quarterback has informed NFL teams that he will opt out of his contract.




					www.espn.com


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
Click to expand...


Why should I go through all the pages when you are the one that made a statement about it?


----------



## 9thIDdoc

OP left out John Kerry who-along with Jane Fonda-committed treason during time of war and deserved to be shot but were rewarded by the left.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> Why should I go through all the pages when you are the one that made a statement about it?



You don't need to go through all the pages.  I said refer to the OP.

It's rather telling that you're quick to compare liberals to Nazis regarding cancel culture but you don't do the same regarding conservatives and cancel culture.


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I go through all the pages when you are the one that made a statement about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to go through all the pages.  I said refer to the OP.
> 
> It's rather telling that you're quick to compare liberals to Nazis regarding cancel culture but you don't do the same regarding conservatives and cancel culture.
Click to expand...


Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years? The WOKE and Cancel Culture are just like Nazis this day in age. It don't take a rocket scientist to see that. And in actuality these people aren't really liberals. A real liberal was JFK. These people are nothing like liberals at all. If we are going to label them, they are Marxist and or Commies and or Nazis. It is tyranny.


----------



## Utilitarian

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.



What did she say that was racist?  Also, the beep boop thing was pretty funny.  If that's considered transphobic, that's pretty ridiculous, but then again, the LGBT lobby itself has gotten ridiculous in its own right.



JoeB131 said:


> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.



All Kaepernick proved was that he did it for the money.  After he and his girlfriend sabotaged several attempts to hire him, he won an out of court settlement, and then got a massive endorsement deal from Nike, it was clear he could make more money outside of football with no risk of injury.  He played the woke game quite well.  He apparently even has idiots that still view him as a victim as well.

Of course, his wokeness doesn't extend to the fact that Nike employs Uighur slave labor, but I know your opinion on that is that it doesn't matter.  Only American lives matter, eh?



JoeB131 said:


> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!



Fonda's meeting with POWs and the North Vietnamese was a propaganda move for that regime.  Whether she intended to aid their cause or not, her meeting ultimately served their cause.  Yes, the Vietnam War was a mistake, but her actions were naive at best and duplicitous at worst.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.

 You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.

You moron.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?



Again, see the OP.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...



I addressed the exact point...but try to hide that...you idiot...


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...



Shit bird.....I addressed kapernick, the dixie chicks and jane fonda......with facts....and you can't deny those facts, you idiot....


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...


Temper, temper Jerry.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the exact point...but try to hide that...you idiot...
Click to expand...


You dumb ass, I wasn't asking for your wrong opinions, was I?  You retard.

You moron.  

You dumb ass.


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
Click to expand...


So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temper, temper Jerry.
Click to expand...


I respond in kind.  Rather telling that you only see the one side.  Just like with cancel culture.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
Click to expand...


So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.  

You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> Shit bird.....I addressed kapernick, the dixie chicks and jane fonda......with facts....and you can't deny those facts, you idiot....



You dumb fuck, I didn't ask you for your stupid opinions, did I? 

You retard. 

What part of that did you not understand?  You stupid fuck.

You moron.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit bird.....I addressed kapernick, the dixie chicks and jane fonda......with facts....and you can't deny those facts, you idiot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck, I didn't ask you for your stupid opinions, did I?
> 
> You retard.
> 
> What part of that did you not understand?  You stupid fuck.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...



I show you are an idiot by directly addressing the op....which you demanded of the other poster.....I did it with facts, and you have nothing....


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> I show you are an idiot by directly addressing the op....which you demanded of the other poster.....I did it with facts, and you have nothing....



You shit fuck.

I don't care what you think.   You retard.

I didn't ask for your input.  You dumbass. 

Your ideas are stupid and you're stupid.  You retard.

You moron.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I show you are an idiot by directly addressing the op....which you demanded of the other poster.....I did it with facts, and you have nothing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shit fuck.
> 
> I don't care what you think.   You retard.
> 
> You dumbass.  Your ideas are stupid and you're stupid.  You retard.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...



Wow....good response......you really got me there.........

Now try to reply to the actual facts about kap, the chicks and hanoi jane...


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> Wow....good response......you really got me there.........
> 
> Now try to reply to the actual facts about kap, the chicks and hanoi jane...



You shit bird.  

I thought I made myself clear last time.  You retard.

You moron.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!




Hey dumb ass...remember when I asked you to do at least 5 seconds of research...

The Dixie Chicks changed their name......you moron.....why?  Because of left wing cancel culture and their fear of that left wing cancel culture....you idiot...

*On June 25, 2020, the band changed their name to the Chicks, dropping the word "Dixie",[98] which referenced the American Mason–Dixon line that separated the free Northern and slave-owning Southern states. The name change followed criticism that the word had connotations of American slavery.[98][99] The band said they had picked "that stupid name" as teenagers, and had wanted to change it for years; they said they were moved to change it when they saw the Confederate flag described as "the Dixie Swastika" on social media in June 2020.[100]









						The Chicks
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				



*
*So....every point joe made in the OP has been shown to be really stupid......and easily proven wrong and dumb......*


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....good response......you really got me there.........
> 
> Now try to reply to the actual facts about kap, the chicks and hanoi jane...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shit bird.
> 
> I thought I made myself clear last time.  You retard.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...



Even better.....keep it up....you really have me hurting with those posts........ouch.....really ouch....


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temper, temper Jerry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond in kind.  Rather telling that you only see the one side.  Just like with cancel culture.
Click to expand...


There is a cancel culture and censorship. I myself have been censored on many social media platforms for going against the agenda.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> Even better.....keep it up....you really have me hurting with those posts........ouch.....really ouch....



Haha, you ready to talk like an adult yet?  I'm ready when you are.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> There is a cancel culture and censorship. I myself have been censored on many social media platforms for going against the agenda.



That's nice.  Let me know when you decide to call out cancel culture from the right.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a cancel culture and censorship. I myself have been censored on many social media platforms for going against the agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice.  Let me know when you decide to call out cancel culture from the right.
Click to expand...



What cancel culture from the Right...please........all of the lives destroyed by assholes like you would like to know...


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> What cancel culture from the Right...please........all of the lives destroyed by assholes like you would like to know...



You retard.

Wasn't directed at you, now was it?  You dumb fuck.  You moron.


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.
> 
> You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...


I could give you one that Conservatives did off the top of my head. Back in the 2,000's after 911. The Conservatives were censoring any kind of talk about 911 and any kind of talk about it being an inside job. Bill O'reilly and those other assclowns pissed me off during those times for not looking at the facts of 911. And much of it is still censored to this day to talk about.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.
> 
> You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could give you one that Conservatives did off the top of my head. Back in the 2,000's after 911. The Conservatives were censoring any kind of talk about 911 and any kind of talk about it being an inside job. Bill O'reilly and those other assclowns pissed me off during those times for not looking at the facts of 911. And much of it is still censored to this day to talk about.
Click to expand...


Also the ones in the OP that you refuse to comment on.  Weird that you can't call them Nazis for that.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.
> 
> You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could give you one that Conservatives did off the top of my head. Back in the 2,000's after 911. The Conservatives were censoring any kind of talk about 911 and any kind of talk about it being an inside job. Bill O'reilly and those other assclowns pissed me off during those times for not looking at the facts of 911. And much of it is still censored to this day to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also the ones in the OP that you refuse to comment on.  Weird that you can't call them Nazis for that.
Click to expand...



You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!




See post #64...you dumb ass...


----------



## Thoth001

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.
> 
> You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could give you one that Conservatives did off the top of my head. Back in the 2,000's after 911. The Conservatives were censoring any kind of talk about 911 and any kind of talk about it being an inside job. Bill O'reilly and those other assclowns pissed me off during those times for not looking at the facts of 911. And much of it is still censored to this day to talk about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also the ones in the OP that you refuse to comment on.  Weird that you can't call them Nazis for that.
Click to expand...


I already debated with the OP yesterday. Trump got called a Nazi enough as it is. It was the daily Trump Nazi show from CNN for 4 years. I would label the Bush's as Nazis, and in fact Prescott Bush helped to fund the Nazis.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?



Yup, the ones in the OP.

Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?


----------



## XponentialChaos

Thoth001 said:


> I already debated with the OP yesterday. Trump got called a Nazi enough as it is. It was the daily Trump Nazi show from CNN for 4 years. I would label the Bush's as Nazis, and in fact Prescott Bush helped to fund the Nazis.



And yet you still don't call out conservatives as Nazis for cancel culture.  Proving my point.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
Click to expand...



No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...

Now tell us about jane fonda......


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated with the OP yesterday. Trump got called a Nazi enough as it is. It was the daily Trump Nazi show from CNN for 4 years. I would label the Bush's as Nazis, and in fact Prescott Bush helped to fund the Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you still don't call out conservatives as Nazis for cancel culture.  Proving my point.
Click to expand...



Again...what cancel culture?   American Conservatives can't be nazis, you dumb ass....national socialists are socialists....American conservatives are the exact opposite....


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
Click to expand...


You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.

You stupid fuck.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
Click to expand...



He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already debated with the OP yesterday. Trump got called a Nazi enough as it is. It was the daily Trump Nazi show from CNN for 4 years. I would label the Bush's as Nazis, and in fact Prescott Bush helped to fund the Nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet you still don't call out conservatives as Nazis for cancel culture.  Proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again...what cancel culture?   American Conservatives can't be nazis, you dumb ass....national socialists are socialists....American conservatives are the exact opposite....
Click to expand...


You dumb ass.

You moron.  This post wasn't directed to you, was it?  You shit fuck.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
Click to expand...


You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.

How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
Click to expand...



From post #70

*The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
*------

Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From post #70
> 
> *The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
> *------
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*
Click to expand...


You stupid fuck.

That still doesn't address what I said, does it?  You stupid shit fuck retard.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From post #70
> 
> *The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
> *------
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> That still doesn't address what I said, does it?  You stupid shit fuck retard.
Click to expand...



He was  offered a chance to try out in a private session and he fucking refused...you moron....he is now the face of the racist blm movement...and has made a shit ton of money from his racism and anti-Americanism.....that isn't being canceled you dumb ass....


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> He was  offered a chance to try out in a private session and he fucking refused...you moron....he is now the face of the racist blm movement...and has made a shit ton of money from his racism and anti-Americanism.....that isn't being canceled you dumb ass....



You fucking retard.

Players in the NFL do this all the time.  You moron dumb fuck stupid retard.

You idiot.

You dumb ass.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From post #70
> 
> *The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
> *------
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> That still doesn't address what I said, does it?  You stupid shit fuck retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was  offered a chance to try out in a private session and he fucking refused...you moron....he is now the face of the racist blm movement...and has made a shit ton of money from his racism and anti-Americanism.....that isn't being canceled you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucking retard.
> 
> Players in the NFL do this all the time.  You moron dumb fuck stupid retard.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> You dumb ass.
Click to expand...



Exactly you dense moron............he wan't canceled.......he was praised by assholes like you and made a fortune with his racism and anti-Americanism.....more than he had with his 17 million dollar contract that he walked away from....


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From post #70
> 
> *The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
> *------
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> That still doesn't address what I said, does it?  You stupid shit fuck retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was  offered a chance to try out in a private session and he fucking refused...you moron....he is now the face of the racist blm movement...and has made a shit ton of money from his racism and anti-Americanism.....that isn't being canceled you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucking retard.
> 
> Players in the NFL do this all the time.  You moron dumb fuck stupid retard.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> You dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly you dense moron............he wan't canceled.......he was praised by assholes like you and made a fortune with his racism and anti-Americanism.....more than he had with his 17 million dollar contract that he walked away from....
Click to expand...


You dumbfuck retard, you're completely missing the point.  You moron.  You dumb fuck.

He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.

To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.

So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.

You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the ones in the OP, kapernick, who walked out on his contract, the dixie chicks who insulted their own fans, and hanoi jane, whose list of wealth, awards and fame after her 1972 photo with the mass murdering communists I liste in Post #64?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the ones in the OP.
> 
> Let's start with Kaepernick.  Are you going to deny that he faced backlash for kneeling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No......but he wasn't canceled.....he walked away from his contract you moron.....and now is the face of the racist blm movement.......he was also given a private try out for the other teams which he refused to participate in...........he left the NFL because he knew his days were done.....you idiot...
> 
> Now tell us about jane fonda......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  People get new contracts in the NFL all the time.  You retard.
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He had a contract for 17 million dollars and he walked away from it.....you idiot........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumb fuck.  That didn't address my point, did it?  You moron.  You stupid fuck.  You retard.
> 
> How about you try addressing what I say this time, you illiterate moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From post #70
> 
> *The quarterback's new agents told all 32 teams on Tuesday that he will be opting out of his contract with the 49ers, sources told NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport. Kaepernick was due $16.9 million in salary and bonuses in 2017. The 49ers confirmed **Kaepernick's decision to opt out on Friday.*
> *------
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You stupid fuck.
> 
> That still doesn't address what I said, does it?  You stupid shit fuck retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was  offered a chance to try out in a private session and he fucking refused...you moron....he is now the face of the racist blm movement...and has made a shit ton of money from his racism and anti-Americanism.....that isn't being canceled you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucking retard.
> 
> Players in the NFL do this all the time.  You moron dumb fuck stupid retard.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> You dumb ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly you dense moron............he wan't canceled.......he was praised by assholes like you and made a fortune with his racism and anti-Americanism.....more than he had with his 17 million dollar contract that he walked away from....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You dumbfuck retard, you're completely missing the point.  You moron.  You dumb fuck.
Click to expand...



You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....

That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.



You still don't get it because you're retarded. 

He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.

To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.

So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.

You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
Click to expand...



You are an idiot.....I have shown you over and over that the failed quaterback wasn't canceled, in fact, he was the exact opposite of canceled......you idiot.


----------



## XponentialChaos

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot.....I have shown you over and over that the failed quaterback wasn't canceled, in fact, he was the exact opposite of canceled......you idiot.



You dumb fuck, he was clearly cancelled.  I've explained this to you several times and you're too stupid to get it because you're a fucking shit fuck.  You moron.

You dumbass.


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> Maybe you should actually look at the science and stop believing what the lying MSM tells you.
> 
> *FACE MASKS DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD OF AIRBORNE PATHOGENS*



Yeah, I'll take the word of medical professionals over Trump Supporters or some Mannish Woman on a TV show about space wizards... Oh, wait, she's not on that show anymore.


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should actually look at the science and stop believing what the lying MSM tells you.
> 
> *FACE MASKS DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD OF AIRBORNE PATHOGENS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll take the word of medical professionals over Trump Supporters or some Mannish Woman on a TV show about space wizards... Oh, wait, she's not on that show anymore.
Click to expand...


That is a very delusional way of thinking but suit yourself. You can continue being a sheeple for all I care. Enjoy your face diaper and making yourself sickly. I hope the cough from it don't kill you. When people are part of the COVID cult, it is hard for them to think logically.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Um....no.....
> 
> Kapernick is now richer than he ever was before.....



Only after he was largely vindicated by the BLM demonstrations.  Then the NFL and all the other big corporations that cancelled him were totally down to show solidarity with the black community so please don't burn our stuff.  



2aguy said:


> .....the dixie chicks actually insulted their own audience and their audience stopped buying their music......at a time when their actual career was down the toilet...



No, they were "cancelled" when they said they were embarrassed that Geo. W. Bush was President.  They were at the top of their game at that point.  Turns out... they were right.  Bush had no business being President. 

Of course Bush only killed 5000 Americans.  Trump was like, "Hold my beer". 



2aguy said:


> and jane fonda posed with the fucking communist vietnamese who butchered innocent men, women and children and had a long career after that...you dipshit....



First, the only people butchering innocent Vietnamese was the US, in an unjust and unprovoked war.  Second, take a look at her IMDB page.   Her career pretty much ends in 1981, which is the point where producers realized she was toxic due to her anti-war activity.  




2aguy said:


> And George Floyd wasn't murdered by anyone but himself....he took 2X the lethal dose of fentanyl....since he was a drug addict, and the cops had nothing to do with his death...he was dead before they showed up...



Not what the coroner and DA ruled.   they ruled it was a homicide.  I guess Chauven is going to feel pretty stupid for spending years in jail for killing a dead man.


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain? In fact the Conservatives have become more liberal and it seems the left has gone so far left that they went to the right. Almost a complete flip flop. That is just what it looks like to me. Democrats are definitely not what they were 30 years ago.



Really?  Let's look at that.  

Let's look at how the Republicans feel about their past nominees? 

Romney- Hate him.
McCain - Hate him. 
George W. Bush- Don't like him too much, he wanted to give Amnesty to Mexicans. 
Dole - Hate him.
Bush Sr.  - don't like him that much.  

The only guy you are still fond of is Reagan, and that's only because you pretend he wasn't actually as moderate as he was.  

The party of family values now makes excuses for a man who has sex with porn stars. 
The party of National Security is praising pulling out of the Middle East and NATO. 
The Party of Small Government supported a guy who increased the Deficit by 8 Trillion dollars and put EVERYONE on the dole. 
The party of law and order supported a criminal mob looting the capitol. 

Donald Trump is the Lizard Brain of the REpublican Party.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> The police are not murdering people you idiot....13 unarmed blacks were killed by police...at least 8 of them were in the process of attacking the police.......you moron.



Okay, you tell yourself that.  

Laquan McDonald
Tamir Rice
George Floyd
Bronna Taylor
Walter Scott
Michael Brown
Botham Jean
etc. 
etc.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


1) what repeated  racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme?  Can you provide them? 
2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him.  He was fired by SF 49ers.   He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season.  He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16.  His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.
3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this:  "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."  
4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops.  She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured.  In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.


----------



## JoeB131

Utilitarian said:


> What did she say that was racist? Also, the beep boop thing was pretty funny. If that's considered transphobic, that's pretty ridiculous, but then again, the LGBT lobby itself has gotten ridiculous in its own right.



Demeaning people isn't funny, guy.  



Utilitarian said:


> All Kaepernick proved was that he did it for the money. After he and his girlfriend sabotaged several attempts to hire him, he won an out of court settlement, and then got a massive endorsement deal from Nike, it was clear he could make more money outside of football with no risk of injury. He played the woke game quite well. He apparently even has idiots that still view him as a victim as well.



Actually, the NFL settled out of court, admitting pretty much that they HAD blackballed him. 



Utilitarian said:


> Of course, his wokeness doesn't extend to the fact that Nike employs Uighur slave labor, but I know your opinion on that is that it doesn't matter. Only American lives matter, eh?



We've been running around the world killing Muslim Terrorists for the last 30 years, why are we giving China shit for killing Muslim terrorists in their own country?  Also, given our use of slave labor in the Prison-Industrial Complex in this country, we don't have a lot of room to talk.   America needs to clean up her own act before we start criticizing anyone else. 



Utilitarian said:


> Fonda's meeting with POWs and the North Vietnamese was a propaganda move for that regime. Whether she intended to aid their cause or not, her meeting ultimately served their cause. Yes, the Vietnam War was a mistake, but her actions were naive at best and duplicitous at worst.



By Propaganda, you mean, "Showing Americans what was actually going on there."  

We dropped more bombs on North Vietnam than we did on Germany and Japan combined in World War II. 

Jane Fonda didn't lie to us about Vietnam. Our government did.  Hey, you can even take the cheap shot and point out a Democrat started it.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Moron....jane fonda had a long career after she sided with the mass murdering communists in Vietnam, you idiot....
> 
> She starred in films and was an exercise sensation...you dumb ass....she is the least canceled person in the world....
> 
> *1972 was when she posed with the mass murdering communist vietnamese...*
> 
> Now......tell us this is how she was canceled....you dumb ass...you don't even know what you are fucking talking about....



Again, looking at her IMDB page, her career was pretty much over by 1985, that's the point.  She became box office poison, and they stopped casting her.  Most of the movies you cite were done by her own production company.  

This is something you like to do, spooge the page with walls of text... but the reality is, Jane Fonda paid a professional price for her advocacy... and she's a much better Actress than Gina Carano, someone who plays third to a Puppet and a guy with a bucket on his head.


----------



## Thoth001

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain? In fact the Conservatives have become more liberal and it seems the left has gone so far left that they went to the right. Almost a complete flip flop. That is just what it looks like to me. Democrats are definitely not what they were 30 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's look at that.
> 
> Let's look at how the Republicans feel about their past nominees?
> 
> Romney- Hate him.
> McCain - Hate him.
> George W. Bush- Don't like him too much, he wanted to give Amnesty to Mexicans.
> Dole - Hate him.
> Bush Sr.  - don't like him that much.
> 
> The only guy you are still fond of is Reagan, and that's only because you pretend he wasn't actually as moderate as he was.
> 
> The party of family values now makes excuses for a man who has sex with porn stars.
> The party of National Security is praising pulling out of the Middle East and NATO.
> The Party of Small Government supported a guy who increased the Deficit by 8 Trillion dollars and put EVERYONE on the dole.
> The party of law and order supported a criminal mob looting the capitol.
> 
> Donald Trump is the Lizard Brain of the REpublican Party.
Click to expand...


I didn't like Reagan much either. Although they did shoot at him, so he must have been doing something right to piss them off.

I really could care less about the Repulicon party or the Democrypt party. They are all corrupt. I would develop a whole new party. They are all complicate in the destruction of the Republic.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> 1) what repeated racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme? Can you provide them?





struth said:


> I provided a link earlier in the thread...  all this "nuh-uh" shit is tiresome.
> 
> 2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him. He was fired by SF 49ers. He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season. He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16. His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.



He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.  

Come on, the Chicago Bears could have used a QB of his caliber, instead of Trubinsky, who keeps fucking up and still has a job.  But he didn't take a knee... at least not until it was fashionable.  



struth said:


> 3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."



They didn't feel part of the country scene because of the backlash against them by the inbred morons who listen to country music turned on them. 

Just look at their discography.  









						The Chicks discography - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Whoops.  They crashed and burned after 2003.  



struth said:


> 4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops. She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured. In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.



She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.  

Um. Yeah. It was horrible that the Vietnamese were torturing the people who were carpet bombing them.  Everyone involved was a victim while the people in Washington and the big board rooms of corporations that profited from "Forever War" were exempt.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Why?



Because she was a traitorous bitch...



> Frankly, she was completely in the right.  The Vietnamese were no threat to us.   It really wasn't out business to get in the middle of their civil war, and, oh, yeah, the government routinely lied to us about what was going on over there.



She sided with the enemy, as are you, apparently. You're a traitorous little bitch, too...



> And boycotted the NFL until he was fired.   Did you all forget that part?



I didn't boycott anything, dipshit.

Wanna' try again?



> Again, more revisionist history.



How so?



> It wasn't because they were 'liberal', it was because they questioned George W. Bush's war in Iraq.   I know you guys forgot you all enthusiastically supported that because the one thing you can say about Trump is he didnt' start any new wars.



There it is. I knew you were too fucking stupid to get through a thread without mentioning Trump. He's got nothing to do with this conversation, dumbfuck.

I never said they shouldn't have the right to say what they said. So what's your beef?  I'm partisan because I don't care for their music and won't buy it? Am I a racist because I don't buy Famous Amos cookies, too?


----------



## JoeB131

Thoth001 said:


> I didn't like Reagan much either. Although they did shoot at him, so he must have been doing something right to piss them off.



Who is "they"? He was shot by a crazy person who didn't realize Jody Foster was a lesbian.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> She sided with the enemy, as are you, apparently. You're a traitorous little bitch, too...



Why were the Vietnamese "the enemy", exactly?   Because they didn't want the kind of government that we thought they should have?   We inflicted untold misery on those people fighting a war that our own military leaders concluded was unwinnable.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Hey dumb ass...remember when I asked you to do at least 5 seconds of research...
> 
> The Dixie Chicks changed their name......you moron.....why? Because of left wing cancel culture and their fear of that left wing cancel culture....you idiot...



Um. Yeah.   so what's your point.  They realized that it wasn't a good look for them...  

Boy, you guys are pretty desperate to point out that we grabbed this club out of your hand and are beating you senseless with it.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.



But here's the point. There are a lot of mediocre QB's who still have jobs.. Like Trubinsky. 

The fact was, the NFL DID conspire not to sign him because of the Kneeling thing.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.



He got let go because he was toxic. He wasn't rehired because teams decided they didn't want such a divisive piece of shit on their roster...

3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."
[/QUOTE]

Maybe, had they kept their mouths shut, and not been critical of their President on foreign shores, they'd have been treated better...



> She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.



Fuck her. I hope she dies.

Those fighting in Vietnam didn't agree with her, and it wasn't only "poor people" who went over there. My uncle had a net worth of nearly $40 million in 1968, yet my cousin Paul still went to Vietnam and fought.

Don't be so myopic. It makes you look stupid...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> But here's the point. There are a lot of mediocre QB's who still have jobs.. Like Trubinsky.



And, last I checked, Trubinsky wasn't tritting around making an asinine spectacle of himself. Teams in the NFL decided they didn't want to deal with such an asshole...



> The fact was, the NFL DID conspire not to sign him because of the Kneeling thing.



Proof?

Anything?

No?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> She sided with the enemy, as are you, apparently. You're a traitorous little bitch, too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were the Vietnamese "the enemy", exactly?   Because they didn't want the kind of government that we thought they should have?   We inflicted untold misery on those people fighting a war that our own military leaders concluded was unwinnable.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter "why", they were, plain and simple. Fonda's decision to pal around with the Vietnamese was a disgusting affront to our men and women in uniform. She should've been tried and executed...


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) what repeated racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme? Can you provide them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link earlier in the thread...  all this "nuh-uh" shit is tiresome.
> 
> 2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him. He was fired by SF 49ers. He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season. He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16. His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.
> 
> Come on, the Chicago Bears could have used a QB of his caliber, instead of Trubinsky, who keeps fucking up and still has a job.  But he didn't take a knee... at least not until it was fashionable.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't feel part of the country scene because of the backlash against them by the inbred morons who listen to country music turned on them.
> 
> Just look at their discography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chicks discography - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.  They crashed and burned after 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops. She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured. In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.
> 
> Um. Yeah. It was horrible that the Vietnamese were torturing the people who were carpet bombing them.  Everyone involved was a victim while the people in Washington and the big board rooms of corporations that profited from "Forever War" were exempt.
Click to expand...

1) can you provide it again?  
2)SF didn't blackball him....his stats supported their decision...he was coming off 3 freaking surgeries.....nobody wanted him
3) wow...inbred people listen to Garth Brooks, and country artist?   I don't disagree that some of the backlash was too much....but they weren't fired by their label.  I think it would have been drastically different had they simply said they don't support the war, but the additional attack on the President and doing it overseas made the comment worse.  Moreover, there is no right or wrong on being supportive of the war effort or not.  

and it's not like the rock genre welcomed the Dixie Chicks....since then they have been welcomed back, they just came out with a new album, they have performed at the CMAs, been on tour with other country artist, and lead world tours.
4) there is no defending Fonda's actions....no, no serviceman would have set on a anti-air craft weapon targeting their fellow servicemen, and partied with the enemy.   Fonda didn't get backlash for being against the war, she got backlash for that photo and that trip....rightly so.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He got let go because he was toxic. He wasn't rehired because teams decided they didn't want such a divisive piece of shit on their roster...



The same reason why Disney fired Gina Carano.  




Canon Shooter said:


> Maybe, had they kept their mouths shut, and not been critical of their President on foreign shores, they'd have been treated better...



Last time I checked, Presidents aren't royalty.... So you are going to shut the fuck up about PRESIDENT Biden for the next four years, right? 



Canon Shooter said:


> Fuck her. I hope she dies.
> 
> Those fighting in Vietnam didn't agree with her, and it wasn't only "poor people" who went over there. My uncle had a net worth of nearly $40 million in 1968, yet my cousin Paul still went to Vietnam and fought.
> 
> Don't be so myopic. It makes you look stupid...



Really? What was his MOS.  I'm guessing it wasn't 11B.   

Check this out, this is the high regard our leaders had for the people they sent over there. 





__





						Project 100,000 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




*Project 100,000* (also *McNamara's 100,000*), also known as _McNamara's Folly_, _McNamara's Morons_ and _McNamara's Misfits_,[1][2] was a controversial 1960s program by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit soldiers who would previously have been below military mental or medical standards. Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 to meet the escalating manpower requirements of the American government's involvement in the Vietnam War. Inductees of the project died at higher rates[1] than other Americans serving in Vietnam and following their service had lower incomes and higher rates of divorce than their non-veteran counterparts.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the point. There are a lot of mediocre QB's who still have jobs.. Like Trubinsky.
> 
> The fact was, the NFL DID conspire not to sign him because of the Kneeling thing.
Click to expand...

He's still the starter for the Bears, and isn't coming off three surgeries...and still UNDER contract!   We'll see what happens after this season when he goes free-agent

Can you show us some sort of evidence there was an agreement between all the football teams not to hire CK?


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> 1) can you provide it again?



Nope. I don't do links unless I feel like it. It's usually wasted, because you guys either pretend  you didn't see them or scream "Fake News" 



struth said:


> 2)SF didn't blackball him....his stats supported their decision...he was coming off 3 freaking surgeries.....nobody wanted him



Except- again, the NFL settled his suit over their blackballing him.  



struth said:


> 3) wow...inbred people listen to Garth Brooks, and country artist? I don't disagree that some of the backlash was too much....but they weren't fired by their label. I think it would have been drastically different had they simply said they don't support the war, but the additional attack on the President and doing it overseas made the comment worse. Moreover, there is no right or wrong on being supportive of the war effort or not.



No, they weren't fired by their label, but they were "cancelled" by their fans.  This is the whole point of Cancel Culture.  

And, yes, the war was wrong.  We attacked a country over weapons that didn't exist.  Then we failed to secure it and allowed it to fall into chaos.  



struth said:


> 4) there is no defending Fonda's actions....no, no serviceman would have set on a anti-air craft weapon targeting their fellow servicemen, and partied with the enemy. Fonda didn't get backlash for being against the war, she got backlash for that photo and that trip....rightly so.



I think a lot of servicemen were happy that people spoke up against the war...  The fact that we ended the draft after that war because everyone knew how stupid it was says a lot.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> He's still the starter for the Bears, and isn't coming off three surgeries...and still UNDER contract! We'll see what happens after this season when he goes free-agent
> 
> Can you show us some sort of evidence there was an agreement between all the football teams not to hire CK?



Again, I don't do links.  Google is your friend.  









						Colin Kaepernick reaches settlement in national anthem kneeling collusion case against NFL
					

The NFL and lawyers for players Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid jointly announced Friday that they have settled a complaint of collusion by the players, who claimed football team owners blackballed them because they had protested by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.  In a joint...




					www.cnbc.com
				






The NFL and lawyers for players Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid jointly announced Friday that they have settled a complaint of collusion by the players, who claimed football team owners blackballed them because they had protested by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.
In a joint statement, the parties said: “For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL. As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party.”


The NFL admitted guilt.  Done.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) can you provide it again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I don't do links unless I feel like it. It's usually wasted, because you guys either pretend  you didn't see them or scream "Fake News"
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2)SF didn't blackball him....his stats supported their decision...he was coming off 3 freaking surgeries.....nobody wanted him
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except- again, the NFL settled his suit over their blackballing him.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) wow...inbred people listen to Garth Brooks, and country artist? I don't disagree that some of the backlash was too much....but they weren't fired by their label. I think it would have been drastically different had they simply said they don't support the war, but the additional attack on the President and doing it overseas made the comment worse. Moreover, there is no right or wrong on being supportive of the war effort or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they weren't fired by their label, but they were "cancelled" by their fans.  This is the whole point of Cancel Culture.
> 
> And, yes, the war was wrong.  We attacked a country over weapons that didn't exist.  Then we failed to secure it and allowed it to fall into chaos.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) there is no defending Fonda's actions....no, no serviceman would have set on a anti-air craft weapon targeting their fellow servicemen, and partied with the enemy. Fonda didn't get backlash for being against the war, she got backlash for that photo and that trip....rightly so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think a lot of servicemen were happy that people spoke up against the war...  The fact that we ended the draft after that war because everyone knew how stupid it was says a lot.
Click to expand...

1) I'll believe her own tweets..you said there were tweets
2) Seattle worked him out, Baltimore did too...in 2017...Baltimore was going to offer him, but according to Ray Lewis  Kaepernick's girlfriend made comparisons of their owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner; so they didn't.....that sort of stuff is gonna cost you a job.   Actually the NFL never admitted such a thing, they fought the case at first, and then decided to reach some sort of agreement, and he withdrew his lawsuit.
3) No, people just didn't want to buy their music for a time period, they later came back around.   The cancel culture is about ending something.....ie killing books, destroying businesses, etc...the Dixie Chicks are still around, and popular.
4) Fonda was a horrible choice for you....she gave aid and comfort to the people killing Americans.  There is away to be against the war, and not do what she did.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> 2) Seattle worked him out, Baltimore did too...in 2017...Baltimore was going to offer him, but according to Ray Lewis Kaepernick's girlfriend made comparisons of their owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner; so they didn't.....that sort of stuff is gonna cost you a job. Actually the NFL never admitted such a thing, they fought the case at first, and then decided to reach some sort of agreement, and he withdrew his lawsuit.



Point is, they settled and gave away money... probably because they knew when they started reading emails it wasn't going to be pretty. 



struth said:


> 3) No, people just didn't want to buy their music for a time period, they later came back around. The cancel culture is about ending something.....ie killing books, destroying businesses, etc...the Dixie Chicks are still around, and popular.



Good point.   Then there is no cancel culture, because no one is truly cancelled.  Gina will get jobs other places and her body of work will still be out there.   

The Chicks made kind of a comeback only because everyone now kind of realizes that the Iraq war WAS stupid.  
But they still paid a price for it. 



struth said:


> 4) Fonda was a horrible choice for you....she gave aid and comfort to the people killing Americans. There is away to be against the war, and not do what she did.



Um, yeah.. Here's the thing.  We all realized the war was a stupid idea by 1968. Nixon got elected by promising that he had a secret plan to end the war. (It was so secret even he didn't know what it was.)  Yet we were still fighting it in 1973.  The war itself didn't end until 1975, when the South Vietnamese realized their leaders were robbing them blind. 

So the premise that "she was right, but the way she went about it was wrong" just doesn't hold water.  Lots of people were against the war, but we were still bombing these people mercilessly, we were still sending over poor kids to fight it because they couldn't get an exemption.  Soldiers were routinely fragging their officers because the whole thing had become senseless.  

But let's be mad at Jane because she got her picture taken sitting on an anti-aircraft gun.  Let's still be mad at her 50 years later!!!!


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's still the starter for the Bears, and isn't coming off three surgeries...and still UNDER contract! We'll see what happens after this season when he goes free-agent
> 
> Can you show us some sort of evidence there was an agreement between all the football teams not to hire CK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I don't do links.  Google is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Kaepernick reaches settlement in national anthem kneeling collusion case against NFL
> 
> 
> The NFL and lawyers for players Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid jointly announced Friday that they have settled a complaint of collusion by the players, who claimed football team owners blackballed them because they had protested by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.  In a joint...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The NFL and lawyers for players Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid jointly announced Friday that they have settled a complaint of collusion by the players, who claimed football team owners blackballed them because they had protested by kneeling during the playing of the national anthem.
> In a joint statement, the parties said: “For the past several months, counsel for Mr. Kaepernick and Mr. Reid have engaged in an ongoing dialogue with representatives of the NFL. As a result of those discussions, the parties have decided to resolve the pending grievances. The resolution of this matter is subject to a confidentiality agreement so there will be no further comment by any party.”
> 
> 
> The NFL admitted guilt.  Done.
Click to expand...

You literally quoted nothing where they admitted guilt, and nothing was done in Court.   I also highlighted, at least two teams that entertained offering him a spot.  Seattle worked him out, and passed, and Baltimore was going to offer him a spot until the comments from his gf and the owner became public.

and Eric Reid, wasn't blackbailed......he played until 2019!  NFL, NFLPA: Reid not targeted for drug tests

"There is no evidence of targeting or any other impropriety with respect to his selection for testing," the two organizations said in a joint statement released Wednesday.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Seattle worked him out, Baltimore did too...in 2017...Baltimore was going to offer him, but according to Ray Lewis Kaepernick's girlfriend made comparisons of their owner Steve Bisciotti to a slave owner; so they didn't.....that sort of stuff is gonna cost you a job. Actually the NFL never admitted such a thing, they fought the case at first, and then decided to reach some sort of agreement, and he withdrew his lawsuit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, they settled and gave away money... probably because they knew when they started reading emails it wasn't going to be pretty.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) No, people just didn't want to buy their music for a time period, they later came back around. The cancel culture is about ending something.....ie killing books, destroying businesses, etc...the Dixie Chicks are still around, and popular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good point.   Then there is no cancel culture, because no one is truly cancelled.  Gina will get jobs other places and her body of work will still be out there.
> 
> The Chicks made kind of a comeback only because everyone now kind of realizes that the Iraq war WAS stupid.
> But they still paid a price for it.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Fonda was a horrible choice for you....she gave aid and comfort to the people killing Americans. There is away to be against the war, and not do what she did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.. Here's the thing.  We all realized the war was a stupid idea by 1968. Nixon got elected by promising that he had a secret plan to end the war. (It was so secret even he didn't know what it was.)  Yet we were still fighting it in 1973.  The war itself didn't end until 1975, when the South Vietnamese realized their leaders were robbing them blind.
> 
> So the premise that "she was right, but the way she went about it was wrong" just doesn't hold water.  Lots of people were against the war, but we were still bombing these people mercilessly, we were still sending over poor kids to fight it because they couldn't get an exemption.  Soldiers were routinely fragging their officers because the whole thing had become senseless.
> 
> But let's be mad at Jane because she got her picture taken sitting on an anti-aircraft gun.  Let's still be mad at her 50 years later!!!!
Click to expand...

1) they reached some sort of agreement, with the Player's Union....you have no idea if money was exchanged or not.
2) Maybe, I hope so....I'm still waiting on you to support your claim that she's a racist.  There is a cancel culture.....they are no longer making certain children books for example.   The Chicks made a comeback because they are talented, and nobody actually wanted to cancel them.  Things moreon....many of their fans still support what Bush did in Iraq.
3) The war being a stupid idea, has nothing to do with what Fonda did....just stop....she was a horrible example...you should have just stuck with the Dixie Chicks


----------



## Bush92

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


It's pretty simple. Gina is right and those other shit bags you mentioned are America haters...as are all socialist.


----------



## Turtlesoup

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


She was doing her JOB and not expressing herself while working....Kapernick was free to protest the US on his off time.  But instead the inept quarterback was having a bad day and decided to throw a temper tantrum while at work and then after the fact try to play the race card to excuse his childish behavior. Worse, that it is the NATIONAL football League which pist off most of the viewers costing him and all other of these grossly paid football players money.    The actress didn't cost viewers, cancelling her will though.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> You literally quoted nothing where they admitted guilt, and nothing was done in Court. I also highlighted, at least two teams that entertained offering him a spot. Seattle worked him out, and passed, and Baltimore was going to offer him a spot until the comments from his gf and the owner became public.



And- again- they settled before discovery was done...   In short, they knew there were emails that made them look bad.  



struth said:


> 3) The war being a stupid idea, has nothing to do with what Fonda did....just stop....she was a horrible example...you should have just stuck with the Dixie Chicks



Naw, she was a perfect example.  50 years later, you are still pissed about it.  

You guys were fine with "Cancel Culture", until it turned on you.


----------



## JoeB131

Turtlesoup said:


> She was doing her JOB and not expressing herself while working....Kapernick was free to protest the US on his off time. But instead the inept quarterback was having a bad day and decided to throw a temper tantrum while at work and then after the fact try to play the race card to excuse his childish behavior. Worse, that it is the NATIONAL football League which pist off most of the viewers costing him and all other of these grossly paid football players money. The actress didn't cost viewers, cancelling her will though.



I doubt one Star Wars nerd is going to stop watching the Mandalorian because of her being fired.  if they didn't bail after the Sequel Trilogy, they aren't going anywhere.  

Point is, you guys are fine with "Cancel Culture" when people say stuff you don't like.   Did Kaepernick taking a knee really have any effect on you in any way?  I mean, it wasn't like you were actually going to start thinking about cops who shoot black children in the back being a bad thing.


----------



## Fang

You lost me at Kaepernick was proven right. Kap still doesn’t have a job in the NFL, players and fans still stand for the anthem and by far worst of all, blacks are still being slaughtered in our inner cities. The real issue has not been addressed.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> You literally quoted nothing where they admitted guilt, and nothing was done in Court. I also highlighted, at least two teams that entertained offering him a spot. Seattle worked him out, and passed, and Baltimore was going to offer him a spot until the comments from his gf and the owner became public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And- again- they settled before discovery was done...   In short, they knew there were emails that made them look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) The war being a stupid idea, has nothing to do with what Fonda did....just stop....she was a horrible example...you should have just stuck with the Dixie Chicks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Naw, she was a perfect example.  50 years later, you are still pissed about it.
> 
> You guys were fine with "Cancel Culture", until it turned on you.
Click to expand...

1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspirary as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments
2) yes, I am very upset, that she set on a weapon what was used to kill my fellow countrymen....and partied in their camp, while my fellow countrymen were being tortured nearby.    I have no issue with her and others being against the war, but come on that's a bridge to far.  I am sorry you can't understand the difference.   With that said, I have certainly still watched movies she was in.....well after that event.

and when was Jane Fonda every canceled?  She suffered no work issues from that picture and trip


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times does your ignorant ass have to be told that the no talent bitch Kraperlimpdick was only crying because the team told him he wasn’t going to start. As revealed by his teammates who thought him a crybaby. Here’s an idea. Leave the country. Nobody will miss you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my side won the election, so maybe you should leave.
> 
> So his response to not starting was to make himself the subject of public anger?  Let's keep in mind, when he started kneeling, it wasn't a popular position.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Communism was the bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, you think the Vietnam War was about "Communism"? You silly boy.
Click to expand...

The comment wasn’t about the election you stupid fuck. You hate everything American so YOU can get the fuck out. Kraperlimpdick was a crybaby whining because he wasn’t starting because he stunk. Period. I’m sure he appreciated your blowing him but you sound dumber than usual defending this cop hating piece of crap.


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> The police are not murdering people you idiot....13 unarmed blacks were killed by police...at least 8 of them were in the process of attacking the police.......you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you tell yourself that.
> 
> Laquan McDonald
> Tamir Rice
> George Floyd
> Bronna Taylor
> Walter Scott
> Michael Brown
> Botham Jean
> etc.
> etc.
Click to expand...

Damn you’re stupid. Michael Brown attacked a cop and tried  to steal  his gun.  And he never had his hands up dumbfuck. Per eyewitnesses. Most of whom were black. Georgie boy Floyd had enough Fentanyl in his system to drop more than one man. He was dead already. The medical examiners said drug overdose. It was a doctor hired by the family who said homicide. Breonna Taylor was harboring known drug dealers. Bad things tend to happen when you  do that. Keep eating the bullshit, your Dem leaders just laugh as you repeat the talking points.


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) what repeated racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme? Can you provide them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link earlier in the thread...  all this "nuh-uh" shit is tiresome.
> 
> 2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him. He was fired by SF 49ers. He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season. He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16. His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.
> 
> Come on, the Chicago Bears could have used a QB of his caliber, instead of Trubinsky, who keeps fucking up and still has a job.  But he didn't take a knee... at least not until it was fashionable.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't feel part of the country scene because of the backlash against them by the inbred morons who listen to country music turned on them.
> 
> Just look at their discography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chicks discography - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.  They crashed and burned after 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops. She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured. In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.
> 
> Um. Yeah. It was horrible that the Vietnamese were torturing the people who were carpet bombing them.  Everyone involved was a victim while the people in Washington and the big board rooms of corporations that profited from "Forever War" were exempt.
Click to expand...

I love shoving your face in your bullshit. Discovery would have buried Kraperlimpdick. He REFUSED two contract offers (Baltimore and  Denver) Meaning you don’t get to cry collusion. The NFL settled (and for a LOT less than Kraperlimpdick wanted) because the idiot woulda have just kept appealing and it would have cost more to carry on the court cases than they paid the crybaby.


----------



## JackOfNoTrades

2aguy said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you guys fucking stupid......he was a lousy quarterback looking at the end of his career who used false allegations of racism to get rich....
> 
> The NFL offered him a private try out and he refused to show...you lying assholes...
Click to expand...


He was still a better quarterback than Tebow could ever dream of being. And he took his team to the Super Bowl.
Apparently, you don't watch much in the way of football, huh?


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


1. your whole OP is crap because she did not post racist/etc stuff--she posted the truth
2. and also Kap  crap ---because there is NO problem of police brutality --we've been over this before...I have a thread on it with the TRUTH/stats/etc


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> 1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspirary as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments



I don't have to speculate.  The NFL settled and paid him a shitload of money.  



struth said:


> 2) yes, I am very upset, that she set on a weapon what was used to kill my fellow countrymen....and partied in their camp, while my fellow countrymen were being tortured nearby. I have no issue with her and others being against the war, but come on that's a bridge to far. I am sorry you can't understand the difference. With that said, I have certainly still watched movies she was in.....well after that event.



"set"? Did you mean "Sat"?  do you have problems with verbs you should have learned in the first grade, or are you a Russian Troll?  

Point was, sit ins weren't getting the job done.  If you should be upset with anyone, it should be the leaders who sent men there knowing damned well the war was unwinnable and the Saigon regime would collapse the minute we stopped propping it up.  The ironic thing is that Vietnam is our friend today.  We do a lot of business there.  



struth said:


> nd when was Jane Fonda every canceled? She suffered no work issues from that picture and trip



Actually, her career was pretty much over by 1985.


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> 1. your whole OP is crap because she did not post racist/etc stuff--she posted the truth



She's totally not a racist, said the racist.  Yup, that will fly.  



harmonica said:


> 2. and also Kap crap ---because there is NO problem of police brutality --we've been over this before...I have a thread on it with the TRUTH/stats/etc



You can say it all day... but frankly, no one believes you.  We have too many videos of cops brutalizing black people.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. your whole OP is crap because she did not post racist/etc stuff--she posted the truth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She's totally not a racist, said the racist.  Yup, that will fly.
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. and also Kap crap ---because there is NO problem of police brutality --we've been over this before...I have a thread on it with the TRUTH/stats/etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can say it all day... but frankly, no one believes you.  We have too many videos of cops brutalizing black people.
Click to expand...

you haven't proved she is a racist--hahahahhaha
..just like Mr Trump is not a racist, I am not a racist--etc
..if anyone is a racist--it's YOU


----------



## JoeB131

lantern2814 said:


> Damn you’re stupid. Michael Brown attacked a cop and tried to steal his gun. And he never had his hands up dumbfuck. Per eyewitnesses. Most of whom were black.



Actually, most of the eyewitnesses said he had his hands up.  



lantern2814 said:


> Georgie boy Floyd had enough Fentanyl in his system to drop more than one man. He was dead already. The medical examiners said drug overdose.



Nope. They ruled it a homicide. 









						Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details
					

The county medical examiner and independent forensic pathologists commissioned by Floyd's family both released autopsy reports.




					www.cbsnews.com
				






lantern2814 said:


> Breonna Taylor was harboring known drug dealers. Bad things tend to happen when you do that. Keep eating the bullshit, your Dem leaders just laugh as you repeat the talking points.



The drug dealer they were looking for didn't live there, and they already had him in custody.  

Certainly no reason to go kicking down the door at 1 AM and shooting up the place.  



lantern2814 said:


> I love shoving your face in your bullshit. Discovery would have buried Kraperlimpdick. He REFUSED two contract offers (Baltimore and Denver) Meaning you don’t get to cry collusion. The NFL settled (and for a LOT less than Kraperlimpdick wanted) because the idiot woulda have just kept appealing and it would have cost more to carry on the court cases than they paid the crybaby.



Point was, THEY did settle, probably because they would have found collusion.  


_


			Did Colin Kaepernick really turn down offers to play football? If so, why isn't this publicized? - Quora
		

Kaepernick had a contract with the 49ers set to pay him $12 million. John Elway’s Broncos needed a quarterback and were willing to trade for Kaepernick, but they didn’t want to pay him $12 million. John said he’d go through with the trade if he only had to pay Kaepernick $7 million. The 49ers didn’t want to subsidize the Broncos and Kaep didn’t want to take a $5 million pay cut.

It made zero sense for him to take the contract at the time._


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> you haven't proved she is a racist--hahahahhaha



I don't have to.  She got fired.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't proved she is a racist--hahahahhaha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to.  She got fired.
Click to expand...

yes--you SAID it in your OP
hahahhahahahahahahahahah


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> you haven't proved she is a racist--hahahahhaha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to.  She got fired.
Click to expand...

hahhahahahahhahahah--you don't get it!!!
....her getting fired is EXACTLY what she was talking about!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> ....her getting fired is EXACTLY what she was talking about!!



yeah, she got fired for saying racist and stupid shit.  

because when you are making a Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family, you don't want the Racist Chick on there.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....her getting fired is EXACTLY what she was talking about!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, she got fired for saying racist and stupid shit.
> 
> because when you are making a Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family, you don't want the Racist Chick on there.
Click to expand...

another major fail by you


----------



## JoeB131

harmonica said:


> another major fail by you



Naw, man, I still have a job... unlike Mannish Woman who was fired.


----------



## harmonica

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> another major fail by you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man, I still have a job... unlike Mannish Woman who was fired.
Click to expand...

fail---and you are trying to deny it --as usual, you people hardly ever prove your claims--in fact, you never even try


----------



## schmidlap

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...


I am not going to presume to generalize to facilitate ideological demonization of any faction, but I'm guessing that there are many Americans who support the right to such personal expression - Kaepernick to publicly draw attention to police brutality, and Tebow as a public demonstration of his religious convictions.

No doubt, there are many who would defend both pre-game genuflections as free speech, as well as those who would say that free speech should not be allowed in the sacrosanct realm of football.


----------



## GMCGeneral

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


And McCarthy was proven right all along.


----------



## JoeB131

GMCGeneral said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> And McCarthy was proven right all along.
Click to expand...


Was he?  He ruined a lot of people's lives over guilt by association before his accusations got so crazy - The Army was Communist- that even his own party had to slap him down. 

That was when Republicans still had integrity, though.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler




----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....her getting fired is EXACTLY what she was talking about!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, she got fired for saying racist and stupid shit.
> 
> because when you are making a Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family, you don't want the Racist Chick on there.
Click to expand...

She got fired because sissies got offended. There was nothing racist about it.


----------



## August West

GMCGeneral said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> And McCarthy was proven right all along.
Click to expand...

You`ve seen his list of commie subversives in high govt. circles?


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> She got fired because sissies got offended. There was nothing racist about it.



She got fired because no one wants their Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family to be associated with a racist.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> She got fired because sissies got offended. There was nothing racist about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She got fired because no one wants their Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family to be associated with a racist.
Click to expand...

You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.


----------



## Turtlesoup

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


George floyd wasn't murdered --------he overdosed on drugs.   So now your comments also shows that Kapernick was and is a clueless racist moron.


----------



## GMCGeneral

Turtlesoup said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!
> 
> 
> 
> George floyd wasn't murdered --------he overdosed on drugs.   So now your comments also shows that Kapernick was and is a clueless racist moron.
Click to expand...

Not to mention a third rate quarterback who'll never get a job in any league.  NFL, CFL, whatever.  Hell, I bet he won't be allowed to coach a 10-under little loop team.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspirary as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to speculate.  The NFL settled and paid him a shitload of money.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) yes, I am very upset, that she set on a weapon what was used to kill my fellow countrymen....and partied in their camp, while my fellow countrymen were being tortured nearby. I have no issue with her and others being against the war, but come on that's a bridge to far. I am sorry you can't understand the difference. With that said, I have certainly still watched movies she was in.....well after that event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "set"? Did you mean "Sat"?  do you have problems with verbs you should have learned in the first grade, or are you a Russian Troll?
> 
> Point was, sit ins weren't getting the job done.  If you should be upset with anyone, it should be the leaders who sent men there knowing damned well the war was unwinnable and the Saigon regime would collapse the minute we stopped propping it up.  The ironic thing is that Vietnam is our friend today.  We do a lot of business there.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd when was Jane Fonda every canceled? She suffered no work issues from that picture and trip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, her career was pretty much over by 1985.
Click to expand...

1) you have no idea if money was even transferred.   They reached an agreement for the grievance letter that the Players Union filed on his behalf.   Moreover, as I highlighted two teams were interested, one about to make an offer, he was not "blackballed" .... in fact, after the agreement over the grievance letter settlement, the NFL, in an unprecedented move (likely part of the agreement) arranged for a private combine for him, with all the teams being present.  All attended, but thirty mins before the start time, CK pulled out....
2) really? ok white flag noted
3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005 Jane Fonda filmography

She was never canceled, even though she committed an horrible act.


----------



## schmidlap

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.


Apparently, this actress has posted quite a number of crackpot instagrams that caused he to be fired. Private enterprise cannot be forced to employ anyone who habitually expresses aberrant views that are detrimental to corporate interests.

A Lucasfilm spokesperson explained, “Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”


----------



## GMCGeneral

struth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspirary as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to speculate.  The NFL settled and paid him a shitload of money.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) yes, I am very upset, that she set on a weapon what was used to kill my fellow countrymen....and partied in their camp, while my fellow countrymen were being tortured nearby. I have no issue with her and others being against the war, but come on that's a bridge to far. I am sorry you can't understand the difference. With that said, I have certainly still watched movies she was in.....well after that event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "set"? Did you mean "Sat"?  do you have problems with verbs you should have learned in the first grade, or are you a Russian Troll?
> 
> Point was, sit ins weren't getting the job done.  If you should be upset with anyone, it should be the leaders who sent men there knowing damned well the war was unwinnable and the Saigon regime would collapse the minute we stopped propping it up.  The ironic thing is that Vietnam is our friend today.  We do a lot of business there.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd when was Jane Fonda every canceled? She suffered no work issues from that picture and trip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, her career was pretty much over by 1985.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) you have no idea if money was even transferred.   They reached an agreement for the grievance letter that the Players Union filed on his behalf.   Moreover, as I highlighted two teams were interested, one about to make an offer, he was not "blackballed" .... in fact, after the agreement over the grievance letter settlement, the NFL, in an unprecedented move (likely part of the agreement) arranged for a private combine for him, with all the teams being present.  All attended, but thirty mins before the start time, CK pulled out....
> 2) really? ok white flag noted
> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005 Jane Fonda filmography
> 
> She was never canceled, even though she committed an horrible act.
Click to expand...

For which thousands of Vietnam Vets will never forgiver her for.


----------



## struth

GMCGeneral said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspirary as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to speculate.  The NFL settled and paid him a shitload of money.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) yes, I am very upset, that she set on a weapon what was used to kill my fellow countrymen....and partied in their camp, while my fellow countrymen were being tortured nearby. I have no issue with her and others being against the war, but come on that's a bridge to far. I am sorry you can't understand the difference. With that said, I have certainly still watched movies she was in.....well after that event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "set"? Did you mean "Sat"?  do you have problems with verbs you should have learned in the first grade, or are you a Russian Troll?
> 
> Point was, sit ins weren't getting the job done.  If you should be upset with anyone, it should be the leaders who sent men there knowing damned well the war was unwinnable and the Saigon regime would collapse the minute we stopped propping it up.  The ironic thing is that Vietnam is our friend today.  We do a lot of business there.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd when was Jane Fonda every canceled? She suffered no work issues from that picture and trip
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, her career was pretty much over by 1985.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1) you have no idea if money was even transferred.   They reached an agreement for the grievance letter that the Players Union filed on his behalf.   Moreover, as I highlighted two teams were interested, one about to make an offer, he was not "blackballed" .... in fact, after the agreement over the grievance letter settlement, the NFL, in an unprecedented move (likely part of the agreement) arranged for a private combine for him, with all the teams being present.  All attended, but thirty mins before the start time, CK pulled out....
> 2) really? ok white flag noted
> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005 Jane Fonda filmography
> 
> She was never canceled, even though she committed an horrible act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For which thousands of Vietnam Vets will never forgiver her for.
Click to expand...

and they shouldn't.


----------



## schmidlap

GMCGeneral said:


> Not to mention a third rate quarterback who'll never get a job in any league.


Not to mention all the third rate quarterbacks that are employed in the NFL.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, this actress has posted quite a number of crackpot instagrams that caused he to be fired. Private enterprise cannot be forced to employ anyone who habitually expresses aberrant views that are detrimental to corporate interests.
> 
> A Lucasfilm spokesperson explained, “Gina Carano is not currently employed by Lucasfilm and there are no plans for her to be in the future. Nevertheless, her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities are abhorrent and unacceptable.”
Click to expand...

I am asking for a racist example. Thanks. Learn to read.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> GMCGeneral said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention a third rate quarterback who'll never get a job in any league.
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention all the third rate quarterbacks that are employed in the NFL.
Click to expand...

You must be an Eagles fan. LOL


----------



## schmidlap

GMCGeneral said:


> For which thousands of Vietnam Vets will never forgiver her for.


Of course, Fonda has accepted responsibility and apologized repeatedly for the “Hanoi Jane” photo, and clarified that her actions during the Vietnam War were in protest of the U.S. government and not against soldiers.

if anyone is still sulking over it, that is his right.

_"Someone (I don’t remember who) leads me toward the gun, and I sit down, still laughing, still applauding. It all has nothing to do with where I am sitting. I hardly even think about where I am sitting. The cameras flash. I get up, and as I start to walk back to the car with the translator, the implication of what has just happened hits me. Oh, my God. It’s going to look like I was trying to shoot down U.S. planes! I plead with him, 'You have to be sure those photographs are not published. Please, you can’t let them be published.' I am assured it will be taken care of. I don’t know what else to do. It is possible that the Vietnamese had it all planned. I will never know. If they did, can I really blame them? *The buck stops here. If I was used, I allowed it to happen. It was my mistake, and I have paid and continue to pay a heavy price for it.*"_​







						The Complicated Story Behind Jane Fonda's 'Hanoi Jane' Nickname
					

Megyn Kelly once called Fonda "synonymous with outrage"




					time.com
				


​Whilst we grasp at diversions among the minutia of yesteryear, here is one that contrasts with Fonda's honestly accepting responsibility:​​


*"I don't take responsibility at all!"*​








						'I don't take responsibility at all': Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing fumble
					

Trump has spent weeks downplaying the virus' outbreak.




					www.politico.com
				



​​​​​


----------



## struth

schmidlap said:


> GMCGeneral said:
> 
> 
> 
> For which thousands of Vietnam Vets will never forgiver her for.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, Fonda has accepted responsibility and apologized repeatedly for the “Hanoi Jane” photo, and clarified that her actions during the Vietnam War were in protest of the U.S. government and not against soldiers.
> 
> if anyone is still sulking over it, that is his right.
> 
> _"Someone (I don’t remember who) leads me toward the gun, and I sit down, still laughing, still applauding. It all has nothing to do with where I am sitting. I hardly even think about where I am sitting. The cameras flash. I get up, and as I start to walk back to the car with the translator, the implication of what has just happened hits me. Oh, my God. It’s going to look like I was trying to shoot down U.S. planes! I plead with him, 'You have to be sure those photographs are not published. Please, you can’t let them be published.' I am assured it will be taken care of. I don’t know what else to do. It is possible that the Vietnamese had it all planned. I will never know. If they did, can I really blame them? *The buck stops here. If I was used, I allowed it to happen. It was my mistake, and I have paid and continue to pay a heavy price for it.*"_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Complicated Story Behind Jane Fonda's 'Hanoi Jane' Nickname
> 
> 
> Megyn Kelly once called Fonda "synonymous with outrage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> time.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​Whilst we grasp at diversions among the minutia of yesteryear, here is one that contrasts with Fonda's honestly accepting responsibility:​​​View attachment 464738​*"I don't take responsibility at all!"*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'I don't take responsibility at all': Trump deflects blame for coronavirus testing fumble
> 
> 
> Trump has spent weeks downplaying the virus' outbreak.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politico.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> ​​​​
Click to expand...

I am sure she has, and it's great she did decades later....like a lot of libs, she was used because of her lack of knowledge.  


Was Trump sitting on a anti-aircraft gun that was being used to kill US servicemen?


----------



## schmidlap

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I am asking for a racist example. Thanks. Learn to read.


I hoped that you might learn of the nature of the actress's incipid ideas, denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities.
When she whined that being conservative these days is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany, she minimized the inhuman treatment of Holocaust victims.  Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness.

Are Jews a "race"?








						DNA links prove Jews are a 'race,'  says genetics expert
					

Conjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.




					www.haaretz.com


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he led San Francisco to its first Super Bowl appearance in 18 years in 2012, Kaepernick's production has tapered off significantly. The quarterback's already-low completion percentage dipped well below 60 percent in 2015 and 2016 and he has struggled to make strong throws past 10 yards and outside the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the point. There are a lot of mediocre QB's who still have jobs.. Like Trubinsky.
> 
> The fact was, the NFL DID conspire not to sign him because of the Kneeling thing.
Click to expand...



He walked away from 17 million dollars.........he walked away from being hired by other teams.....he was offered a private work out to try out for other teams ......

He was done with the game and was looking for a way to make fame and money...and he found it by pushing racism and anti-Americanism...


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> She sided with the enemy, as are you, apparently. You're a traitorous little bitch, too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why were the Vietnamese "the enemy", exactly?   Because they didn't want the kind of government that we thought they should have?   We inflicted untold misery on those people fighting a war that our own military leaders concluded was unwinnable.
Click to expand...



They were part of an expansionist belief system.....communism......and our fighting them kept them from spreading it throughout Asia......

We won the war......then the democrats cut off military aid to South Vietnam and let the North take control of the entire country...you idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron....jane fonda had a long career after she sided with the mass murdering communists in Vietnam, you idiot....
> 
> She starred in films and was an exercise sensation...you dumb ass....she is the least canceled person in the world....
> 
> *1972 was when she posed with the mass murdering communist vietnamese...*
> 
> Now......tell us this is how she was canceled....you dumb ass...you don't even know what you are fucking talking about....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, looking at her IMDB page, her career was pretty much over by 1985, that's the point.  She became box office poison, and they stopped casting her.  Most of the movies you cite were done by her own production company.
> 
> This is something you like to do, spooge the page with walls of text... but the reality is, Jane Fonda paid a professional price for her advocacy... and she's a much better Actress than Gina Carano, someone who plays third to a Puppet and a guy with a bucket on his head.
Click to expand...



You are an idiot........I listed her awards and wealth created long after 1972...........her greatest money making movies happened after taking the photo with the mass murdering communists, you dishonest piece of shit....

Coming Home
On Golden Pond
9-5
Electric Horseman
Her dominance in the video exercise industry..

You are a lying piece of crap.


----------



## 2aguy

schmidlap said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for a racist example. Thanks. Learn to read.
> 
> 
> 
> I hoped that you might learn of the nature of the actress's incipid ideas, denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities.
> When she whined that being conservative these days is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany, she minimized the inhuman treatment of Holocaust victims.  Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness.
> 
> Are Jews a "race"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA links prove Jews are a 'race,'  says genetics expert
> 
> 
> Conjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.haaretz.com
Click to expand...



And you didn't post any of what she tweeted...because if you did, normal people would see you are insane....

Nothing she tweeted was offensive or wrong...you idiot...but you pretend it is and hide what she posted because you don't want people to know what she actually said.......


----------



## 2aguy

schmidlap said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for a racist example. Thanks. Learn to read.
> 
> 
> 
> I hoped that you might learn of the nature of the actress's incipid ideas, denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities.
> When she whined that being conservative these days is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany, she minimized the inhuman treatment of Holocaust victims.  Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness.
> 
> Are Jews a "race"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA links prove Jews are a 'race,'  says genetics expert
> 
> 
> Conjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.haaretz.com
Click to expand...



She never mentioned "conservative" in her tweet, you lying sack of shit.......how about you quote exactly what she said....so people who don't know what she said can see what a dishonest asshole you are...


----------



## Crepitus

Canon Shooter said:


> I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster


Who?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have Conservatives canceled lately? Care to explain?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you don't have any yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you can't address the ones in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed the ones in the op, you dumb ass....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you, you stupid fuck.
> 
> You got a nice list of excuses but you didn't actually address the point, you dumb ass.
> 
> You moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temper, temper Jerry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond in kind.  Rather telling that you only see the one side.  Just like with cancel culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a cancel culture and censorship. I myself have been censored on many social media platforms for going against the agenda.
Click to expand...


Good.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


Yeah....in the 50's and 60's there were many on the right who were totally behind breaking phonograph records and trying to ban groups such as the Beatles! 

Hollywood was ruled by cancel culture..for 50 years and more. 

Just goes to show..that the more fanatical someone is..regardless of ideological position..the more willing they are to make our choices for us..or ensure we have no choice at all!


----------



## Utilitarian

JoeB131 said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, his wokeness doesn't extend to the fact that Nike employs Uighur slave labor, but I know your opinion on that is that it doesn't matter. Only American lives matter, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been running around the world killing Muslim Terrorists for the last 30 years, why are we giving China shit for killing Muslim terrorists in their own country?  Also, given our use of slave labor in the Prison-Industrial Complex in this country, we don't have a lot of room to talk.   America needs to clean up her own act before we start criticizing anyone else.
Click to expand...


Seriously?  You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument?  You're either a wumao or a complete idiot.  Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you’re stupid. Michael Brown attacked a cop and tried to steal his gun. And he never had his hands up dumbfuck. Per eyewitnesses. Most of whom were black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of the eyewitnesses said he had his hands up.
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie boy Floyd had enough Fentanyl in his system to drop more than one man. He was dead already. The medical examiners said drug overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. They ruled it a homicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details
> 
> 
> The county medical examiner and independent forensic pathologists commissioned by Floyd's family both released autopsy reports.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breonna Taylor was harboring known drug dealers. Bad things tend to happen when you do that. Keep eating the bullshit, your Dem leaders just laugh as you repeat the talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drug dealer they were looking for didn't live there, and they already had him in custody.
> 
> Certainly no reason to go kicking down the door at 1 AM and shooting up the place.
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love shoving your face in your bullshit. Discovery would have buried Kraperlimpdick. He REFUSED two contract offers (Baltimore and Denver) Meaning you don’t get to cry collusion. The NFL settled (and for a LOT less than Kraperlimpdick wanted) because the idiot woulda have just kept appealing and it would have cost more to carry on the court cases than they paid the crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point was, THEY did settle, probably because they would have found collusion.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Did Colin Kaepernick really turn down offers to play football? If so, why isn't this publicized? - Quora
> 
> 
> Kaepernick had a contract with the 49ers set to pay him $12 million. John Elway’s Broncos needed a quarterback and were willing to trade for Kaepernick, but they didn’t want to pay him $12 million. John said he’d go through with the trade if he only had to pay Kaepernick $7 million. The 49ers didn’t want to subsidize the Broncos and Kaep didn’t want to take a $5 million pay cut.
> 
> It made zero sense for him to take the contract at the time._
Click to expand...


*Actually, most of the eyewitnesses said he had his hands up. *

Was that before or after he assaulted the cop and tried to take his gun?
Were his hands up when he ran back toward the cop to attack him again?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The same reason why Disney fired Gina Carano.



Um, right.

Please point out where I've ever said that Carano shouldn't have been fired, or that her employer didn't have the right to do it.

I'll wait...



> Last time I checked, Presidents aren't royalty.... So you are going to shut the fuck up about PRESIDENT Biden for the next four years, right?



Why would I do that?

How stupid of you to even suggest it.

Here's the thing, pinhead: I will always share my opinion. I will also always accept full responsibility for sharing that opinion. If my customers decide they don't want to use my services anymore because they don't agree with me politically, that's fine. I accept that as result of me sharing my opinion. You seem to think that the Dixie Chicks got a raw deal. Fuck 'em; they're smart women. They should've realized what could happen...



> Really? What was his MOS.  I'm guessing it wasn't 11B.



I have no idea. When my cousin was over there I was all of 8 years old. But I know he as awarded a Bronze Star with the "V" device and two Purple Heart medals. 

He wasn't sitting behind a desk, which is what it seems you're ignorantly suggesting...


----------



## schmidlap

struth said:


> Was Trump sitting on a anti-aircraft gun that was being used to kill US servicemen?


The failed casino operator and faded reality-tv performer has inflicted more damage on the nation that a young, admittedly naïve actress ever could. She, having honestly acknowledged and apologized for her error, went on to a very successful career. He, being far too weak to ever admit to error, has been judged by the American electorate and will while away his dotage amidst criminal and civil prosecution, and fiscal duress.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.



No, it was they held such disdain for Kaepernick that they decided they'd just pay him and move on. He was't worth the time nor effort for a court case...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Nope. I don't do links unless I feel like it. It's usually wasted, because you guys either pretend you didn't see them or scream "Fake News"



Codespeak for "I have absolutely nothing to support my argument, but you should believe me anyway"...


----------



## schmidlap

2aguy said:


> She never mentioned "conservative" in her tweet, you lying sack of shit.......how about you quote exactly what she said....so people who don't know what she said can see what a dishonest asshole you are...


Compose yourself. You appear thoroughly flustered, Peaches.

The fired actress shared  a post that read: "Jews_ were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children." _You can easily find confirmations from numerous sources if you want to.

Of course, we_ know _what the Nazis did, regardless of her exculpatory nonsense.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


The OP is based on a false premise. The people named in the OP (and many many more both people and corporations) received their income from the general public; the people. Not just any arbitrary political division. And to the extent they were "cancelled" it was by that public who simply stopped buying their product. Simple, you piss people off; they stop buying what you're selling. Has nothing to do with politics and in fact our whole political system operates on the same basic principle: piss off the voters-they don't vote for you. Just part of the American way.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

schmidlap said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking for a racist example. Thanks. Learn to read.
> 
> 
> 
> I hoped that you might learn of the nature of the actress's incipid ideas, denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities.
> When she whined that being conservative these days is like being a Jew in Nazi Germany, she minimized the inhuman treatment of Holocaust victims.  Nazis tried to exterminate Jews based on their supposed racial distinctiveness.
> 
> Are Jews a "race"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA links prove Jews are a 'race,'  says genetics expert
> 
> 
> Conjuring fear of Nazism and anti-Semitism, Jews recoil from the thought that Judaism might be a race, but medical geneticist Harry Ostrer insists the 'biological basis of Jewishness' cannot be ignored.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.haaretz.com
Click to expand...

So I am a Jew. Are you? Some say Jews are a race some don’t but what she said was 100% accurate and not remotely offensive to a Jewish person who lost 95% of his ancestors to WW2 and the Holocaust. She was then immediately hired by an Orthodox Jew in Ben Shapiro. So I ask again what was racist about her statements since I as a Jew agree with them? Are you going to speak for me now, old man?


----------



## harmonica

AzogtheDefiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....her getting fired is EXACTLY what she was talking about!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, she got fired for saying racist and stupid shit.
> 
> because when you are making a Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family, you don't want the Racist Chick on there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She got fired because sissies got offended. There was nothing racist about it.
Click to expand...

and he can't prove it---all he does is babble crap


----------



## struth

schmidlap said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Trump sitting on a anti-aircraft gun that was being used to kill US servicemen?
> 
> 
> 
> The failed casino operator and faded reality-tv performer has inflicted more damage on the nation that a young, admittedly naïve actress ever could. She, having honestly acknowledged and apologized for her error, went on to a very successful career. He, being far too weak to ever admit to error, has been judged by the American electorate and will while away his dotage amidst criminal and civil prosecution, and fiscal duress.
Click to expand...

hahaha wake me up when he's been charged, I fear the propagandist you've been listening to have done a lot of damage to our country....and here they are again, keeping you dangling on a string


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.



Again, not playing that game. Played that game with you with Trump, where his calling Mexicans Rapists clearly was racist except for your little world.  



struth said:


> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005



Except she wasn't making GOOD films, that's the point. She wasn't getting leading lady roles in major motion pictures, despite being probably one of the most talented actresses of her generation.   By 1981, she was cancelled.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not playing that game. Played that game with you with Trump, where his calling Mexicans Rapists clearly was racist except for your little world.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she wasn't making GOOD films, that's the point. She wasn't getting leading lady roles in major motion pictures, despite being probably one of the most talented actresses of her generation.   By 1981, she was cancelled.
Click to expand...

hahahh....well I can't help it she can't make GOOD films, neither can anyone else....she's really not that good of an actress...she's mainly famous for her last name.    Her lack of talent isn't anyone's fault..

Well, even 1981 is nearly a decade after her photo shoot.....

She was in the China Syndrome, 9 to 5, The Electric Horseman, On Golden Pond (Best Picture, 2nd highest grossing film of the year), and Fun with Dick and Jane (the third highest grossing film of the year) to name a few major movies and roles since her photo shoot. 

She was not canceled....though she should have been for her horrible act


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> He walked away from 17 million dollars.........he walked away from being hired by other teams.....he was offered a private work out to try out for other teams ......
> 
> He was done with the game and was looking for a way to make fame and money...and he found it by pushing racism and anti-Americanism...



Except the NFL admitted they blackballed him.  

He didn't walk away so much as he was pushed...  but never mind. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Here's the thing, pinhead: I will always share my opinion. I will also always accept full responsibility for sharing that opinion. If my customers decide they don't want to use my services anymore because they don't agree with me politically, that's fine. I accept that as result of me sharing my opinion. You seem to think that the Dixie Chicks got a raw deal. Fuck 'em; they're smart women. They should've realized what could happen...



But that wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that they shouldn't have criticized Bush in a foreign country.  Not that there fans didn't have a right to walk away from them.   

They did get a raw deal- BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!   Iraq was a horrible idea.  We inflicted massive misery on those people and made ourselves less secure.  



Utilitarian said:


> Seriously? You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument? You're either a wumao or a complete idiot. Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.



Well, far be it from you to educate yourself.  






						The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response
					

» The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response |




					trumancenter.org
				





On Saturday, a group of knife-wielding assailants killed at least 29 people and wounded 143 others at a train station in Kunming, China. China’s state media described the attack as “an organized, premeditated violent terrorist attack” pointing to separatists from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who use the name East Turkestan to describe their homeland.

The Uyghurs are a Muslim ethnic minority group who have historically chafed under Beijing’s rule. Travelling through Xinjiang, their resentment is palpable. Sentiment ranges from outright separatism to a desire for greater autonomy, as well as access to jobs and the preservation of culture, religion, and language in the face of a majority Han Chinese influx and state controls.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have yet to illustrate one racist example from her. I ll patiently wait for you to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not playing that game. Played that game with you with Trump, where his calling Mexicans Rapists clearly was racist except for your little world.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except she wasn't making GOOD films, that's the point. She wasn't getting leading lady roles in major motion pictures, despite being probably one of the most talented actresses of her generation.   By 1981, she was cancelled.
Click to expand...

Nope he didn’t do that either. Reported again. You’re on a roll.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> You are an idiot........I listed her awards and wealth created long after 1972...........her greatest money making movies happened after taking the photo with the mass murdering communists, you dishonest piece of shit....



And her career was over by 1981 because her brand name had become toxic.  Everyone was happy to be out of Vietnam, but no one was willing to forgive "Hanoi Jane".  

Shit, they were still dragging her up in 2004 when John Kerry Ran for president.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He walked away from 17 million dollars.........he walked away from being hired by other teams.....he was offered a private work out to try out for other teams ......
> 
> He was done with the game and was looking for a way to make fame and money...and he found it by pushing racism and anti-Americanism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the NFL admitted they blackballed him.
> 
> He didn't walk away so much as he was pushed...  but never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, pinhead: I will always share my opinion. I will also always accept full responsibility for sharing that opinion. If my customers decide they don't want to use my services anymore because they don't agree with me politically, that's fine. I accept that as result of me sharing my opinion. You seem to think that the Dixie Chicks got a raw deal. Fuck 'em; they're smart women. They should've realized what could happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that they shouldn't have criticized Bush in a foreign country.  Not that there fans didn't have a right to walk away from them.
> 
> They did get a raw deal- BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!   Iraq was a horrible idea.  We inflicted massive misery on those people and made ourselves less secure.
> 
> 
> 
> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument? You're either a wumao or a complete idiot. Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, far be it from you to educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response
> 
> 
> » The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trumancenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, a group of knife-wielding assailants killed at least 29 people and wounded 143 others at a train station in Kunming, China. China’s state media described the attack as “an organized, premeditated violent terrorist attack” pointing to separatists from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who use the name East Turkestan to describe their homeland.
> 
> The Uyghurs are a Muslim ethnic minority group who have historically chafed under Beijing’s rule. Travelling through Xinjiang, their resentment is palpable. Sentiment ranges from outright separatism to a desire for greater autonomy, as well as access to jobs and the preservation of culture, religion, and language in the face of a majority Han Chinese influx and state controls.
Click to expand...

Nope. All lies. NFL doesn’t blackball good players. See Antonio Brown...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Codespeak for "I have absolutely nothing to support my argument, but you should believe me anyway"...



The one thing I've never heard when I've provided a link. 

"Wow. I wasn't aware of that.  I'm sorry, you were right, I have totally changed my mind on this issue now that I've been informed." 

I do links when I feel like them.  Not when other people demand them.


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> The OP is based on a false premise. The people named in the OP (and many many more both people and corporations) received their income from the general public; the people. Not just any arbitrary political division. And to the extent they were "cancelled" it was by that public who simply stopped buying their product. Simple, you piss people off; they stop buying what you're selling. Has nothing to do with politics and in fact our whole political system operates on the same basic principle: piss off the voters-they don't vote for you. Just part of the American way.



Okay, we were talking about Gina Carano- who gets her income from the general public and was cancelled after she said racist and transphobic garbage.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> No, it was they held such disdain for Kaepernick that they decided they'd just pay him and move on. He was't worth the time nor effort for a court case...



Nobody pays out money when they are completely in the right.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Except the NFL admitted they blackballed him.



Well, he was a whiney twat.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He walked away from 17 million dollars.........he walked away from being hired by other teams.....he was offered a private work out to try out for other teams ......
> 
> He was done with the game and was looking for a way to make fame and money...and he found it by pushing racism and anti-Americanism...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the NFL admitted they blackballed him.
> 
> He didn't walk away so much as he was pushed...  but never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing, pinhead: I will always share my opinion. I will also always accept full responsibility for sharing that opinion. If my customers decide they don't want to use my services anymore because they don't agree with me politically, that's fine. I accept that as result of me sharing my opinion. You seem to think that the Dixie Chicks got a raw deal. Fuck 'em; they're smart women. They should've realized what could happen...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But that wasn't your argument.  Your argument was that they shouldn't have criticized Bush in a foreign country.  Not that there fans didn't have a right to walk away from them.
> 
> They did get a raw deal- BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT!!!!   Iraq was a horrible idea.  We inflicted massive misery on those people and made ourselves less secure.
> 
> 
> 
> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument? You're either a wumao or a complete idiot. Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, far be it from you to educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response
> 
> 
> » The Attack in Kunming: Uyghurs and Beijing’s Response |
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trumancenter.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Saturday, a group of knife-wielding assailants killed at least 29 people and wounded 143 others at a train station in Kunming, China. China’s state media described the attack as “an organized, premeditated violent terrorist attack” pointing to separatists from China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region who use the name East Turkestan to describe their homeland.
> 
> The Uyghurs are a Muslim ethnic minority group who have historically chafed under Beijing’s rule. Travelling through Xinjiang, their resentment is palpable. Sentiment ranges from outright separatism to a desire for greater autonomy, as well as access to jobs and the preservation of culture, religion, and language in the face of a majority Han Chinese influx and state controls.
Click to expand...

haha


JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it was they held such disdain for Kaepernick that they decided they'd just pay him and move on. He was't worth the time nor effort for a court case...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody pays out money when they are completely in the right.
Click to expand...

Well.....1) you have no idea if any money was paid out 2) until you prove that you really aren't on much ground here, and I won't go further


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Except the NFL admitted they blackballed him.



The NFL admitted that?
Or Joe Lockhart, Clinton's press secretary?


----------



## Dadoalex

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...



But, who on the "left" called for Tebow to be banned from football for praying?  
His 4 second release, maybe, but not for praying.
The objection to Tebow's acts were not over the prayers but over the public displays.
Public displays which, if they included a prayer rug and bowing to Mecca,  I am certain would have prompted the same treatment from you that you give Kap.

Hypocrisy, like Tebow's prayers, should be kept private.


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn you’re stupid. Michael Brown attacked a cop and tried to steal his gun. And he never had his hands up dumbfuck. Per eyewitnesses. Most of whom were black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most of the eyewitnesses said he had his hands up.
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Georgie boy Floyd had enough Fentanyl in his system to drop more than one man. He was dead already. The medical examiners said drug overdose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope. They ruled it a homicide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two autopsies both find George Floyd died by homicide, but differ on some key details
> 
> 
> The county medical examiner and independent forensic pathologists commissioned by Floyd's family both released autopsy reports.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breonna Taylor was harboring known drug dealers. Bad things tend to happen when you do that. Keep eating the bullshit, your Dem leaders just laugh as you repeat the talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The drug dealer they were looking for didn't live there, and they already had him in custody.
> 
> Certainly no reason to go kicking down the door at 1 AM and shooting up the place.
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love shoving your face in your bullshit. Discovery would have buried Kraperlimpdick. He REFUSED two contract offers (Baltimore and Denver) Meaning you don’t get to cry collusion. The NFL settled (and for a LOT less than Kraperlimpdick wanted) because the idiot woulda have just kept appealing and it would have cost more to carry on the court cases than they paid the crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point was, THEY did settle, probably because they would have found collusion.
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> Did Colin Kaepernick really turn down offers to play football? If so, why isn't this publicized? - Quora
> 
> 
> Kaepernick had a contract with the 49ers set to pay him $12 million. John Elway’s Broncos needed a quarterback and were willing to trade for Kaepernick, but they didn’t want to pay him $12 million. John said he’d go through with the trade if he only had to pay Kaepernick $7 million. The 49ers didn’t want to subsidize the Broncos and Kaep didn’t want to take a $5 million pay cut.
> 
> It made zero sense for him to take the contract at the time._
Click to expand...

Probably. SO you have nothing. Sure, the NFL “colluded” so a no talent hack could turn down contracts and make an ass of himself. And no, the eyewitnesses did not say Brown had his hands up liar. Your pathetic excuses are just that. Pathetic.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is based on a false premise. The people named in the OP (and many many more both people and corporations) received their income from the general public; the people. Not just any arbitrary political division. And to the extent they were "cancelled" it was by that public who simply stopped buying their product. Simple, you piss people off; they stop buying what you're selling. Has nothing to do with politics and in fact our whole political system operates on the same basic principle: piss off the voters-they don't vote for you. Just part of the American way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, we were talking about Gina Carano- who gets her income from the general public and was cancelled after she said racist and transphobic garbage.
Click to expand...

So? Her employers wished to avoid a negative reaction from the public which buys the product and decides for itself what is/is not racist or transphobic garbage. Much like Kaepernick and the NFL or Hanoi Jane Fonda and Hollywood producers.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Thoth001 said:


> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did  Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?


It's a meaningless buzzword used by the less-intelligent to slander anyone who is not sufficiently "woke".


----------



## Jarlaxle

Thoth001 said:


> I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.


Joey is fine with that. Joey wants your children to inform on you if you say or do anything "wrong".


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Here's the difference between you and me:
> 
> I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?
> 
> You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.
> 
> You're nothing but an ignorant child...



No, not ignorant...Joey is absolutely pure and undiluted evil. Evil on the level of Beria, or Vasily Blohkin, or Reinhard Heydrich.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot........I listed her awards and wealth created long after 1972...........her greatest money making movies happened after taking the photo with the mass murdering communists, you dishonest piece of shit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And her career was over by 1981 because her brand name had become toxic.  Everyone was happy to be out of Vietnam, but no one was willing to forgive "Hanoi Jane".
> 
> Shit, they were still dragging her up in 2004 when John Kerry Ran for president.
Click to expand...



Again, you didn't read the post........


schmidlap said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> She never mentioned "conservative" in her tweet, you lying sack of shit.......how about you quote exactly what she said....so people who don't know what she said can see what a dishonest asshole you are...
> 
> 
> 
> Compose yourself. You appear thoroughly flustered, Peaches.
> 
> The fired actress shared  a post that read: "Jews_ were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors... even by children." _You can easily find confirmations from numerous sources if you want to.
> 
> Of course, we_ know _what the Nazis did, regardless of her exculpatory nonsense.
Click to expand...



Where in that was the word "conservative," you idiot?   She stated what happened....how is it anti-semitic?   You idiot.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot........I listed her awards and wealth created long after 1972...........her greatest money making movies happened after taking the photo with the mass murdering communists, you dishonest piece of shit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And her career was over by 1981 because her brand name had become toxic.  Everyone was happy to be out of Vietnam, but no one was willing to forgive "Hanoi Jane".
> 
> Shit, they were still dragging her up in 2004 when John Kerry Ran for president.
Click to expand...



You are an idiot.........you just pull stuff out of your ass and think we won't call you on it...

From wikipedia...

*In 1980, Fonda starred in 9 to 5 with Lily Tomlin and Dolly Parton. The film was a huge critical and box office success, becoming the second highest-grossing release of the year.[42] Fonda had long wanted to work with her father, hoping it would help their strained relationship.[35] She achieved this goal when she purchased the screen rights to the play On Golden Pond, specifically for her father and her.[43] The father-daughter rift depicted on screen closely paralleled the real-life relationship between the two Fondas; they eventually became the first father-daughter duo to earn Oscar nominations (Jane earned her first Best Supporting Actress Oscar nomination) for their roles in the same film. On Golden Pond, which also starred four-time Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn, brought Henry Fonda his only Academy Award for Best Actor, which Jane accepted on his behalf, as he was ill and could not leave home. He died five months later.[35]*

*Fonda continued to appear in feature films throughout the 1980s, **winning an Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actress for The Dollmaker (1984), and starring in the role of Dr. Martha Livingston in Agnes of God (1985). **The following year, she played an alcoholic actress and murder suspect in the 1986 thriller The Morning After, opposite Jeff Bridges. In preparation for her role, Fonda modelled the character on the starlet Gail Russell, who, at 36, was found dead in her apartment, among empty liquor bottles. Writing for The New Yorker, Pauline Kael commended Fonda for giving "a raucous-voiced, down-in-the-dirty performance that has some of the charge of her Bree in Klute, back in 1971".[44] **For her performance, she was nominated for yet another Academy Award for Best Actress.*
*-----

To compensate, she began participating in aerobics and strengthening exercises under the direction of Leni Cazden. The Leni Workout became the Jane Fonda Workout, which began a second career for her, continuing for many years.[35] This was considered one of the influences that started the fitness craze among baby boomers, then approaching middle age. In 1982, Fonda released her first exercise video, titled Jane Fonda's Workout, inspired by her best-selling book, Jane Fonda's Workout Book. Jane Fonda's Workout became the highest selling home video of the next few years, selling over a million copies. The video's release led many people to buy the then-new VCR in order to watch and perform the workout at home. The exercise videos were directed by Sidney Galanty, who produced the first video and 11 more after that. *

*She would subsequently release 23 workout videos with the series selling a total of 17 million copies combined, more than any other exercise series.[35] She released five workout books and thirteen audio programs, through 1995. After a fifteen-year hiatus, she released two new fitness videos on DVD in 2010, aiming at an older audience.[45]*


----------



## bodecea

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


The Dr Seuss/Mr Potato Head stuff is pretty funny.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is based on a false premise. The people named in the OP (and many many more both people and corporations) received their income from the general public; the people. Not just any arbitrary political division. And to the extent they were "cancelled" it was by that public who simply stopped buying their product. Simple, you piss people off; they stop buying what you're selling. Has nothing to do with politics and in fact our whole political system operates on the same basic principle: piss off the voters-they don't vote for you. Just part of the American way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, we were talking about Gina Carano- who gets her income from the general public and was cancelled after she said racist and transphobic garbage.
Click to expand...



Nothing she posted was racist or transphobic you lying sack of shit........again, you didn't post what she tweeted that was racist or transphobic.....you lie and hide ...you piece of crap.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, who on the "left" called for Tebow to be banned from football for praying?
> His 4 second release, maybe, but not for praying.
> The objection to Tebow's acts were not over the prayers but over the public displays.
> Public displays which, if they included a prayer rug and bowing to Mecca,  I am certain would have prompted the same treatment from you that you give Kap.
> 
> Hypocrisy, like Tebow's prayers, should be kept private.
Click to expand...


How were Tebow's actions disruptive?

You seem upset that Tebow would put his personal beliefs on display. Well, that's EXACTLY what Kaepernick did. Why is it okay for Kaepernick to do it but not Tebow?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Godboy said:


> When did she say she was scared of trans people? Do you have any actual quotes to support your wild claims?


Of course not. (He never does.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Again, who is "you guys"?



Joey's legion of straw men.



> And again, tell us why you think Carano's tweet was antisemitic. From there maybe we can see if it is justifiably being "thrown back in our faces". If you can give a reasoned argument as to why it was antisemitic, maybe you have a point. But if you can't or won't, then I have no recourse but to continue seeing Carano's case as bullshit and wokeness on overload.
> 
> What do you say? Or are you going to continue running from the question?



Option B. It's all he EVER does.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Thoth001 said:


> Maybe you should actually look at the science and stop believing what the lying MSM tells you.
> 
> *FACE MASKS DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD OF AIRBORNE PATHOGENS*
> 
> Numerous randomized control trials (RCTs) analyzed the efficacy of masks in preventing the spread of an aerosol pathogen.
> 
> Below is a partial list of such trials found in professionally-reviewed literature, published by the following internationally-recognized organizations. I encourage you to click on any of the links to learn more:
> 
> A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers
> 
> Facemasks and similar barriers to prevent respiratory illness such as COVID-19: A rapid systematic review
> 
> https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2006372
> 
> Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
> 
> https://www.journalofhospitalinfection.com/article/0195-6701(91)90148-2/pdf
> 
> Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare Settings—Personal Protective and Environmental Measures
> 
> Use of surgical face masks to reduce the incidence of the common cold among health care workers in Japan: a randomized controlled trial - PubMed
> 
> ACP Journals
> 
> *9 Potential and Proven Dangers to Muzzling Yourself*
> 
> 
> 1. *Cavities*: New York dentists are reporting that half their patients are suffering decaying teeth, receding gum lines and seriously sour breath from wearing masks. “We’re seeing inflammation in people’s gums that have been healthy forever, and cavities in people who have never had them before,” Dr. Rob Ramondi told FOX News.
> 
> 'Mask mouth': Dentists coin new term for smelly side effect of wearing a mask
> 
> 2. *Facial Deformities*: Masking children triggers mouth breathing which as been shown to cause “long, narrow faces, narrow mouths, high palatal vaults, dental malocclusion, gummy smiles, and many other unattractive facial features,” according to the Journal of General Dentistry.
> 
> Mouth breathing: adverse effects on facial growth, health, academics, and behavior - PubMed
> 
> 3. *Acne Vulgaris*: Moisture and germs collecting in the mask cause “facial skin lesions, irritant dermatitis… or worsening acne” (according to Public Health Ontario) which stresses the immune system, can lead to permanent scarring and has been linked to depression and suicidal thoughts (according to the Journal of Dermatologic Clinics). Children also develop impetigo, a bacterial infection that produces red sores and can lead to kidney damage (according to the Mayo Clinic).
> 
> Mouth breathing: adverse effects on facial growth, health, academics, and behavior - PubMed
> 
> Quality of life measures for acne patients - PubMed
> 
> Impetigo - Symptoms and causes
> 
> 4. *Increased Risk of COVID-19:* “Mask use by the general public could be associated with a theoretical elevated risk of COVID-19 through… self-contamination,” states Public Health Ontario in Wearing Masks in Public and COVID-19. “By wearing a mask, the exhaled viruses will not be able to escape and will concentrate in the nasal passages, enter the olfactory nerves and travel into the brain,” theorizes nationally recognized board-certified neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD (in an article at The Centre for Research on Globalization).
> 
> https://www.publichealthontario.ca/...hat-we-know-public-masks-apr-7-2020.pdf?la=en
> 
> Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy - Global Research
> 
> 5. *Bacterial Pneumonia*: At an Oklahoma Press Conference, Dr. James Meehan, MD testified: “Reports coming from my colleagues all over the world are suggesting that the bacterial pneumonias are on the rise” as a result of moisture collecting in face masks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CDC Admits: No Conclusive Evidence Cloth Masks Work Against COVID - The New American
> 
> 
> The CDC suggests what experts have stated all along: There is no conclusive evidence that cloth masks protects users from coronavirus. ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thenewamerican.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacterial Pneumonia and Other Health Risks of Wearing Masks Alarm Doctors - Word Matters!
> 
> 
> Serious health issues arise when people suffer reduced oxygen supply due to wearing masks. These include dental damage and gum disease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.ernestdempsey.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. *Immune Suppressing*: Masks are often worn by criminals trying to hide their identity while perpetuating an offence (theft, violence, rape, murder, etc.). They produce subconscious anxiety and fear. Fear and anxiety activate the fight-or-flight nervous system which down-regulates the immune system, as shown in a study by the American Psychological Association.
> 
> APA PsycNet
> 
> 7. *Germophobia*: Masks create an irrational fear of germs and a false sense of protection from disease, leading to antisocial (or even hostile) behaviour towards those not wearing a mask. (See the paper in the Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders titled “COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self”).
> 
> COVID-19, obsessive-compulsive disorder and invisible life forms that threaten the self
> 
> 8. *Toxic*: Many (if not most) masks and face coverings (including cloth) are made with toxic and carcinogenic chemicals including fire retardant, fibreglass, lead, NFE, phthalates, polyfluorinated chemicals and formaldehyde that will outgas and be inhaled by the wearer. (See “5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named” by Fashion United).
> 
> 5 main hazardous chemicals in clothing from China named
> 
> 9. *Psychologically Harmfu*l: “I believe the real threat right now is what we’re doing to sabotage the mental, emotional and physical health of… our children, whose development is dependent on social interactions, physical contact and facial expressions,” writes Dr. Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com. “Between mask wearing and social distancing, I fear the impact on children in particular may be long-term, if not permanent.”
> 
> How Would You Prefer to Spend Your Last Thanksgiving?
> 
> Read more:
> 
> John C. A. Manley, 20 Reasons Mandatory Face Masks are Unsafe, Ineffective and Immoral - James Fetzer
> 
> Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That. Germ Theory Is A Fraud.                                                                                                                                                                                     *Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your Mask Does Nothing Because It Doesnt Work Like That. Germ Theory Is A Fraud.
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> worldtruthvideos.org



And young children who do not know how to smile.


----------



## Jarlaxle

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I show you are an idiot by directly addressing the op....which you demanded of the other poster.....I did it with facts, and you have nothing....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You shit fuck.
> 
> I don't care what you think.   You retard.
> 
> I didn't ask for your input.  You dumbass.
> 
> Your ideas are stupid and you're stupid.  You retard.
> 
> You moron.
Click to expand...

Translation: "Being unable to refute any of the facts offered, I will chug prune juice, drop trou, and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions."


----------



## Jarlaxle

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
Click to expand...

No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should actually look at the science and stop believing what the lying MSM tells you.
> 
> *FACE MASKS DO NOT PREVENT SPREAD OF AIRBORNE PATHOGENS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I'll take the word of medical professionals over Trump Supporters or some Mannish Woman on a TV show about space wizards... Oh, wait, she's not on that show anymore.
Click to expand...

No, you won't. You know what you know and will not let any facts change your belief.


----------



## Jarlaxle

struth said:


> 1) can you provide it again?



No, he never does.



> 2)SF didn't blackball him....his stats supported their decision...he was coming off 3 freaking surgeries.....nobody wanted him



And *he opted out!*  He was a mediocre QB with declining health and skills. Add that to the huge amount of baggage-hell no, nobody wants to sign him.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> And- again- they settled before discovery was done...   In short, they knew there were emails that made them look bad.



Or they decided to write a check to get rid of the suit because it was cheaper than fighting it-happens all the time.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Jarlaxle said:


> Translation: "Being unable to refute any of the facts offered, I will chug prune juice, drop trou, and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions."


You going to play stupid too?  Ok let’s start with something simple for you.

Here’s a nice simple video for you. Click on it to play.


Are you seriously going to pretend that there wasn’t a huge backlash against Kaepernick when the whole kneeling thing started?

Go sit in the corner.


----------



## Jarlaxle

struth said:


> 1) you seem to be speculating here...with no evidence...there is actually evidence there was no conspiracy as I highlighted TWO teams worked him out, one was making an offer until CK gf made horrible comments



Joey is a disciple of Goebbels: repeat a lie enough and it is accepted as truth.  Basically: he filibusters until people get sick of responding to the same shit for the thirtieth time, then proclaims victory.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Jarlaxle said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
Click to expand...


What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?  

Are you all caught up now?  Retard.


----------



## Jarlaxle

struth said:


> 1) you have no idea if money was even transferred.   They reached an agreement for the grievance letter that the Players Union filed on his behalf.   Moreover, as I highlighted two teams were interested, one about to make an offer, he was not "blackballed" .... in fact, after the agreement over the grievance letter settlement, the NFL, in an unprecedented move (likely part of the agreement) arranged for a private combine for him, with all the teams being present.  All attended, but thirty mins before the start time, CK pulled out....
> 2) really? ok white flag noted
> 3) well considering the event in your pic took place in the early 70s, it would seem it didn't.....if over a decade later her career stalled.....and actually she was making films almost yearly til 1990, then took some time off (which is also about the time she married Ted Tuner) ....before coming back in 2005 Jane Fonda filmography
> 
> She was never canceled, even though she committed an horrible act.



I will also note that Fonda was 54 years old in 1991, when she retired (other than her workout videos) from acting. She also married Ted Turner in 1991.


----------



## Jarlaxle

schmidlap said:


> GMCGeneral said:
> 
> 
> 
> For which thousands of Vietnam Vets will never forgiver her for.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, Fonda has accepted responsibility and apologized repeatedly for the “Hanoi Jane” photo, and clarified that her actions during the Vietnam War were in protest of the U.S. government and not against soldiers.
> 
> if anyone is still sulking over it, that is his right.
> 
> _"Someone (I don’t remember who) leads me toward the gun, and I sit down, still laughing, still applauding. It all has nothing to do with where I am sitting. I hardly even think about where I am sitting. The cameras flash. I get up, and as I start to walk back to the car with the translator, the implication of what has just happened hits me. Oh, my God. It’s going to look like I was trying to shoot down U.S. planes! I plead with him, 'You have to be sure those photographs are not published. Please, you can’t let them be published.' I am assured it will be taken care of. I don’t know what else to do. It is possible that the Vietnamese had it all planned. I will never know. If they did, can I really blame them? *The buck stops here. If I was used, I allowed it to happen. It was my mistake, and I have paid and continue to pay a heavy price for it.*"_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Complicated Story Behind Jane Fonda's 'Hanoi Jane' Nickname
> 
> 
> Megyn Kelly once called Fonda "synonymous with outrage"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> time.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​Whilst we grasp at diversions among the minutia of yesteryear, here is one that contrasts with Fonda's honestly accepting responsibility:​​(Stupid image removed.)​
Click to expand...

If Hanoi Jane didn't hang herself, she did not "accept responsibility" for her treason.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Utilitarian said:


> Seriously?  You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument?  You're either a wumao or a complete idiot.  Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.



Neither: Joey is evil. He is the purest, darkest example of undiluted evil on this site.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I don't do links unless I feel like it. It's usually wasted, because you guys either pretend you didn't see them or scream "Fake News"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Codespeak for "I have absolutely nothing to support my argument, but you should believe me anyway"...
Click to expand...

I see you have figured out Joey!


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Except she wasn't making GOOD films, that's the point. She wasn't getting leading lady roles in major motion pictures, despite being probably one of the most talented actresses of her generation.   By 1981, she was cancelled.



How many actresses get "talented leading lady" roles in their mid 40s or older? Be honest...if you are capable of that.


----------



## Utilitarian

Jarlaxle said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously?  You're going with the "Uighurs are terrorists" argument?  You're either a wumao or a complete idiot.  Either way, I'm not wasting anymore time with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither: Joey is evil. He is the purest, darkest example of undiluted evil on this site.
Click to expand...

I don't like the guy, but I don't tend to assume malice when either financial incentive or being brainwashed will suffice.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> And her career was over by 1981 because her brand name had become toxic.  Everyone was happy to be out of Vietnam, but no one was willing to forgive "Hanoi Jane".
> 
> Shit, they were still dragging her up in 2004 when John Kerry Ran for president.



Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Utilitarian said:


> I don't like the guy, but I don't tend to assume malice when either financial incentive or being brainwashed will suffice.



I have seen many of his (thousands upon thousands upon thousands of) posts...he is absolutely pure and undiluted evil. He is evil on the level of Beria, or Blokhin.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Codespeak for "I have absolutely nothing to support my argument, but you should believe me anyway"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing I've never heard when I've provided a link.
> 
> "Wow. I wasn't aware of that.  I'm sorry, you were right, I have totally changed my mind on this issue now that I've been informed."
> 
> I do links when I feel like them.  Not when other people demand them.
Click to expand...

Translation: "being full of shit, I will attempt to distract and divert."


----------



## Jarlaxle

XponentialChaos said:


> You going to play stupid too?  Ok let’s start with something simple for you.
> 
> Here’s a nice simple video for you. Click on it to play.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously going to pretend that there wasn’t a huge backlash against Kaepernick when the whole kneeling thing started?
> 
> Go sit in the corner.



You're not PLAYING stupid, boy.


----------



## Utilitarian

Jarlaxle said:


> Utilitarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't like the guy, but I don't tend to assume malice when either financial incentive or being brainwashed will suffice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen many of his (thousands upon thousands upon thousands of) posts...he is absolutely pure and undiluted evil. He is evil on the level of Beria, or Blokhin.
Click to expand...

Making excuses for Uighur concentration camps does fit the Blokhin MO.


----------



## XponentialChaos

Jarlaxle said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You going to play stupid too?  Ok let’s start with something simple for you.
> 
> Here’s a nice simple video for you. Click on it to play.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you seriously going to pretend that there wasn’t a huge backlash against Kaepernick when the whole kneeling thing started?
> 
> Go sit in the corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not PLAYING stupid, boy.
Click to expand...


Let me know when you think of something relevant to say.

Take your time.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Jarlaxle said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, who is "you guys"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joey's legion of straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, tell us why you think Carano's tweet was antisemitic. From there maybe we can see if it is justifiably being "thrown back in our faces". If you can give a reasoned argument as to why it was antisemitic, maybe you have a point. But if you can't or won't, then I have no recourse but to continue seeing Carano's case as bullshit and wokeness on overload.
> 
> What do you say? Or are you going to continue running from the question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Option B. It's all he EVER does.
Click to expand...


Yup, that's all he ever does. If you notice, he never actually discusses a topic. This is so he can avoid what he calls "gaslighting", though I don't think he has a fucking clue what the term means.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


What Fonda did was giving aid and comfort to our enemy.  She shouldn’t have just been shunned as she was, she should have been tried, convicted and imprisioned for a couple of decades.  Instead she lived a far better life than almost all of the vets who were attacked by the people she publically supported.  She has always lived a life of privilege and wanted for nothing in her life.  It’s not cancel culture for people to use their wallets to express approval or disapproval of a public o figure.  The Dixie Chicks found that out, when they insulted the beliefs of most of their fans.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> Well.....1) you have no idea if any money was paid out 2) until you prove that you really aren't on much ground here, and I won't go further



They settled. Money was paid out.  



Toddsterpatriot said:


> The NFL admitted that?
> Or Joe Lockhart, Clinton's press secretary?



The NFL settled...  And then they allowed other players to kneel if they wanted to.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....1) you have no idea if any money was paid out 2) until you prove that you really aren't on much ground here, and I won't go further
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They settled. Money was paid out.
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The NFL admitted that?
> Or Joe Lockhart, Clinton's press secretary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The NFL settled...  And then they allowed other players to kneel if they wanted to.
Click to expand...

So me where money was paid out.....all I have seen was they reached an agreement over the grievance letter the Players Union filed with the NFL on his behalf...mediation went on for a couple years, the NFL wouldn't agree, they pulled out....it looked like it was going to Court, then they reached an agreement in 2019....a few months later they put togehter a private workout for him, in front of all the teams, he then pulled out of that.

So show me the money


----------



## JoeB131

AZrailwhale said:


> What Fonda did was giving aid and comfort to our enemy. She shouldn’t have just been shunned as she was, she should have been tried, convicted and imprisioned for a couple of decades. Instead she lived a far better life than almost all of the vets who were attacked by the people she publically supported. She has always lived a life of privilege and wanted for nothing in her life. It’s not cancel culture for people to use their wallets to express approval or disapproval of a public o figure. The Dixie Chicks found that out, when they insulted the beliefs of most of their fans.



Okay, a couple of things here. 

What made the North Vietnamese our "enemy"?  Did they attack us?  No.  The Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fraud. Did we formally declare war on them?   

If the vets of Vietnam got a shitty deal, it wasn't because of Jane Fonda, it was by a government that denied they poisoned them with Agent Orange, didn't give them benefits or councelling when they got back.  Who kept sending them out on patrols while they were arguing over the shape of the table in Paris to negotiate a face-saving exit.  

It seems that there's a lot of misdirected anger here.  And that was the problem.  The reason her career tanked in the 1980's was a lot of our remorse about how we treated these vets, when we made idiotic Rambo movies and held parades for these guys a decade later.   

What we didn't do.   Have an honest discussion about how we got into the war to start with.  And big surprise, we got into another bigger mess in Iraq.   Hey, let's hang the Dixie Chicks, we don't want to have the honest discussion about that one, either.


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> So? Her employers wished to avoid a negative reaction from the public which buys the product and decides for itself what is/is not racist or transphobic garbage. Much like Kaepernick and the NFL or Hanoi Jane Fonda and Hollywood producers.



Exactly my point.  But no one really whined about "cancel culture" with those folks, did they?  

The difference is, all those other people were eventually vindicated.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Or they decided to write a check to get rid of the suit because it was cheaper than fighting it-happens all the time.



Was it?  Frankly, if all you had to do was kneel before you get fired and then sue, it would seem settling would be the last thing you'd want to do.  

Every second stringer would take a knee. 

Of course, they are all taking knees now, anyway, because the NFL capitulated on that point, too.


----------



## schmidlap

Jarlaxle said:


> If Hanoi Jane didn't hang herself, she did not "accept responsibility" for her treason.


The young woman was not ever convicted or even indicted for treason.

Your demand that she should have died at her own hand for her lapse in judgement is antithetical to the moral code of the nation, certainly to the Christian ethos, but, if you need to wish her dead, just close your eyes and click the heels of your self-righteous ruby slippers together three times.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)



Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags. 






In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.  

So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work. 

Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.


----------



## schmidlap

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags.
> 
> View attachment 465017
> 
> In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.
> 
> So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work.
> 
> Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, the North Vietnamese propaganda tool - the contrived photo-op - was embraced and promoted as a propaganda tool by those who were hellbent upon perpetuating the sacrifice of American lives in the costly U.S. intervention into the Vietnamese Civil War. Both sides hyped it in furtherance of their respective, diametrically-opposed agendas, advocates _for_ the invading forces more so. That there are those who still find propaganda value in a pic of an attractive young woman sitting at a gun is rather astounding. Maybe the NRA should buy the rights to promote_ their _agenda.

Fonda's opposition to the bloody fiasco, dramatized by her 1972 trio to Vietnam, reflected what had already become the common opposition to the war expressed by most Americans. 

During the waning days of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, Fonda visited North Vietnamese villages, hospitals, schools, and factories damaged in the war, weaving her comments about what she observed at those sites with denunciations of U.S. military policy.

April 28, 2000​​Twenty-five years after the fall of Saigon, most Americans still feel that their country's involvement in the Vietnam War was a bad idea, according to a CBS News/_New York Times_ Poll.​​The majority of Republicans and Democrats as well as of the demographic groups measured agree on this point, but feelings are especially pronounced among Americans of draft age during the war—those now 45 to 64: Sixty-seven percent of 45- to 64-year-olds think the United States should have stayed out of the fighting.​​





						Vietnam War -  Opposition to the War
					

Brief introductory background information and history of the Vietnam War.




					www.globalsecurity.org
				



​​_“It hurts me and it will to my grave that I made a huge, huge mistake that made a lot of people think I was against the soldiers.”_


----------



## Jarlaxle

schmidlap said:


> The young woman was not ever convicted or even indicted for treason.
> 
> Your demand that she should have died at her own hand for her lapse in judgement is antithetical to the moral code of the nation, certainly to the Christian ethos, but, if you need to wish her dead, just close your eyes and click the heels of your self-righteous ruby slippers together three times.


She should have been arrested, tried, convicted (it was open and shut), and executed. 

I will give you one hundred trillion dollars a day for one trillion days if you can show one post where I ever claimed to be a Christian.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> The NFL settled



How much? And who admitted? Just Joe?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags.
> 
> View attachment 465017
> 
> In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.
> 
> So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work.
> 
> Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.
Click to expand...

Her career didn't "end", you blithering idiot. She married Ted Turner and RETIRED FROM ACTING!

And yet again:  how many actresses get "talented leading lady" roles in their mid 40s or older? Be honest...if you are capable of that. (You're not.)


----------



## schmidlap

Jarlaxle said:


> She should have been arrested, tried, convicted (it was open and shut), and executed.


If you are in a tizzy that no American regime ever satisfied your desires, you are free to remain alienated from American jurisprudence.



Jarlaxle said:


> I will give you one hundred trillion dollars a day for one trillion days if you can show one post where I ever claimed to be a Christian.


You appear to be confused. Where did I ever label you a Christian?


----------



## Jarlaxle

schmidlap said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> She should have been arrested, tried, convicted (it was open and shut), and executed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are in a tizzy that no American regime ever satisfied your desires, you are free to remain alienated from American jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry...what in the name of Jesus Christ and a pair of fuzzy dice are you babbling about?


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Her career didn't "end", you blithering idiot. She married Ted Turner and RETIRED FROM ACTING!
> 
> And yet again: how many actresses get "talented leading lady" roles in their mid 40s or older? Be honest...if you are capable of that. (You're not.)



The ones who can act certainly do.   

Again- did you need help with the big words?  Her career was over by 1981, about the same time that we all started rewriting the Vietnam War in our heads.


----------



## schmidlap

Jarlaxle said:


> I'm sorry...what in the name of Jesus Christ and a pair of fuzzy dice are you babbling about?


It might help if you sounded it out phonetically.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags.
> 
> View attachment 465017
> 
> In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.
> 
> So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work.
> 
> Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.
Click to expand...

it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda

Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda



No, actually, it's a complete fabrication.  

There's not one documented case of it in contemporary media, such as "Hippy spits on soldier" or "Hippy in Hospital after Soldier kicks his ass." 









						OPINION EXCHANGE  |  The myth of the spat-upon war veteran
					

This legend is repeated even by presidents. The evidence doesn't bear it out.




					www.startribune.com
				





_In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross Prof. Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.

For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."

Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish[ing] their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."_

In short, it was a myth made up, not unlike the _Dolchstoßlegende_  of post World War I Germany that Germany had not been defeated, but stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists.  America simply couldn't accept they had lost a war that it never really wanted to fight to start with. Someone was to blame.  It was those damned hippies!!!! 



struth said:


> Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been



Do you really think those movies were "celebrations" of Vietnam?   Neither showed the war in a good light. 

the point about those movies is they weren't movies like Rambo that celebrated myths like soldiers being spat upon or the Vietnamese were holding Americans after the war and our government wasn't bothering to rescue them.  

In short, instead of our wrath being where it should have been directed, at political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who instigated, escalated and deceived the public about the war, we turned our wrath on the people who actually had the integrity to say, "No, this is wrong."

The "scandal" of Fonda's Hanoi visit was not that she was dumb enough to get herself photographed sitting on an AA gun, it was that she went around showing that we were bombing hospitals and schools and homes of people who weren't a threat to us.


----------



## struth

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, it's a complete fabrication.
> 
> There's not one documented case of it in contemporary media, such as "Hippy spits on soldier" or "Hippy in Hospital after Soldier kicks his ass."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPINION EXCHANGE  |  The myth of the spat-upon war veteran
> 
> 
> This legend is repeated even by presidents. The evidence doesn't bear it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.startribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross Prof. Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.
> 
> For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."
> 
> Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish[ing] their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."_
> 
> In short, it was a myth made up, not unlike the _Dolchstoßlegende_  of post World War I Germany that Germany had not been defeated, but stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists.  America simply couldn't accept they had lost a war that it never really wanted to fight to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think those movies were "celebrations" of Vietnam?   Neither showed the war in a good light.
> 
> the point about those movies is they weren't movies like Rambo that celebrated myths like soldiers being spat upon or the Vietnamese were holding Americans after the war and our government wasn't bothering to rescue them.
> 
> In short, instead of our wrath being where it should have been directed, at political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who instigated, escalated and deceived the public about the war, we turned our wrath on the people who actually had the integrity to say, "No, this is wrong."
> 
> The "scandal" of Fonda's Hanoi visit was not that she was dumb enough to get herself photographed sitting on an AA gun, it was that she went around showing that we were bombing hospitals and schools and homes of people who weren't a threat to us.
Click to expand...

Ok, ask a Vet...not some liberal professor that spoke to a few people, then wow...couldn't find a photo?  Sorry....I believe the war heroes 

No, I don't think they did....not sure why you would celebrate the war.....and I would hardly call Rambo a celebration.....it was about a guy that was dealing with PTSD after coming home from the war...

No the scandel of Fonda was she was on a anti-aircraft gun that killed Americans.  Of  course we were bombing things....we did in WW1, 2, etc.....


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> The ones who can act certainly do.
> 
> Again- did you need help with the big words?  Her career was over by 1981, about the same time that we all started rewriting the Vietnam War in our heads.


No matter how many times you regurgitate that, boy,, it is *still a lie*.


----------



## Jarlaxle

schmidlap said:


> It might help if you sounded it out phonetically.


You don't know either, then? Figured.


----------



## JoeB131

struth said:


> Ok, ask a Vet...not some liberal professor that spoke to a few people, then wow...couldn't find a photo? Sorry....I believe the war heroes



I don't.  One thing that I've found is that veterans often tend to exaggerate.    And I say that as a veteran myself.   I go by what can be proven with documentary evidence... News reports, police incidents, etc.   Those are largely missing.  

Just like everyone knows someone who knows someone who was at the hospital when they extracted the gerbil from Richard Gere's butthole.  



struth said:


> No, I don't think they did....not sure why you would celebrate the war.....and I would hardly call Rambo a celebration.....it was about a guy that was dealing with PTSD after coming home from the war...



The first one was...  and it repeated the spitting lie.  

The second one promoted the lie that the Vietnamese were continuing to hold POW's and it has a line where Rambo asks Colonel Troughtman, "Are we allowed to win this time" before he goes off on his mission. 

There were also the films "_Uncommon Valor_" and the Chuck Norris _Missing in Action_ movies that spread this bullshit.  The reality is, the Vietnamese didn't hold anyone after 1973 except one guy who didn't want to go back because he would have been shot for desertion.  They've been very cooperative in helping us find the remains of dead servicemen, even though they have 300,000 people they can't account for.  




struth said:


> No the scandel of Fonda was she was on a anti-aircraft gun that killed Americans. Of course we were bombing things....we did in WW1, 2, etc.....



Gonna play your own game here.  Can you prove that specific gun ever killed Americans?  The way you guys carry on, you made it sound like she was firing it.


----------



## Dana7360

Thoth001 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.
Click to expand...




I couldn't get past the first sentence.

Why?

Because you aren't her employer. 

Do you believe in the "right to work" laws? If so,  you understand that the employer doesn't need much of a reason to fire an employee.

Do you understand a company having the right to hire employees who don't offend people and don't cause a hostile work environment?

Do you understand a  company has the right to protect the company? They all have morals clauses in their contracts. The company has the right to have a reputation and the right to protect that reputation.

Finally, do you understand you don't work for that company, you don't own that company and you have no right expect to dictate who that company can hire or fire?

You seem to think that your views actually matter. They don't.


----------



## ESay

Jets said:


> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.


But that doesn't make sense. If you got punished for free speech then it means there is no free speech.


----------



## Dana7360

XponentialChaos said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "Being unable to refute any of the facts offered, I will chug prune juice, drop trou, and spin in a circle, blasting explosive diarrhea in all directions."
> 
> 
> 
> You going to play stupid too?  Ok let’s start with something simple for you.
> 
> Here’s a nice simple video for you. Click on it to play.
> 
> 
> Are you seriously going to pretend that there wasn’t a huge backlash against Kaepernick when the whole kneeling thing started?
> 
> Go sit in the corner.
Click to expand...



What does football have to do with the flag, our military, those who gave their lives for our nation and anything political?

It's a sport. 

The flag, national anthem and pledge of allegiance have absolutely nothing to do with football and have no business at any game beyond the Olympics.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Her employers wished to avoid a negative reaction from the public which buys the product and decides for itself what is/is not racist or transphobic garbage. Much like Kaepernick and the NFL or Hanoi Jane Fonda and Hollywood producers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly my point.  But no one really whined about "cancel culture" with those folks, did they?
> 
> The difference is, all those other people were eventually vindicated.
Click to expand...

Then you are pointless because *none* of those people have been vindicated.


----------



## Jets

ESay said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make sense. If you got punished for free speech then it means there is no free speech.
Click to expand...


Free speech does not necessarily negate consequences thereafter.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags.
> 
> View attachment 465017
> 
> In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.
> 
> So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work.
> 
> Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.
Click to expand...

That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers. Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war. American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting   to piss on her grave when she dies.
Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.


----------



## ESay

Jets said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> But that doesn't make sense. If you got punished for free speech then it means there is no free speech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Free speech does not necessarily negate consequences thereafter.
Click to expand...

Well, your stance reminded me an old Soviet anecdote. 

Nixon and Brezhnev were taking part in some international conference. One of them came down to the other and an argument erupted between them. At one point Nixon said: "You don't have free speech in the Soviet Union at all. Here, every person can come to the White House gates and chant 'Nixon, go away!"

Brezhnev answered: "Ha. What a big deal! In Moscow every person can come to the Kremlin gates and chant 'Nixon, go away!" too.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, it's a complete fabrication.
> 
> There's not one documented case of it in contemporary media, such as "Hippy spits on soldier" or "Hippy in Hospital after Soldier kicks his ass."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPINION EXCHANGE  |  The myth of the spat-upon war veteran
> 
> 
> This legend is repeated even by presidents. The evidence doesn't bear it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.startribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross Prof. Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.
> 
> For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."
> 
> Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish[ing] their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."_
> 
> In short, it was a myth made up, not unlike the _Dolchstoßlegende_  of post World War I Germany that Germany had not been defeated, but stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists.  America simply couldn't accept they had lost a war that it never really wanted to fight to start with. Someone was to blame.  It was those damned hippies!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think those movies were "celebrations" of Vietnam?   Neither showed the war in a good light.
> 
> the point about those movies is they weren't movies like Rambo that celebrated myths like soldiers being spat upon or the Vietnamese were holding Americans after the war and our government wasn't bothering to rescue them.
> 
> In short, instead of our wrath being where it should have been directed, at political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who instigated, escalated and deceived the public about the war, we turned our wrath on the people who actually had the integrity to say, "No, this is wrong."
> 
> The "scandal" of Fonda's Hanoi visit was not that she was dumb enough to get herself photographed sitting on an AA gun, it was that she went around showing that we were bombing hospitals and schools and homes of people who weren't a threat to us.
Click to expand...

This post is a complete and deliberate lie. And is nothing more than a rehashing of vile communist propaganda. I saw it and Iived it. I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes. No evidence (other than eye witnesses)? Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

schmidlap said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...her career was so "over" by 1981 that...*she got nominated as best supporting actress* in the year's second highest grossing movie! (Second to _Raiders of the Lost Ark_-she lost the Oscar to Maureen Stapleton in _Reds_.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... and let's look at that, Ditchweed.  By 1981, Ronald Reagan had gotten into office calling Vietnam a "Nobel Cause".  Hollywood had also started releasing Rambo Movies, which perpetuated the mythology of hippies spitting on soldiers and the whole "Stabbed in the Back" Myth.  The whole legend that there were some POW's in some Vietnam camps started being perpetuated,  and everyone flew those stupid POW/MIA flags.
> 
> View attachment 465017
> 
> In short, by 1981, we had moved from "thank God we got out of that stupid war our politicians lied us into" to "Why did those hippies like Jane Fonda betray us in our noble cause".  It was just inconceivable to Americans that America could lose a war.
> 
> So while she had been doing two to three major films in the 1970's a year, that trickled down to one film every two years during the 80's... and her career pretty much ends in 1990 until she got a revival in the Oughts playing supporting characters and Voiceover work.
> 
> Yes, Jane Fonda got cancelled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interestingly, the North Vietnamese propaganda tool - the contrived photo-op - was embraced and promoted as a propaganda tool by those who were hellbent upon perpetuating the sacrifice of American lives in the costly U.S. intervention into the Vietnamese Civil War. Both sides hyped it in furtherance of their respective, diametrically-opposed agendas, advocates _for_ the invading forces more so. That there are those who still find propaganda value in a pic of an attractive young woman sitting at a gun is rather astounding. Maybe the NRA should buy the rights to promote_ their _agenda.
> 
> Fonda's opposition to the bloody fiasco, dramatized by her 1972 trio to Vietnam, reflected what had already become the common opposition to the war expressed by most Americans.
> 
> During the waning days of U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, Fonda visited North Vietnamese villages, hospitals, schools, and factories damaged in the war, weaving her comments about what she observed at those sites with denunciations of U.S. military policy.
> 
> April 28, 2000​​Twenty-five years after the fall of Saigon, most Americans still feel that their country's involvement in the Vietnam War was a bad idea, according to a CBS News/_New York Times_ Poll.​​The majority of Republicans and Democrats as well as of the demographic groups measured agree on this point, but feelings are especially pronounced among Americans of draft age during the war—those now 45 to 64: Sixty-seven percent of 45- to 64-year-olds think the United States should have stayed out of the fighting.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vietnam War -  Opposition to the War
> 
> 
> Brief introductory background information and history of the Vietnam War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​_“It hurts me and it will to my grave that I made a huge, huge mistake that made a lot of people think I was against the soldiers.”_
Click to expand...

The idea that the majority of Americans thought we should yield to communist aggression in Vietnam is at best wild speculation and much more likely just another communist lie perpetuated by their sympathizers. It is well documented that Jane Fonda aided and abetted a foreign enemy nation that was currently engaged in the killing and maiming of American soldiers and innocent civilians in several neighboring countries. And at the time she was proud of that and included that pride as part of her role in spreading communist propaganda.


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> Then you are pointless because *none* of those people have been vindicated.



Actually, they all were.  

Colin was.   Now the NFL allows kneeling, the big corporations are falling all over themselves to show they are down with the struggle, and state legislatures are finally passing police reform bills.  

The Dixie Chicks were.  No one is arguing that the Iraq War was a good idea at this point. 

Jane - Well, she was right about Vietnam, this was probably a case of shooting the messenger.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Colin was. Now the NFL allows kneeling, the big corporations are falling all over themselves to show they are down with the struggle,



And how is that impacting attendance and viewing?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


And that era was recognized for its anti-constitutionality.
But now democrats are repeating that on an exponential level and it’s supposed to be righteous.
You’re a hypocrite deluxe.


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> This post is a complete and deliberate lie. And is nothing more than a rehashing of vile communist propaganda. I saw it and Iived it. I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes.




Okay.  Do you have a police report on that?  Should have been a recorded incident.  



9thIDdoc said:


> Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it.



Then you should have no problem linking to a contemporaneous newspaper article showing it happened.  



9thIDdoc said:


> The idea that the majority of Americans thought we should yield to communist aggression in Vietnam is at best wild speculation and much more likely just another communist lie perpetuated by their sympathizers.




Um, no, sorry buddy.  Polls at the time showed the Public had turned against the war after the Tet Offensive. 

By 1971, 60% of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake.  









						CBS News Poll: U.S. involvement in Vietnam
					

50 years after the Tet Offensive, the percentage of Americans who think the nation should have stayed out of the conflict has changed




					www.cbsnews.com
				






9thIDdoc said:


> It is well documented that Jane Fonda aided and abetted a foreign enemy nation that was currently engaged in the killing and maiming of American soldiers and innocent civilians in several neighboring countries. And at the time she was proud of that and included that pride as part of her role in spreading communist propaganda.



Okay. Here's the reality.  We fought a long and pointless war the Pentagon concluded when it started was unwinnable because the Communists were popular and the French Quislings we were propping up were not. 









						Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## JoeB131

Toddsterpatriot said:


> And how is that impacting attendance and viewing?



Well, there was no attendance due to TRUMP PLAGUE 

viewing was a little lower this year, but it was a truncated season.


----------



## Meathead

Nobody likes skanks.


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.



The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.  



9thIDdoc said:


> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.



Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.  



9thIDdoc said:


> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.



No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days. 



9thIDdoc said:


> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.



Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.  



9thIDdoc said:


> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.



I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war. 

Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.  

We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.


----------



## Meathead

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.
> 
> Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
> 
> We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...

I'll give you this, insane or almost insane and with little discernible humor, you're still sick.


----------



## Meathead

Jets said:


> Free speech does not necessarily negate consequences thereafter.


A pearl of wisdom, no doubt.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how is that impacting attendance and viewing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was no attendance due to TRUMP PLAGUE
> 
> viewing was a little lower this year, but it was a truncated season.
Click to expand...


*viewing was a little lower this year,  *

And the year before, and the year before that?


----------



## JoeB131

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *viewing was a little lower this year, *
> 
> And the year before, and the year before that?



Okay.  Frankly, while I wouldn't mind seeing the NFL go away, it's not going to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *viewing was a little lower this year, *
> 
> And the year before, and the year before that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Frankly, while I wouldn't mind seeing the NFL go away, it's not going to.
Click to expand...


Ratings were down this year, despite people being starved for entertainment.


----------



## JoeB131

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ratings were down this year, despite people being starved for entertainment.



Why would they be starved?   Shit, I've never had as many entertainment options as I have now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Why would they be starved?



There was a lockdown, there are limited (or zero) fans allowed at live events.

It was in all the papers.


----------



## JoeB131

Toddsterpatriot said:


> There was a lockdown, there are limited (or zero) fans allowed at live events.
> 
> It was in all the papers.



Um, I already acknowledged that... I thought we were talking about how many people watched it on TV, and it was slightly less than last year.  

But you can blame Kap kneeling if you want and it makes you feel better.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was a lockdown, there are limited (or zero) fans allowed at live events.
> 
> It was in all the papers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, I already acknowledged that... I thought we were talking about how many people watched it on TV, and it was slightly less than last year.
> 
> But you can blame Kap kneeling if you want and it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...


*I thought we were talking about how many people watched it on TV, *

We were. And despite people being locked down and not being able to go to live events last fall, 
TV ratings for the NFL were still down. 

*But you can blame Kap kneeling if you want*

Kap and all the sucking up to him and BLM in the last year.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are pointless because *none* of those people have been vindicated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they all were.
> 
> Colin was.   Now the NFL allows kneeling, the big corporations are falling all over themselves to show they are down with the struggle, and state legislatures are finally passing police reform bills.
> 
> The Dixie Chicks were.  No one is arguing that the Iraq War was a good idea at this point.
> 
> Jane - Well, she was right about Vietnam, this was probably a case of shooting the messenger.
Click to expand...

Cute, but 100% wrong.


----------



## Dadoalex

Canon Shooter said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, who on the "left" called for Tebow to be banned from football for praying?
> His 4 second release, maybe, but not for praying.
> The objection to Tebow's acts were not over the prayers but over the public displays.
> Public displays which, if they included a prayer rug and bowing to Mecca,  I am certain would have prompted the same treatment from you that you give Kap.
> 
> Hypocrisy, like Tebow's prayers, should be kept private.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How were Tebow's actions disruptive?
> 
> You seem upset that Tebow would put his personal beliefs on display. Well, that's EXACTLY what Kaepernick did. Why is it okay for Kaepernick to do it but not Tebow?
Click to expand...


EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME??????

Tebow's actions occurred DURING THE GAME!
Kaepernick's occurred BEFORE THE GAME!

Now which one disrupted the game?

Perhaps you should return to the Good Book.  And I don't mean the porn you keep next to the toilet.

" But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "

I was not upset with Tebow, I was disappointed.  But perhaps a more direct quote is apropo:

“And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. "

I doubt you get it, hypocrites are rarely aware enough to recognize themselves.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.
> 
> Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
> 
> We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post is a complete and deliberate lie. And is nothing more than a rehashing of vile communist propaganda. I saw it and Iived it. I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay.  Do you have a police report on that?  Should have been a recorded incident.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you should have no problem linking to a contemporaneous newspaper article showing it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the majority of Americans thought we should yield to communist aggression in Vietnam is at best wild speculation and much more likely just another communist lie perpetuated by their sympathizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, sorry buddy.  Polls at the time showed the Public had turned against the war after the Tet Offensive.
> 
> By 1971, 60% of Americans thought sending troops to Vietnam was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CBS News Poll: U.S. involvement in Vietnam
> 
> 
> 50 years after the Tet Offensive, the percentage of Americans who think the nation should have stayed out of the conflict has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is well documented that Jane Fonda aided and abetted a foreign enemy nation that was currently engaged in the killing and maiming of American soldiers and innocent civilians in several neighboring countries. And at the time she was proud of that and included that pride as part of her role in spreading communist propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay. Here's the reality.  We fought a long and pointless war the Pentagon concluded when it started was unwinnable because the Communists were popular and the French Quislings we were propping up were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

*Okay. Do you have a police report on that? Should have been a recorded incident.*
Given that the soldier was an MP and he was one of several injuries incurred during rioting in San Francisco and was treated in Letterman Gen. USAH and may have been followed up by the VA for service connected disability (blindness) I am quite sure that lots of records were made. I was there and saw it for myself as well as played my own minor role. I don't need records to know what I saw and did. And you obviously only care about propaganda rather actual history so I don't believe you are going to be searching through 50 yr./old records for truth you are not interested in. 

*Then you should have no problem linking to a contemporaneous newspaper article showing it happened.  *
Neither should you. I was paying attention and already know what happened. You are the one who has bought into the lies and cannot be bothered with the truth. You could always take the time to educate yourself but you won't because you prefer the lie.

*Really, let's look at that one. DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed. After the war, not so much. *

Yes, please feel free. I imagine that's actually a pretty conservative figure especially if you attempt to include North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Assorted tribesmen, Thai, Cambodians, Laotians, Chinese, Russians, Australians, Americans and who knows who knows who all else. And of course the war didn't stop and the killing didn't end with the withdrawal of our combat units. Who killed who, when, how, and why are factors that do seem to matter even in warfare.  When exactly was "after the war"?


----------



## MadChemist

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!



These people depend on the market to support them in their various jobs.  

You irritate the market, you will suffer consequences.

Jane Fonda was a good actress.  But she made a really poor choice.

Gina did well by her role (certainly not third rate) but you can't annoy your market which she did.  

Cancel culture is strange...but consequence culture sounds no better.

There is no culture.

It's simply the market telling you what it wants and does not want.


----------



## Jarlaxle

9thIDdoc said:


> This post is a complete and deliberate lie. And is nothing more than a rehashing of vile communist propaganda. I saw it and Iived it. I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes. No evidence (other than eye witnesses)? Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it.



You need to understand: Joey does not care. In fact, Joey is a disciple of Goebbels, and the Big Lie.  He regurgitates the same shit twenty or thirty times, until people stop replying to it.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

*No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there. The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen. We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.*

Untrue. And the time to question making a commitment is *before *you make the commitment *not *after spending years and lives and treasure trying to accomplish it. American made South Vietnam an ally and promised to help them in the event of attempted Communist aggression. In the end America betrayed their ally and negated the meaning of the deaths  thousands of troops who died for that cause and trying to fulfill that promise. That is an indelible shame that will not be forgotten. 
We betrayed them while the USSR and China continued their support of North Vietnam. Not really a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination.


JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.
> 
> Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
> 
> We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.
> 
> Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
> 
> We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...



Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.) But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.

We didn't belong there. It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side. 

I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.

Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.) But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.

We didn't belong there. It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side. 



JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> That post takes bullshit to very near it's ultimate level. "Stabbed in the Back" was very much true and has always been grossly understated. I was there and one those soldiers stabbed in the back by traitors and communist sympathizers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Stabbed in the back myth was as much a lie in 1980's America as it was in 1920's Germany.  We withdrew because working class America got tired of sending their boys off to die, and those boys when they did come back were just as likely to join an anti-war protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of innocent South Vietnamese people were slaughtered, sent to "reeducation camps" or otherwise grossly abused because my Country chose to renege on it's promises. We didn't lose a war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, let's look at that one.   DURING the war, there were close to three million Vietnamese killed.  After the war, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> American traitors gave one away when they ceased to find it amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they just asked the pretty basic question, what were we doing over there.  The real problem was that if our goal was to prop up the Saigon Regime, when was that going to happen.  We dumped hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to prop them up, and the minute we stopped, they got knocked over in 55 days.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda deserves to have spent all these years in a solitary prison cell and there will still be a very long line waiting to piss on her grave when she dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, maybe if we put the politicians who lied us into a war in prison instead of the people who objected, we wouldn't have fought a matching one in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Weather she got canceled or not is irrelevant because that far less than what she deserved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.
> 
> Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.)  But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
> 
> We didn't belong there.  It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.
Click to expand...

*I'm just wondering why you don't have this level of ire for the people who started the war.*
_*
Look, buddy, I know you have a need to believe that you were part of a noble crusade rather than a complete fuckup by our politicians. (In fact, nearly all wars are the politicians fucking up.) But the thing about Vietnam was it was unnecessary.
*_
*We didn't belong there. It was a civil war among the Vietnamese and we picked the wrong side.*

The war was started and continued by the North Vietnamese with the liberal support of China and the USSR. This is well known and supported historical fact and even admitted by the North Vietnamese. It was never a Civil War and ended after a full scale invasion by the regular  North Vietnamese Army. The idea that it was a civil war was never anything other that Communist propaganda which even the communists stopped trying to attempt. 

I have no idea if we should have been there or not or even if that matters. My opinion wasn't asked or required. And your opinion on the subject is meaningless to me. 

However if you desire long life good health and fortune never ever call me "buddy" again. Just a word to the wise.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME??????
> 
> Tebow's actions occurred DURING THE GAME!
> Kaepernick's occurred BEFORE THE GAME!
> 
> Now which one disrupted the game?



How were Tebow's actions disruptive? They were no more disruptive than had he walked to the bench and sat down...



> I was not upset with Tebow, I was disappointed.



Why?

Because he's a man of faith and you realize you're just a Godless little bitch??


----------



## Thoth001

Dana7360 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't see anything racist or transphobic there. And I agree with her about the face diapers. And it is a fact that people were turning other people in during Nazi Germany. They are even doing that now in the US and reporting people for not wearing a face diaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't get past the first sentence.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because you aren't her employer.
> 
> Do you believe in the "right to work" laws? If so,  you understand that the employer doesn't need much of a reason to fire an employee.
> 
> Do you understand a company having the right to hire employees who don't offend people and don't cause a hostile work environment?
> 
> Do you understand a  company has the right to protect the company? They all have morals clauses in their contracts. The company has the right to have a reputation and the right to protect that reputation.
> 
> Finally, do you understand you don't work for that company, you don't own that company and you have no right expect to dictate who that company can hire or fire?
> 
> You seem to think that your views actually matter. They don't.
Click to expand...


I am boycotting Disney. Why aren't you?


----------



## JoeB131

9thIDdoc said:


> Given that the soldier was an MP and he was one of several injuries incurred during rioting in San Francisco and was treated in Letterman Gen. USAH and may have been followed up by the VA for service connected disability (blindness) I am quite sure that lots of records were made. I was there and saw it for myself as well as played my own minor role. I don't need records to know what I saw and did. And you obviously only care about propaganda rather actual history so I don't believe you are going to be searching through 50 yr./old records for truth you are not interested in.



So now you've changed the story. You've gone from "Singled out because he was a serviceman" to "Injured while a riot was going on."  So this wasn't what you presented it as, a person being attacked merely because he was a service member. 



9thIDdoc said:


> Neither should you. I was paying attention and already know what happened. You are the one who has bought into the lies and cannot be bothered with the truth. You could always take the time to educate yourself but you won't because you prefer the lie.



Actually, I don't have to prove a negative.  You clearly don't understand how evidence works.  If you are going to make a claim that "Hippies were spitting on service members", then you have to show evidence that actually happened with news reports. (Not some bitter member of a "moron brigade" who was upset he didn't get a parade when he got back like his Dad got in WWII). 



9thIDdoc said:


> Yes, please feel free. I imagine that's actually a pretty conservative figure especially if you attempt to include North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Assorted tribesmen, Thai, Cambodians, Laotians, Chinese, Russians, Australians, Americans and who knows who knows who all else. And of course the war didn't stop and the killing didn't end with the withdrawal of our combat units. Who killed who, when, how, and why are factors that do seem to matter even in warfare. When exactly was "after the war"?



The war was over when that last helicopter flew off the Embassy roof.   that's what Jerry Ford said in 1975.  

The Vietnamese not only didn't really retaliate that badly against the quislings in the South, but they actually liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rogue when those people went nuts and started killing everyone.  



9thIDdoc said:


> Untrue. And the time to question making a commitment is *before *you make the commitment *not *after spending years and lives and treasure trying to accomplish it. American made South Vietnam an ally and promised to help them in the event of attempted Communist aggression. In the end America betrayed their ally and negated the meaning of the deaths thousands of troops who died for that cause and trying to fulfill that promise. That is an indelible shame that will not be forgotten.
> We betrayed them while the USSR and China continued their support of North Vietnam. Not really a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination.



Uh, no, buddy, not really.  You don't keep throwing good money after bad.  There has to be a certain point where you realize a situation is hopeless despite all your best intentions.   The "South Vietnamese" really weren't committed to the Saigon regime.  They simply put down their arms in the fact of the offensive because it wasn't worth losing your life for a bunch of guys who had already made plans to flee the country with their stolen loot. (Which is exactly what Thieu, Ky and the other Quislings did.)  




9thIDdoc said:


> The war was started and continued by the North Vietnamese with the liberal support of China and the USSR. This is well known and supported historical fact and even admitted by the North Vietnamese. It was never a Civil War and ended after a full scale invasion by the regular North Vietnamese Army. The idea that it was a civil war was never anything other that Communist propaganda which even the communists stopped trying to attempt.



This is where you are confused. there were no "North Vietnamese" and "South Vietnamese" before 1954. There were just the Vietnamese, who were sick and tired of the French looting their country.  The French attempted to create a quisling regime in Saigon after they lost the north, but the Vietnamese themselves weren't down with that, and even the CIA admitted that if they put Ho Chi Mihn on the ballot in the south, he would have won.  He was a national hero who had fought the French and Japanese.  The people we propped up where collaborators who were hated.   The only guy who had SOME nationalist cred was Diem, and JFK had that poor fool killed.  



9thIDdoc said:


> I have no idea if we should have been there or not or even if that matters. My opinion wasn't asked or required. And your opinion on the subject is meaningless to me.



That sounds suspiciously like "I was only following orders".  Ask the Nazis at Nuremburg how that one worked out for them.  Or ask Rusty Calley.  I think he's still alive somewhere.  



9thIDdoc said:


> However if you desire long life good health and fortune never ever call me "buddy" again. Just a word to the wise.



Yeah, Grandpa, you are really scary.  Word to the wise, threats on a message board are meaningless and against the rules


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda. You remember Jane? She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.


Really?

Is that all sweet little addled brain Jane was trying to say?

based on the photograph I think she was saying lets kill American servicemen


----------



## Burgermeister

"Consequence Culture"? We are suffering the exact opposite.


----------



## 9thIDdoc

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the soldier was an MP and he was one of several injuries incurred during rioting in San Francisco and was treated in Letterman Gen. USAH and may have been followed up by the VA for service connected disability (blindness) I am quite sure that lots of records were made. I was there and saw it for myself as well as played my own minor role. I don't need records to know what I saw and did. And you obviously only care about propaganda rather actual history so I don't believe you are going to be searching through 50 yr./old records for truth you are not interested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes. No evidence (other than eye witnesses)? Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither should you. I was paying attention and already know what happened. You are the one who has bought into the lies and cannot be bothered with the truth. You could always take the time to educate yourself but you won't because you prefer the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't have to prove a negative.  You clearly don't understand how evidence works.  If you are going to make a claim that "Hippies were spitting on service members", then you have to show evidence that actually happened with news reports. (Not some bitter member of a "moron brigade" who was upset he didn't get a parade when he got back like his Dad got in WWII).
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please feel free. I imagine that's actually a pretty conservative figure especially if you attempt to include North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Assorted tribesmen, Thai, Cambodians, Laotians, Chinese, Russians, Australians, Americans and who knows who knows who all else. And of course the war didn't stop and the killing didn't end with the withdrawal of our combat units. Who killed who, when, how, and why are factors that do seem to matter even in warfare. When exactly was "after the war"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was over when that last helicopter flew off the Embassy roof.   that's what Jerry Ford said in 1975.
> 
> The Vietnamese not only didn't really retaliate that badly against the quislings in the South, but they actually liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rogue when those people went nuts and started killing everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. And the time to question making a commitment is *before *you make the commitment *not *after spending years and lives and treasure trying to accomplish it. American made South Vietnam an ally and promised to help them in the event of attempted Communist aggression. In the end America betrayed their ally and negated the meaning of the deaths thousands of troops who died for that cause and trying to fulfill that promise. That is an indelible shame that will not be forgotten.
> We betrayed them while the USSR and China continued their support of North Vietnam. Not really a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, buddy, not really.  You don't keep throwing good money after bad.  There has to be a certain point where you realize a situation is hopeless despite all your best intentions.   The "South Vietnamese" really weren't committed to the Saigon regime.  They simply put down their arms in the fact of the offensive because it wasn't worth losing your life for a bunch of guys who had already made plans to flee the country with their stolen loot. (Which is exactly what Thieu, Ky and the other Quislings did.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was started and continued by the North Vietnamese with the liberal support of China and the USSR. This is well known and supported historical fact and even admitted by the North Vietnamese. It was never a Civil War and ended after a full scale invasion by the regular North Vietnamese Army. The idea that it was a civil war was never anything other that Communist propaganda which even the communists stopped trying to attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you are confused. there were no "North Vietnamese" and "South Vietnamese" before 1954. There were just the Vietnamese, who were sick and tired of the French looting their country.  The French attempted to create a quisling regime in Saigon after they lost the north, but the Vietnamese themselves weren't down with that, and even the CIA admitted that if they put Ho Chi Mihn on the ballot in the south, he would have won.  He was a national hero who had fought the French and Japanese.  The people we propped up where collaborators who were hated.   The only guy who had SOME nationalist cred was Diem, and JFK had that poor fool killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea if we should have been there or not or even if that matters. My opinion wasn't asked or required. And your opinion on the subject is meaningless to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like "I was only following orders".  Ask the Nazis at Nuremburg how that one worked out for them.  Or ask Rusty Calley.  I think he's still alive somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> However if you desire long life good health and fortune never ever call me "buddy" again. Just a word to the wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Grandpa, you are really scary.  Word to the wise, threats on a message board are meaningless and against the rules
Click to expand...

*So now you've changed the story. You've gone from "Singled out because he was a serviceman" to "Injured while a riot was going on." So this wasn't what you presented it as, a person being attacked merely because he was a service member. *

#284:
_"I helped treat a young soldier who had never even been overseas who, along with several others, were assaulted by those alleged peace-loving hippies and had battery acid thrown in his eyes. No evidence (other than eye witnesses)? Massive evidence was shown on TV news reports every day and discussed in every newspaper across the Nation. No evidence? You have just worked very hard at not seeing it."_

I changed nothing. You just have serious comprehension problems. The young man was a USArmy MP in uniform and unarmed except for one of those billyclub things and was one of what appeared to be 4-6 MPs who were attempting to block rioters from entry on to the Presidio (USArmy base) in San Francisco in '68. They were cursed, spit on, and had things thrown on them (including bags of dog shit-a favored hippie weapon) and taunted. After a half hour or so the rioters surged forward and the MPs disappeared. I then left the area. The young man noted was being treated with other injured in the Emergency Rm. and I stopped by to see if I could help.

*Actually, I don't have to prove a negative. You clearly don't understand how evidence works. If you are going to make a claim that "Hippies were spitting on service members", then you have to show evidence that actually happened with news reports. (Not some bitter member of a "moron brigade" who was upset he didn't get a parade when he got back like his Dad got in WWII).*

No you don't and neither do I. This is a forum where opinions are stated with no proof. But if you choose to call Vietnam veterans liars (many of whom died protecting your sorry ass) along with your other ridiculous slander and charges you would be very wise to be able to back them up. Actually, if I remember correctly, video of a "protestor" spitting on a (Gulf War)veteran on this same site. If I get bored I may see if I can find it again.

*The war was over when that last helicopter flew off the Embassy roof. that's what Jerry Ford said in 1975.

The Vietnamese not only didn't really retaliate that badly against the quislings in the South, but they actually liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rogue when those people went nuts and started killing everyone.

  Uh, no, buddy, not really. You don't keep throwing good money after bad. There has to be a certain point where you realize a situation is hopeless despite all your best intentions. The "South Vietnamese" really weren't committed to the Saigon regime. They simply put down their arms in the fact of the offensive because it wasn't worth losing your life for a bunch of guys who had already made plans to flee the country with their stolen loot. (Which is exactly what Thieu, Ky and the other Quislings did.) *

More invented history and other assorted bullshit. "When the last helicopter left the embassy roof" (Oh the drama!) America's ground combat units had been withdrawn for years and the US had also made a treaty with North Vietnam that was supposed to end the war also years before.

_"Didn't really retaliate"_? I call bullshit. Backup that claim. Hell, the North Vietnamese made a habit of slaughtering innocent civilians throughout the war much less after it ended.

Massacre at Huế

Idiotic to pretend that war is some kind business or that we were in a "hopeless situation" or that anybody's main concern related to the "Saigon regime".
And the South Vietnamese proved repeatedly they were quite willing to fight for home family and country. Including kicking serious North Vietnamese ass in '72 with little help from us.








						South Vietnam: The Easter Offensive
					

COMMUNIST GAMBLE With the majority of U.S. troops out of South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese sensed an opportunity to end the war with a conventional invasion. On March 30, 1972, North Vietnam



					www.nationalmuseum.af.mil
				



.

*but they actually liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rogue *

So? I helped liberate (temporarily) part of Cambodia from the North Vietnamese who had invaded and occupied it (along with parts of Laos and Thailand) long before. Ever hear of the HO Chi Minh trail? Guess where that was. You really think one bunch of bloodthirsty communist assholes is better than another bunch of bloodthirsty communist assholes?


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given that the soldier was an MP and he was one of several injuries incurred during rioting in San Francisco and was treated in Letterman Gen. USAH and may have been followed up by the VA for service connected disability (blindness) I am quite sure that lots of records were made. I was there and saw it for myself as well as played my own minor role. I don't need records to know what I saw and did. And you obviously only care about propaganda rather actual history so I don't believe you are going to be searching through 50 yr./old records for truth you are not interested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So now you've changed the story. You've gone from "Singled out because he was a serviceman" to "Injured while a riot was going on."  So this wasn't what you presented it as, a person being attacked merely because he was a service member.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither should you. I was paying attention and already know what happened. You are the one who has bought into the lies and cannot be bothered with the truth. You could always take the time to educate yourself but you won't because you prefer the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I don't have to prove a negative.  You clearly don't understand how evidence works.  If you are going to make a claim that "Hippies were spitting on service members", then you have to show evidence that actually happened with news reports. (Not some bitter member of a "moron brigade" who was upset he didn't get a parade when he got back like his Dad got in WWII).
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, please feel free. I imagine that's actually a pretty conservative figure especially if you attempt to include North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, Assorted tribesmen, Thai, Cambodians, Laotians, Chinese, Russians, Australians, Americans and who knows who knows who all else. And of course the war didn't stop and the killing didn't end with the withdrawal of our combat units. Who killed who, when, how, and why are factors that do seem to matter even in warfare. When exactly was "after the war"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The war was over when that last helicopter flew off the Embassy roof.   that's what Jerry Ford said in 1975.
> 
> The Vietnamese not only didn't really retaliate that badly against the quislings in the South, but they actually liberated Cambodia from the Khmer Rogue when those people went nuts and started killing everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Untrue. And the time to question making a commitment is *before *you make the commitment *not *after spending years and lives and treasure trying to accomplish it. American made South Vietnam an ally and promised to help them in the event of attempted Communist aggression. In the end America betrayed their ally and negated the meaning of the deaths thousands of troops who died for that cause and trying to fulfill that promise. That is an indelible shame that will not be forgotten.
> We betrayed them while the USSR and China continued their support of North Vietnam. Not really a fair fight by any stretch of the imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, buddy, not really.  You don't keep throwing good money after bad.  There has to be a certain point where you realize a situation is hopeless despite all your best intentions.   The "South Vietnamese" really weren't committed to the Saigon regime.  They simply put down their arms in the fact of the offensive because it wasn't worth losing your life for a bunch of guys who had already made plans to flee the country with their stolen loot. (Which is exactly what Thieu, Ky and the other Quislings did.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> The war was started and continued by the North Vietnamese with the liberal support of China and the USSR. This is well known and supported historical fact and even admitted by the North Vietnamese. It was never a Civil War and ended after a full scale invasion by the regular North Vietnamese Army. The idea that it was a civil war was never anything other that Communist propaganda which even the communists stopped trying to attempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where you are confused. there were no "North Vietnamese" and "South Vietnamese" before 1954. There were just the Vietnamese, who were sick and tired of the French looting their country.  The French attempted to create a quisling regime in Saigon after they lost the north, but the Vietnamese themselves weren't down with that, and even the CIA admitted that if they put Ho Chi Mihn on the ballot in the south, he would have won.  He was a national hero who had fought the French and Japanese.  The people we propped up where collaborators who were hated.   The only guy who had SOME nationalist cred was Diem, and JFK had that poor fool killed.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea if we should have been there or not or even if that matters. My opinion wasn't asked or required. And your opinion on the subject is meaningless to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That sounds suspiciously like "I was only following orders".  Ask the Nazis at Nuremburg how that one worked out for them.  Or ask Rusty Calley.  I think he's still alive somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> 
> However if you desire long life good health and fortune never ever call me "buddy" again. Just a word to the wise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, Grandpa, you are really scary.  Word to the wise, threats on a message board are meaningless and against the rules
Click to expand...

The SEATO treaty and the fear of the Domino affect was our reasoning at least officially. Korea was not popular with some people and Viet Nam was much worse with a generation born into being given more things then any generation had before.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Thoth001 said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what have Conservatives canceled in the last 20 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, see the OP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it as you don't have any of your own and leave it at that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, I will just take it that you can't address the ones in the OP.
> 
> You call out liberals for cancel culture and compare them to Nazis but you sure as hell can't call out conservatives for cancel culture.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could give you one that Conservatives did off the top of my head. Back in the 2,000's after 911. The Conservatives were censoring any kind of talk about 911 and any kind of talk about it being an inside job. Bill O'reilly and those other assclowns pissed me off during those times for not looking at the facts of 911. And much of it is still censored to this day to talk about.
Click to expand...

No one censored it, no one supported it because the people claiming it was an inside conspiracy are a bunch of loons.  Being laughed at because you are an idiot isn't censorship.


----------



## AZrailwhale

XponentialChaos said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
Click to expand...

When you slap the people who support you and buy tickets to the product you produce in the face. they have the right to stop buying those tickets.  That's not being censored or cancelled, it's the average person voting with their pocketbook.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) what repeated racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme? Can you provide them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link earlier in the thread...  all this "nuh-uh" shit is tiresome.
> 
> 2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him. He was fired by SF 49ers. He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season. He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16. His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.
> 
> Come on, the Chicago Bears could have used a QB of his caliber, instead of Trubinsky, who keeps fucking up and still has a job.  But he didn't take a knee... at least not until it was fashionable.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't feel part of the country scene because of the backlash against them by the inbred morons who listen to country music turned on them.
> 
> Just look at their discography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chicks discography - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.  They crashed and burned after 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops. She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured. In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.
> 
> Um. Yeah. It was horrible that the Vietnamese were torturing the people who were carpet bombing them.  Everyone involved was a victim while the people in Washington and the big board rooms of corporations that profited from "Forever War" were exempt.
Click to expand...

No, I was in the service during the waning years of Vietnam, at the worst time of the protests and I can't think of a single fellow soldier that I met that agreed with Fonda.  She was universally hated by us, enlisted and draftees alike.  Most of us felt betrayed by both our government  AND the protestors  both sides hung us out to dry while we were fighting the war they sent us to fight.


----------



## Papageorgio

I have no issue with Carano being fired, I don't think she should have been but it is her employers choice. I don't have a problem with the Dixie Chicks speaking their mind, I wish  they would have done it on American soil instead of foreign soil but it is what it is. Kaper is a different story all together. Kaper started kneeling after he lost his starting job, so I don't think it hurt him that much. His style of play was much different than most all of the QB's in the league at that time and he was a backup QB, you don't change the offense for a 2nd stringer. But he was free to do what he did. The same with Tebow, the same with Fonda. If I remember correctly Fonda's career continued on long after her Hanoi Jane stunt. In fact her best parts came to her between 1973-1981, including Electric Horseman, 9-5, On Golden Pond and several others, so I don't think her career suffered at all but narrow minded bigots will believe what they need to believe.


----------



## AZrailwhale

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He got let go because he was toxic. He wasn't rehired because teams decided they didn't want such a divisive piece of shit on their roster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same reason why Disney fired Gina Carano.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, had they kept their mouths shut, and not been critical of their President on foreign shores, they'd have been treated better...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Last time I checked, Presidents aren't royalty.... So you are going to shut the fuck up about PRESIDENT Biden for the next four years, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck her. I hope she dies.
> 
> Those fighting in Vietnam didn't agree with her, and it wasn't only "poor people" who went over there. My uncle had a net worth of nearly $40 million in 1968, yet my cousin Paul still went to Vietnam and fought.
> 
> Don't be so myopic. It makes you look stupid...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? What was his MOS.  I'm guessing it wasn't 11B.
> 
> Check this out, this is the high regard our leaders had for the people they sent over there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Project 100,000 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Project 100,000* (also *McNamara's 100,000*), also known as _McNamara's Folly_, _McNamara's Morons_ and _McNamara's Misfits_,[1][2] was a controversial 1960s program by the United States Department of Defense (DoD) to recruit soldiers who would previously have been below military mental or medical standards. Project 100,000 was initiated by Defense Secretary Robert McNamara in October 1966 to meet the escalating manpower requirements of the American government's involvement in the Vietnam War. Inductees of the project died at higher rates[1] than other Americans serving in Vietnam and following their service had lower incomes and higher rates of divorce than their non-veteran counterparts.
Click to expand...

Draftees died at a higher rate than other soldiers because they were more likely to wind up as infantry, especially if their intelligence scores (what the military called a  GT score) was below average.  The GT score determined what jobs you were assigned to, not your enlisted or draftee status.  I was EOD which was among the very toughest schools in the military to survive and we had both draftees and enlisted men in the school.


----------



## struth

AZrailwhale said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) what repeated racist, conspiratorial and transphobi meme? Can you provide them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a link earlier in the thread...  all this "nuh-uh" shit is tiresome.
> 
> 2) The NFL didn't fire him, they didn't hire him. He was fired by SF 49ers. He was an average QB to start with, and was struggling towards the end of his career, coming off injuries and 3 surgeries entering the 2016 season. Gabbert beat him out for the starting job that season. He did start one game, in October against the Bills and they got blown out 45-16. His was let go because he couldn't preform anymore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He got let go because they blackballed him, and when they sued they settled before discovery was allowed to go forward because that would have proven his claim that there was collusion.
> 
> Come on, the Chicago Bears could have used a QB of his caliber, instead of Trubinsky, who keeps fucking up and still has a job.  But he didn't take a knee... at least not until it was fashionable.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3) I have no issue with the Dixie Chicks, not supporting the war, and things likely went to far, but they were not fired from their label....the folks they were selling records to, decided they didn't want to buy them anymore...a lot was likely due to their response after their comment overseas...such as this: "We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't feel part of the country scene because of the backlash against them by the inbred morons who listen to country music turned on them.
> 
> Just look at their discography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Chicks discography - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoops.  They crashed and burned after 2003.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4) as far as Jane....no she wasn't right.....it's one thing to oppose the war, it's something totally different to sit on top of an anti-aircraft gun targeting our troops. She was in the camp of people killing her fellow countrymen, mere miles away from where many were locked in cages, and being tortured. In later life she even acknowledged how wrong she was for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She acknowledged she was sorry that her actions hurt the feelings of servicemembers. The thing is, most of those Servicemembers probably would have agreed with her.  This was a war where we drafted poor people to fight the war, while Rich people like Trump and Rush Limbaugh got exemptions.   The best thing she did was point out the ludicrousness of it all.
> 
> Um. Yeah. It was horrible that the Vietnamese were torturing the people who were carpet bombing them.  Everyone involved was a victim while the people in Washington and the big board rooms of corporations that profited from "Forever War" were exempt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I was in the service during the waning years of Vietnam, at the worst time of the protests and I can't think of a single fellow soldier that I met that agreed with Fonda.  She was universally hated by us, enlisted and draftees alike.  Most of us felt betrayed by both our government  AND the protestors  both sides hung us out to dry while we were fighting the war they sent us to fight.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your service,  my father is a Vietnam vet as well.  It's tragic how you all were treated, and even more tragic watching these libs try to erase that history like it really didn't happen....and even more disheartening watching them try to defend the actions of people like Fonda.


----------



## AZrailwhale

struth said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, it's a complete fabrication.
> 
> There's not one documented case of it in contemporary media, such as "Hippy spits on soldier" or "Hippy in Hospital after Soldier kicks his ass."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPINION EXCHANGE  |  The myth of the spat-upon war veteran
> 
> 
> This legend is repeated even by presidents. The evidence doesn't bear it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.startribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross Prof. Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.
> 
> For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."
> 
> Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish[ing] their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."_
> 
> In short, it was a myth made up, not unlike the _Dolchstoßlegende_  of post World War I Germany that Germany had not been defeated, but stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists.  America simply couldn't accept they had lost a war that it never really wanted to fight to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think those movies were "celebrations" of Vietnam?   Neither showed the war in a good light.
> 
> the point about those movies is they weren't movies like Rambo that celebrated myths like soldiers being spat upon or the Vietnamese were holding Americans after the war and our government wasn't bothering to rescue them.
> 
> In short, instead of our wrath being where it should have been directed, at political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who instigated, escalated and deceived the public about the war, we turned our wrath on the people who actually had the integrity to say, "No, this is wrong."
> 
> The "scandal" of Fonda's Hanoi visit was not that she was dumb enough to get herself photographed sitting on an AA gun, it was that she went around showing that we were bombing hospitals and schools and homes of people who weren't a threat to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, ask a Vet...not some liberal professor that spoke to a few people, then wow...couldn't find a photo?  Sorry....I believe the war heroes
> 
> No, I don't think they did....not sure why you would celebrate the war.....and I would hardly call Rambo a celebration.....it was about a guy that was dealing with PTSD after coming home from the war...
> 
> No the scandel of Fonda was she was on a anti-aircraft gun that killed Americans.  Of  course we were bombing things....we did in WW1, 2, etc.....
Click to expand...

The mistreatment of vets and active duty personnel isn't a myth.  I lived it.  It was so bad that stateside we weren't allowed to wear uniforms off base unless we were travelling, and that was required by regulations that local commanders couldn't waive.  It was so common, that it wasn't news and didn't get reported.  I know several fellow GIs who went to jail for defending themselves from attacks despite it being clearly self-defense.


----------



## struth

AZrailwhale said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is not a myth that hippies/anti-war folks spit on returning soldiers...it happened....the returning servicemen were treated horribly, in part because of people like Fonda
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, actually, it's a complete fabrication.
> 
> There's not one documented case of it in contemporary media, such as "Hippy spits on soldier" or "Hippy in Hospital after Soldier kicks his ass."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OPINION EXCHANGE  |  The myth of the spat-upon war veteran
> 
> 
> This legend is repeated even by presidents. The evidence doesn't bear it out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.startribune.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In his exhaustive book entitled "The Spitting Image," Vietnam vet and Holy Cross Prof. Jerry Lembcke documents veterans who claim they were spat on by antiwar protestors, but he found no physical evidence (photographs, news reports, etc.) that these transgressions actually occurred. His findings are supported by surveys of his fellow Vietnam veterans as they came home.
> 
> For instance, Lembcke notes that "a U.S. Senate study, based on data collected in August 1971 by Harris Associates, found that 75 percent of Vietnam-era veterans polled disagreed with the statement, 'Those people at home who opposed the Vietnam war often blame veterans for our involvement there'" while "94 percent said their reception by people their own age who had not served in the armed forces was friendly."
> 
> Meanwhile, the Veterans' World Project at Southern Illinois University found that many Vietnam vets supported the antiwar protest, with researchers finding almost no veterans "finish[ing] their service in Vietnam believing that what the United States has done there has served to forward our nation's purposes."_
> 
> In short, it was a myth made up, not unlike the _Dolchstoßlegende_  of post World War I Germany that Germany had not been defeated, but stabbed in the back by Jews and Communists.  America simply couldn't accept they had lost a war that it never really wanted to fight to start with.
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also there were a number of very big, popular Vietnam movies well before 1981...the Deer Hunter for example, Apocalypse Now,......face it Fonda wasn't cancelled, although she is likely one of the few people that really should have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you really think those movies were "celebrations" of Vietnam?   Neither showed the war in a good light.
> 
> the point about those movies is they weren't movies like Rambo that celebrated myths like soldiers being spat upon or the Vietnamese were holding Americans after the war and our government wasn't bothering to rescue them.
> 
> In short, instead of our wrath being where it should have been directed, at political leaders of BOTH PARTIES who instigated, escalated and deceived the public about the war, we turned our wrath on the people who actually had the integrity to say, "No, this is wrong."
> 
> The "scandal" of Fonda's Hanoi visit was not that she was dumb enough to get herself photographed sitting on an AA gun, it was that she went around showing that we were bombing hospitals and schools and homes of people who weren't a threat to us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, ask a Vet...not some liberal professor that spoke to a few people, then wow...couldn't find a photo?  Sorry....I believe the war heroes
> 
> No, I don't think they did....not sure why you would celebrate the war.....and I would hardly call Rambo a celebration.....it was about a guy that was dealing with PTSD after coming home from the war...
> 
> No the scandel of Fonda was she was on a anti-aircraft gun that killed Americans.  Of  course we were bombing things....we did in WW1, 2, etc.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mistreatment of vets and active duty personnel isn't a myth.  I lived it.  It was so bad that stateside we weren't allowed to wear uniforms off base unless we were travelling, and that was required by regulations that local commanders couldn't waive.  It was so common, that it wasn't news and didn't get reported.  I know several fellow GIs who went to jail for defending themselves from attacks despite it being clearly self-defense.
Click to expand...

Yep, and frankly I am even more sorry by the left's attempt to white wash that today....


----------



## theHawk

JoeB131 said:


> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered. Even big corporations got in on the act.


He was never proven right.  Floyd wasn’t murdered, he died of drugs.  Since when to corporations being in on something make it okay?  It’s war in the Middle East “correct” just because Halliburton wants it?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

occupied said:


> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.


We need to bring this back, except we need to actually carry out the executions of those commie bastards.


----------



## XponentialChaos

AZrailwhale said:


> When you slap the people who support you and buy tickets to the product you produce in the face. they have the right to stop buying those tickets.  That's not being censored or cancelled, it's the average person voting with their pocketbook.



So what you’re saying is that it’s fine to stop doing business with someone who does something that you find offensive.

How is that different from cancel culture?  Mike Lindell for example.


----------



## 22lcidw

XponentialChaos said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you slap the people who support you and buy tickets to the product you produce in the face. they have the right to stop buying those tickets.  That's not being censored or cancelled, it's the average person voting with their pocketbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you’re saying is that it’s fine to stop doing business with someone who does something that you find offensive.
> 
> How is that different from cancel culture?  Mike Lindell for example.
Click to expand...

What we gauge as offensive many times is very minor. But those on a high horse seek to destroy. This guy from what I understand was a drug addict. You are McCarthy. And McCarthy warned of what you are. The proof exists today.


----------



## XponentialChaos

22lcidw said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you slap the people who support you and buy tickets to the product you produce in the face. they have the right to stop buying those tickets.  That's not being censored or cancelled, it's the average person voting with their pocketbook.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you’re saying is that it’s fine to stop doing business with someone who does something that you find offensive.
> 
> How is that different from cancel culture?  Mike Lindell for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What we gauge as offensive many times is very minor. But those on a high horse seek to destroy. This guy from what I understand was a drug addict. You are McCarthy. And McCarthy warned of what you are. The proof exists today.
Click to expand...


Neat. 

Doesn’t address anything I asked but thanks anyway.


----------



## Dadoalex

Canon Shooter said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME??????
> 
> Tebow's actions occurred DURING THE GAME!
> Kaepernick's occurred BEFORE THE GAME!
> 
> Now which one disrupted the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were Tebow's actions disruptive? They were no more disruptive than had he walked to the bench and sat down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not upset with Tebow, I was disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because he's a man of faith and you realize you're just a Godless little bitch??
Click to expand...

Perhaps you missed this...

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “

Know what little man?  This atheist knows more about your Bible than you.  How's it feel to be bitch-slapped by an atheist?


----------



## blackhawk

Little perpesctive the Dixie Chicks criticized a sitting President in a time of war while performing overseas not a crime but if you are a country music group who's fans tend to be mostly conservative and tradtional not smart either on an ironic sidenote I believe they want from the Dixie Chicks to just the Chicks for fear of being cancalled again over the Dixie part of the name which in this case would have probably come from the left. Kapernick was not fired he opted out of his contract and then found out being an average quarterback 28-30 as a starter who brings a alot of baggae, controversy and dissension in the locker room was not popular choice for NFL owners. Jane Fonda continued to work in Hoillywood for years despite her politics getting an Academy Award nomination for On Golden Pond in 1981 and then making a fortune off her workout videos .As another poster so accurately put it freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consquences.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Really?
> 
> Is that all sweet little addled brain Jane was trying to say?
> 
> based on the photograph I think she was saying lets kill American servicemen



Really?  You do realize it takes quite a bit of training to fire an anti-aircraft gun, right?  Not that she actually fired it.


----------



## JoeB131

blackhawk said:


> Kapernick was not fired he opted out of his contract and then found out being an average quarterback 28-30 as a starter who brings a alot of baggae, controversy and dissension in the locker room was not popular choice for NFL owners.



Here's the thing. There were a lot of shit teams with worse quarterbacks that could have signed him.  Like the Bears.   I still wonder why they haven't fired Trubinsky yet.  The problem isn't that he couldn't get a job, it was that they all conspired NOT to give him one. 



blackhawk said:


> Jane Fonda continued to work in Hoillywood for years despite her politics getting an Academy Award nomination for On Golden Pond in 1981 and then making a fortune off her workout videos .



Not quite. As I explained in a previous post, Fonda was the victim of historical revisionism... the one where we made Rambo Movies and Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause. 



blackhawk said:


> As another poster so accurately put it freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consquences.



Uh, that's the whole point of my thread, for all you guys whining the Mannish Woman got fired from Star Wars after making racist and kooky posts.


----------



## JoeB131

theHawk said:


> He was never proven right. Floyd wasn’t murdered, he died of drugs. Since when to corporations being in on something make it okay? It’s war in the Middle East “correct” just because Halliburton wants it?



Um, if he died of Drugs, why are the cops on trial for murder?  Are you a fucking retard?  

Big corporations realized that police misconduct doesn't do anyone any good.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME??????
> 
> Tebow's actions occurred DURING THE GAME!
> Kaepernick's occurred BEFORE THE GAME!
> 
> Now which one disrupted the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were Tebow's actions disruptive? They were no more disruptive than had he walked to the bench and sat down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not upset with Tebow, I was disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because he's a man of faith and you realize you're just a Godless little bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you missed this...
> 
> “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “
> 
> Know what little man?  This atheist knows more about your Bible than you.  How's it feel to be bitch-slapped by an atheist?
Click to expand...


I love when little dipshits like you come along and start belching up nonsensical bullshit about something that's not even being discussed. No one said a single word about the Bible, although you might want to consider the very real possibility that you quoting from the Bible doesn't mean you know a fucking thing about the Bible. Any idiot can pull a passage from the Bible. It's just that when you do it to appear smart, it actually makes you look like a pathetic little bitch.

And you have no clue how well I know the Bible.

Tebow wasn't practicing righteousness, he was saying a silent prayer, or thanking his God, or whatever. Non-disruptive and not "righteous".

He was always simply respectful, and shitstain little fucks like you vilified him for that...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The problem isn't that he couldn't get a job, it was that they all conspired NOT to give him one.



Where's the evidence of that?

Oh... wait...


----------



## Dadoalex

Canon Shooter said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> EXCUUUUUUUUUUSE ME??????
> 
> Tebow's actions occurred DURING THE GAME!
> Kaepernick's occurred BEFORE THE GAME!
> 
> Now which one disrupted the game?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How were Tebow's actions disruptive? They were no more disruptive than had he walked to the bench and sat down...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not upset with Tebow, I was disappointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because he's a man of faith and you realize you're just a Godless little bitch??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps you missed this...
> 
> “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “
> 
> Know what little man?  This atheist knows more about your Bible than you.  How's it feel to be bitch-slapped by an atheist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when little dipshits like you come along and start belching up nonsensical bullshit about something that's not even being discussed. No one said a single word about the Bible, although you might want to consider the very real possibility that you quoting from the Bible doesn't mean you know a fucking thing about the Bible. Any idiot can pull a passage from the Bible. It's just that when you do it to appear smart, it actually makes you look like a pathetic little bitch.
> 
> And you have no clue how well I know the Bible.
> 
> Tebow wasn't practicing righteousness, he was saying a silent prayer, or thanking his God, or whatever. Non-disruptive and not "righteous".
> 
> He was always simply respectful, and shitstain little fucks like you vilified him for that...
Click to expand...

I was asked a question oh, ye of little brains.
I answered the question oh ye of tiny balls.

I didn't "vilify" Tebow you fool, I said I was "disappointed" in his actions and I explained why dumbass.  

Perhaps a review of your "Dick and Jane" primers is in order?


----------



## lantern2814

JoeB131 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how is that impacting attendance and viewing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there was no attendance due to TRUMP PLAGUE
> 
> viewing was a little lower this year, but it was a truncated season.
Click to expand...

Lies. The states determined limited or no attendance due to the China Virus. Truncated season? You idiot, all games were played by every team. Do you ever not lie?


----------



## blackhawk

JoeB131 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kapernick was not fired he opted out of his contract and then found out being an average quarterback 28-30 as a starter who brings a alot of baggae, controversy and dissension in the locker room was not popular choice for NFL owners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the thing. There were a lot of shit teams with worse quarterbacks that could have signed him.  Like the Bears.   I still wonder why they haven't fired Trubinsky yet.  The problem isn't that he couldn't get a job, it was that they all conspired NOT to give him one.
> The problem is that there were quaterbacks who had the same skill set he did without all the baggage if we are being honest with his Nike deal among others he has probably made more money than he would have if a team had signed him.
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda continued to work in Hoillywood for years despite her politics getting an Academy Award nomination for On Golden Pond in 1981 and then making a fortune off her workout videos .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not quite. As I explained in a previous post, Fonda was the victim of historical revisionism... the one where we made Rambo Movies and Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause.
> As I pointed out she was not blacklisted she continued to work in Hollywood for years.
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As another poster so accurately put it freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consquences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, that's the whole point of my thread, for all you guys whining the Mannish Woman got fired from Star Wars after making racist and kooky posts.
Click to expand...

Yet you and those who share your views don't defend Carno like you do Fonda, Kapernick, Dixie Chicks now just the Chicks or pretty much any other liberal who gets on the wrong end of this cancel culture shit when they pop off without thinking. Personally I am sick of this cancel culture bullshit and trying to destroy someone for daring to express and opinion or viewpoint you don't like someone wants to cast Jane Fonda in a movie fine you want to buy music from the Chicks as they are now called be my guest if there is some team that wants to take a chance on Kapernick go for it I'm not going to start a boycott or protest over any of it. I wish more people would stand up and tell these cancel culture mobs to fuck off no matter who they are going after.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> I didn't "vilify" Tebow you fool, I said I was "disappointed" in his actions and I explained why dumbass.



You said he was practicing righteousness when he knelt.

He wasn't.

You're just to fucking stupid to understand that.

Do you get equally "disappointed" when someone makes the sign of the cross before going into a boxing ring or an octagon? Or do you just have an issue with Little Timmy Whitebread?


----------



## Canon Shooter

blackhawk said:


> ...if there is some team that wants to take a chance on Kapernick go for it I'm not going to start a boycott or protest over any of it.



I wouldn't boycott, either.

After all, I'd want to be watching when some patriotic linebacker hits him so fucking hard it ends his career permenantly...


----------



## theHawk

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was never proven right. Floyd wasn’t murdered, he died of drugs. Since when to corporations being in on something make it okay? It’s war in the Middle East “correct” just because Halliburton wants it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, if he died of Drugs, why are the cops on trial for murder?  Are you a fucking retard?
> 
> Big corporations realized that police misconduct doesn't do anyone any good.
Click to expand...

Because it’s a political witch hunt.  The mayor and DA are all corrupt shills who caved to the lynch mob.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> You do realize it takes quite a bit of training to fire an anti-aircraft gun, right? Not that she actually fired it.


Nonsense

the viet coolies load it and aim it

all Fonda has to do is pull the trigger and an American air crew dies or gets captured

she’s a charming little bitch, aint she?


----------



## JoeB131

blackhawk said:


> et you and those who share your views don't defend Carno like you do Fonda, Kapernick, Dixie Chicks now just the Chicks or pretty much any other liberal who gets on the wrong end of this cancel culture shit when they pop off without thinking. Personally I am sick of this cancel culture bullshit and trying to destroy someone for daring to express and opinion or viewpoint you don't like someone wants to cast Jane Fonda in a movie fine you want to buy music from the Chicks as they are now called be my guest if there is some team that wants to take a chance on Kapernick go for it I'm not going to start a boycott or protest over any of it. I wish more people would stand up and tell these cancel culture mobs to fuck off no matter who they are going after.



You sound like the guy who whines about the snowball fight after you get the snowballs thrown at you. 



theHawk said:


> Because it’s a political witch hunt. The mayor and DA are all corrupt shills who caved to the lynch mob.



Okay...  Yes, clearly the mob, the mayor, the DA, everyone who took the tape, and the coroner, all of whom ruled it a homicide are in the wrong... 



Canon Shooter said:


> Do you get equally "disappointed" when someone makes the sign of the cross before going into a boxing ring or an octagon? Or do you just have an issue with Little Timmy Whitebread?



Oh, lord, let me beat this other person senseless.   

Little Timmy was the one who made an issue of his sky man being invested in a football game.


----------



## JoeB131

Mac-7 said:


> Nonsense
> 
> the viet coolies load it and aim it
> 
> all Fonda has to do is pull the trigger and an American air crew dies or gets captured
> 
> she’s a charming little bitch, aint she?



Except she didn't fire it and there wasn't an active air raid going on at the time.  

The reason why they were firing that gun is we kept bombing their schools and hospitals.


----------



## theHawk

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... Yes, clearly the mob, the mayor, the DA, everyone who took the tape, and the coroner, all of whom ruled it a homicide are in the wrong...


Just like the Trayvon Martin case, yes.


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Except she didn't fire it and there wasn't an active air raid going on at the time.



You say the photo is OK because she didnt actually shoot down an American warplane but merely pretended to?

Thats one of the most clueless responses I have ever seen on this forum


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, lord, let me beat this other person senseless.



The only thing you beat senseless is your dick, dipshit...



> Little Timmy was the one who made an issue of his sky man being invested in a football game.



He _never _made it an issue. He never said "Everyone look at me while I genuflect in prayer to God almighty."

He just quietly did it.

It was dipshit little fucks like you who decided your vaginas hurt because of it...


----------



## JoeB131

theHawk said:


> Just like the Trayvon Martin case, yes.



You mean the first time they fucked up a case?

Sorry, man, no one is going to let Chauven off because they'll burn down the city if the do.  



Canon Shooter said:


> He _never _made it an issue. He never said "Everyone look at me while I genuflect in prayer to God almighty."
> 
> He just quietly did it.
> 
> It was dipshit little fucks like you who decided your vaginas hurt because of it...



Actually, it just resulted in a lot of mockery because he so trivialized his faith.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the Trayvon Martin case, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the first time they fucked up a case?
> 
> Sorry, man, no one is going to let Chauven off because they'll burn down the city if the do.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He _never _made it an issue. He never said "Everyone look at me while I genuflect in prayer to God almighty."
> 
> He just quietly did it.
> 
> It was dipshit little fucks like you who decided your vaginas hurt because of it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it just resulted in a lot of mockery because he so trivialized his faith.
Click to expand...


Those mocking him are the ones who trivialized it, but I wouldn't expect an ignoramus to realize that...


----------



## Bush92

occupied said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both wings are off the same bird. That is why it is best not to be a part of any wing and use your own logical thinking skills and what is best for freedom and liberty for all. All we all really want is to just be left alone and live our lives the way we want as long as we aren't hurting others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Freedom and liberty for all is a work in progress that only exists because busybodies and agitators can't just selfishly mind their own business while others get trampled. It's messy, arbitrary, often petty but in the end these social conflicts have to happen for the operating system of society to remain strong.
Click to expand...

Agitator's are alright if there cause is just. Domestic terrorist like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not acceptable.


----------



## Bush92

lantern2814 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody insisted on firing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal.
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.
> 
> 
> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times does your ignorant ass have to be told that the no talent bitch Kraperlimpdick was only crying because the team told him he wasn’t going to start. As revealed by his teammates who thought him a crybaby. Here’s an idea. Leave the country. Nobody will miss you.
Click to expand...

He can take his Barry Sotoro Fro over to North Korea.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> Your problem is not with the expression, it is with the opinion.



No, I have a problem with the hypocrisy.

The idiot left vilifies Tebow for kneeling for his beliefs, yet they praise Kaepernick for doing the same.

It's no more complicated than that...



> Tebow made a show of his faith.  The BIBLE, the same BIBLE you and Tebow are supposed to be following clearly labels Tebow's actions hypocrisy.



First, dipshit, I don't believe the Bible is anything but a barely readable book, and nothing more. I don not subscribe to its teachings, so you only put your ignorance on display by saying it's the "same Bible" I'm supposed to be following.

Second, his display was no different than a ballplayer who signs the cross across his chest as he steps to the plate or a boxer as he enters the ring.

Why are those displays of faith okay?



> I said I was disappointed in his hypocrisy.  You on the other hand clearly support and embrace hypocrisy.



Those who denegrate Tebow and support Kaepernick are ignorant little hypocrites...



> And, of course, this is yet another imagined injury "conservatives" whine about.



No injury at all...



> So why don't you tell us why you are so heavily in favor of murdering innocent, unarmed Black men?  Is it a sexual thrill?



Where in the fuck did you get the impression that I'm in favor of murdering innocent, unarmed black men? What an absolutely ridiculously ignorant thing to suggest.

Your stupidity shines with the light of a thousand suns...


----------



## Canon Shooter

Dadoalex said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is not with the expression, it is with the opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I have a problem with the hypocrisy.
> 
> The idiot left vilifies Tebow for kneeling for his beliefs, yet they praise Kaepernick for doing the same.
> 
> It's no more complicated than that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow made a show of his faith.  The BIBLE, the same BIBLE you and Tebow are supposed to be following clearly labels Tebow's actions hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, dipshit, I don't believe the Bible is anything but a barely readable book, and nothing more. I don not subscribe to its teachings, so you only put your ignorance on display by saying it's the "same Bible" I'm supposed to be following.
> 
> Second, his display was no different than a ballplayer who signs the cross across his chest as he steps to the plate or a boxer as he enters the ring.
> 
> Why are those displays of faith okay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said I was disappointed in his hypocrisy.  You on the other hand clearly support and embrace hypocrisy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who denegrate Tebow and support Kaepernick are ignorant little hypocrites...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, this is yet another imagined injury "conservatives" whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No injury at all...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why don't you tell us why you are so heavily in favor of murdering innocent, unarmed Black men?  Is it a sexual thrill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where in the fuck did you get the impression that I'm in favor of murdering innocent, unarmed black men? What an absolutely ridiculously ignorant thing to suggest.
> 
> Your stupidity shines with the light of a thousand suns...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If, little one, you are not opposed to murdering Black men then you are by definition in favor of murdering Black men.
> There is no middle ground as in "well, i think murdering Black men might not be ok except when it is ok."
> And given your attitude you are indeed heavily in favor of murdering Black men.
> 
> BECAUSE
> 
> As noted, you objection here is not over what Kaepernick did but WHY he did it.   You hate the opinion and therefore hate the man.
> That is you little one.  A racist hate monger.
> Live with it.
Click to expand...


Do you drink a lot often?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Those mocking him are the ones who trivialized it, but I wouldn't expect an ignoramus to realize that...



No, actually, guy, what trivialized it was that you think that the most important thing your Magic Sky Fairy has to do in the world is make sure that a team wins a football game.  

He can't be bothered to cure AIDS or help starving children in Africa, but man, he's going to make sure that Tebow wins that game because Tebow prays in the End Zone.  

So, yes, it is open to mockery.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> No, actually, guy, what trivialized it was that you think that the most important thing your Magic Sky Fairy has to do in the world is make sure that a team wins a football game.



You're a fucking retard.

Do you know what "agnostic" is, dipshit? Go educate yourself because, right now, all you're doing is making yourself look really, really stupid...



> He can't be bothered to cure AIDS or help starving children in Africa, but man, he's going to make sure that Tebow wins that game because Tebow prays in the End Zone.



Last I checked, Tebow's not a doctor or a researcher. Ergo, the likelihood of him curing anything is nil. See, if you weren't mentally retarded, you would know that...



> So, yes, it is open to mockery.



Only from pointy-headed non-thinking retards like you.

As for what Tebow does as far as charitable work, happy reading, asshole: How the Tim Tebow Foundation Helps | TTF Stories

I have absolutely no doubt that you will foolishly attempt to diminish and demean everything on that site, but he's doing a fuck of a lot more than you are, so when criticize him for what "he can't be bothered with", you only make yourself look stupid, ignorant and retarded...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You're a fucking retard.
> 
> Do you know what "agnostic" is, dipshit? Go educate yourself because, right now, all you're doing is making yourself look really, really stupid...



Who said I was talking about you personally? Your reading comprehension skills seem kind of poor. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Last I checked, Tebow's not a doctor or a researcher. Ergo, the likelihood of him curing anything is nil. See, if you weren't mentally retarded, you would know that...



Um, go back and read what I said...  I wasn't asking why Tebow doesn't do that, I asked why GOD doesn't do that.  I mean, God can rig a football game but can't cure a plague or a famine?  



Canon Shooter said:


> Only from pointy-headed non-thinking retards like you.



Uh, no, guy, the idea that you need to pray to a Sky Pixie to win a football game is kind of silly.  That's why he gets mocked.


----------



## deannalw

Dadoalex said:


> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet



Vile and against usmb rules.

Stupid pig.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the Trayvon Martin case, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the first time they fucked up a case?
> 
> Sorry, man, no one is going to let Chauven off because they'll burn down the city if the do.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> He _never _made it an issue. He never said "Everyone look at me while I genuflect in prayer to God almighty."
> 
> He just quietly did it.
> 
> It was dipshit little fucks like you who decided your vaginas hurt because of it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it just resulted in a lot of mockery because he so trivialized his faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those mocking him are the ones who trivialized it, but I wouldn't expect an ignoramus to realize that...
Click to expand...

Joey isn't an ignoramus. Joey is an ignoranus.


----------



## Dadoalex

deannalw said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
Click to expand...

Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
If not, why not?
And
If not then why are you complaining to me.
I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
complain to the mods.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dadoalex said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
Click to expand...

The one that is deleted which inferred that a poster was into pedophilia. You can't that stupid that you couldn't tell or maybe you are a disgusting piece of filth, I don't know.


----------



## Dadoalex

Papageorgio said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The one that is deleted which inferred that a poster was into pedophilia. You can't that stupid that you couldn't tell or maybe you are a disgusting piece of filth, I don't know.
Click to expand...

I'm only responding so more folks will get to read your glorious words.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking retard.
> 
> Do you know what "agnostic" is, dipshit? Go educate yourself because, right now, all you're doing is making yourself look really, really stupid...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said I was talking about you personally? Your reading comprehension skills seem kind of poor.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Last I checked, Tebow's not a doctor or a researcher. Ergo, the likelihood of him curing anything is nil. See, if you weren't mentally retarded, you would know that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, go back and read what I said...  I wasn't asking why Tebow doesn't do that, I asked why GOD doesn't do that.  I mean, God can rig a football game but can't cure a plague or a famine?
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only from pointy-headed non-thinking retards like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no, guy, the idea that you need to pray to a Sky Pixie to win a football game is kind of silly.  That's why he gets mocked.
Click to expand...


Do you actually know what Tebow prayed about during these little prayer sessions on the field?


----------



## WinterBorn

Dadoalex said:


> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
Click to expand...


Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.


----------



## Dadoalex

WinterBorn said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
Click to expand...

Why?
Why is one against the rules but not the other?
Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dadoalex said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
Click to expand...


All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.

But much of it is common sense.

Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.  

I suggest you take the time to read the rules.


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you actually know what Tebow prayed about during these little prayer sessions on the field?



Wow, you are desperate for attention, aren't you? 

Was there a reason why he needed to pray in the middle of a game?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually know what Tebow prayed about during these little prayer sessions on the field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are desperate for attention, aren't you?
> 
> Was there a reason why he needed to pray in the middle of a game?
Click to expand...


Answer the question: Do you know what he prayed about on the field?


----------



## Dadoalex

WinterBorn said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
Click to expand...

I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.

How was that?


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Answer the question: Do you know what he prayed about on the field?



Not playing that game with you.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dadoalex said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
Click to expand...


It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did. I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... so did that have any real effect?  Um. No.  People got Kap fired.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't speak to what someone's God is invested in. I will, however, say that this has nothing to do with what God is invested in and everything to do with what Kaepernick and Tebow were invested in...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Kap was addressing a real, honest to God (pun intended) problem.  Tebow was trying to waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I just love dipshit idiots like you.
> 
> I don't have a God, dumbass. I'm Agnostic. But ignorant little nippleheads like you will jump to such a conclusion simply because I choose to come down more in support of someone who kneels in prayer as opposed to the little whining bitch who kneels in protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I could see someone who actually believes in a Magic Sky Fairy being offended by Tebow.  Who wins a football game is trivial... in the "cosmic" scheme of things.  But of all the things to pray for, you know instead of World Peace or a Cure for Cancer, he prays for winning a football game.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between you and me:
> 
> I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know, maybe because religion is used by those in power to keep people complacent instead of demanding needed change.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.
> 
> You're nothing but an ignorant child...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mock them because their beliefs are silly.
Click to expand...

When was your last conversation with Tebow that you know what he was praying about and that he was trying to, how did you say it, "waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face"? IOW, you like to make up a whole bunch of stupid crap about what people are doing and insist you can read their minds or some such stupidity. Knowing him as a person of faith, he wasn't praying to win a stupid football game. You obviously have no idea what he was praying about but project your own imagination on him.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question: Do you know what he prayed about on the field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing that game with you.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't you? You sounded awfully confident that you knew. Now you don't want to say? Perhaps an acknowledgement that you were just making up stupid crap is in order.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> When was your last conversation with Tebow that you know what he was praying about and that he was trying to, how did you say it, "waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face"? IOW, you like to make up a whole bunch of stupid crap about what people are doing and insist you can read their minds or some such stupidity. Knowing him as a person of faith, he wasn't praying to win a stupid football game. You obviously have no idea what he was praying about but project your own imagination on him.



You're kidding, right?  Tebow loved being the poster boy for the Religious Right.  Even tried to get the NFL to play an anti-abortion commercial during the super bowl.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I mock them because their beliefs are silly.



This says an awful lot about you. This, coupled with you views on business (how you lie all the time to colleagues), shows you to be a petty little scumbag, completely devoid of worth or value.

That you feel justified to mock someone simply because you disagree with their beliefs. Those beliefs don't affect you at all. You, however, are such an insignificant little man that you need to feel (somehow) superior by mocking what someone else believes.

I don't share Tebow's beliefs, or the beliefs of the Mormon who you so gleefully try to make fun of (and fail at that, by the way), but I cannot think of a single, mature line of reasoning which would compel me to try to mock them. I'm above that.

What a low-life piece of steaming human shit you are...


----------



## Canon Shooter

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question: Do you know what he prayed about on the field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing that game with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't you? You sounded awfully confident that you knew. Now you don't want to say? Perhaps an acknowledgement that you were just making up stupid crap is in order.
Click to expand...


Joey's a chickenshit little bitch. He'll spew out nonsense and then tuck his tail between his legs and run like a bitch when challenged instead of being a man and standing behind what he's said.

Joey is a self-admitted liar, as well, so that should really tell you all you need to know...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> This says an awful lot about you. This, coupled with you views on business (how you lie all the time to colleagues), shows you to be a petty little scumbag, completely devoid of worth or value.



Um... where did I say I lie all the time to colleagues?  You read an awful lot of that into that. 

Now, my former occupation is purchasing.... Um, yeah, there's a lot of dishonesty in that. It's called "negotiation".  They are trying to get the best price they can, I'm trying to get the lowest price they can.   



Canon Shooter said:


> That you feel justified to mock someone simply because you disagree with their beliefs. Those beliefs don't affect you at all. You, however, are such an insignificant little man that you need to feel (somehow) superior by mocking what someone else believes.



No, guy, I feel justified because most religious beliefs are silly.  Someone in the Bronze Age writes a book about how he thinks every bolt of lightening is God being angry with him, and you guys all treat that like that's something we need to follow today.  If you believe SILLY things I will mock you.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I don't share Tebow's beliefs, or the beliefs of the Mormon who you so gleefully try to make fun of (and fail at that, by the way),



Mormon Bob wouldn't be screaming like a maniac for years if I didn't hit him right in the Magic Underwear. The funny thing is, I've kind of lightened up on the Mormons in recent years.  You should have seen me riffing on them when Mitt Romney was the nominee.  Good times. 



Canon Shooter said:


> but I cannot think of a single, mature line of reasoning which would compel me to try to mock them. I'm above that.



Gee, how about all the damage that religious crazy has caused over the last 2000 years.  Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-burnings, suppression of science.  When the first vaccinations came out in the 18th century, the Church called it "the Devil's needle".  Things haven't changed much in 300 years, you still have nuts objecting to vaccination on religious grounds.  

Tebow is particularly contemptable because he credited his mediocre football career to his Magic Sky Pixie, who again, couldn't be bothered to cure AIDS or end famine in Africa, but man, God is totally going to make sure Tebow wins a football game.  

You are more than free to worship the "God of the Three Point Conversion",  I'll go with reason and science, thank you.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question: Do you know what he prayed about on the field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not playing that game with you.
Click to expand...


So you don't know, correct? And you don't want to know, correct?

I understand. I mean, can you imagine how devastating it would be to your argument if you found that Tebow in fact, did _not_ pray to God for football victories? I wouldn't want to answer that question either.


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So you don't know, correct? And you don't want to know, correct?
> 
> I understand. I mean, can you imagine how devastating it would be to your argument if you found that Tebow in fact, did _not_ pray to God for football victories? I wouldn't want to answer that question either.



 I couldn't care less what some small minded bible thumper asked his imaginary sky fairy for . 

I think he trivialized his own beliefs by linking football with his faith.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know, correct? And you don't want to know, correct?
> 
> I understand. I mean, can you imagine how devastating it would be to your argument if you found that Tebow in fact, did _not_ pray to God for football victories? I wouldn't want to answer that question either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less what some small minded bible thumper asked his imaginary sky fairy for .
Click to expand...


If you couldn't care less then why do you repeatedly refer to his praying as asking God for help winning the game? You sure act like you know and care what he prayed about. Then when I ask you what you think he prays for you feign ignorance and indifference.

I think that's exactly what you think he was doing and it disgusts you, which is why you're so critical of him.



> I think he trivialized his own beliefs by linking football with his faith.



People of faith link _everything_ in their lives to their faith, including their work. That's the life of earnest and sincere faith. Football was/is Tebow's vocation. Lots of people of faith pray every day on the job; to have the strength to deal fairly with ignorant assholes like yourself or the will to do the job right and well or just to give thanks for the job.

If you weren't so full of contempt you would at least understand that much, if not agree with it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> This says an awful lot about you. This, coupled with you views on business (how you lie all the time to colleagues), shows you to be a petty little scumbag, completely devoid of worth or value.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um... where did I say I lie all the time to colleagues?  You read an awful lot of that into that.
> 
> Now, my former occupation is purchasing.... Um, yeah, there's a lot of dishonesty in that. It's called "negotiation".  They are trying to get the best price they can, I'm trying to get the lowest price they can.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you feel justified to mock someone simply because you disagree with their beliefs. Those beliefs don't affect you at all. You, however, are such an insignificant little man that you need to feel (somehow) superior by mocking what someone else believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, guy, I feel justified because most religious beliefs are silly.  Someone in the Bronze Age writes a book about how he thinks every bolt of lightening is God being angry with him, and you guys all treat that like that's something we need to follow today.  If you believe SILLY things I will mock you.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't share Tebow's beliefs, or the beliefs of the Mormon who you so gleefully try to make fun of (and fail at that, by the way),
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mormon Bob wouldn't be screaming like a maniac for years if I didn't hit him right in the Magic Underwear. The funny thing is, I've kind of lightened up on the Mormons in recent years.  You should have seen me riffing on them when Mitt Romney was the nominee.  Good times.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> but I cannot think of a single, mature line of reasoning which would compel me to try to mock them. I'm above that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, how about all the damage that religious crazy has caused over the last 2000 years.  Crusades, Inquisitions, Witch-burnings, suppression of science.  When the first vaccinations came out in the 18th century, the Church called it "the Devil's needle".  Things haven't changed much in 300 years, you still have nuts objecting to vaccination on religious grounds.
> 
> Tebow is particularly contemptable because he credited his mediocre football career to his Magic Sky Pixie, who again, couldn't be bothered to cure AIDS or end famine in Africa, but man, God is totally going to make sure Tebow wins a football game.
> 
> You are more than free to worship the "God of the Three Point Conversion",  I'll go with reason and science, thank you.
Click to expand...


You're nothing but a lying little fuck, Joe. You admitted it. As such, you're a piece of shit human being who's deserving of no respect or deference.

You're such a profound fucking scumbag you don't even recognize it...


----------



## Batcat

JoeB131 said:


> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.



Satan is in charge of this world at this time.



> *1 John 5:19
> 
> New King James Version*
> 
> 19 We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies _under the sway of_ the wicked one.







__





						Quick Q&A: Does the Bible say that Satan is in charge of the world? | The Bible Says That
					






					www.thebiblesaysthat.com


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> If you couldn't care less then why do you repeatedly refer to his praying as asking God for help winning the game? You sure act like you know and care what he prayed about. Then when I ask you what you think he prays for you feign ignorance and indifference.
> 
> I think that's exactly what you think he was doing and it disgusts you, which is why you're so critical of him.



I do care that people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us.  That's a real concern, because I don't want to live in the Live Action Version of _A Handmaid's Tale_.  



Ghost of a Rider said:


> People of faith link _everything_ in their lives to their faith, including their work. That's the life of earnest and sincere faith. Football was/is Tebow's vocation. Lots of people of faith pray every day on the job; to have the strength to deal fairly with ignorant assholes like yourself or the will to do the job right and well or just to give thanks for the job.
> 
> If you weren't so full of contempt you would at least understand that much, if not agree with it.



The problem is, people who attribute everything to their Magic Sky Fairy don't do much the make the world better and often try to make it worse.  

Religion is like a penis.  It's okay to have one.  It's okay to be proud of it. But when you whip it out and try to stick it in people's faces, I'm going to have a problem with you. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You're nothing but a lying little fuck, Joe. You admitted it. As such, you're a piece of shit human being who's deserving of no respect or deference.
> 
> You're such a profound fucking scumbag you don't even recognize it...



Wow, did I hurt your feelings when I pointed out it was kind of creepy that you snoop around in your employees private lives?  



Batcat said:


> Satan is in charge of this world at this time.



I'm sorry, man, reading the bible, I'm having a hard time seeing how Satan is the bad guy.  God kills thousands of people, or demands his followers kill people, for often the most trivial of offenses.  He kills babies!!!  

Satan only kills 10 people in the Book of Job, and then it was because he had a bet with God about whether he could make Job curse God.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you couldn't care less then why do you repeatedly refer to his praying as asking God for help winning the game? You sure act like you know and care what he prayed about. Then when I ask you what you think he prays for you feign ignorance and indifference.
> 
> I think that's exactly what you think he was doing and it disgusts you, which is why you're so critical of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do care that people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us.  That's a real concern, because I don't want to live in the Live Action Version of _A Handmaid's Tale_.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant. You said: _"I couldn't care less what some small minded bible thumper asked his imaginary sky fairy for.", _while at the same time saying things like: _"Magic Sky Pixie"_, _"...your Magic Sky Fairy...make sure that a team wins a football game."_, etc., etc.

You are fixated on this (most likely incorrect) belief that you know he is praying to God to help him win football games because you allude to it time and time again. If your problem is that you think people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us then stick with that. Don't pretend you know what he prays about when you have no idea.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> People of faith link _everything_ in their lives to their faith, including their work. That's the life of earnest and sincere faith. Football was/is Tebow's vocation. Lots of people of faith pray every day on the job; to have the strength to deal fairly with ignorant assholes like yourself or the will to do the job right and well or just to give thanks for the job.
> 
> If you weren't so full of contempt you would at least understand that much, if not agree with it.





> The problem is, people who attribute everything to their Magic Sky Fairy don't do much the make the world better and often try to make it worse.



Irrelevant. You said: _"I think he trivialized his own beliefs by linking football with his faith." _So I explained that people of faith link everything in their lives to their faith.

Besides all that, you think his beliefs are trivial anyway, even if he never prayed on the field, so I don't know why you would have a problem with that. YOU trivialize his faith when you claim to know what he prays about.


----------



## Batcat

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you couldn't care less then why do you repeatedly refer to his praying as asking God for help winning the game? You sure act like you know and care what he prayed about. Then when I ask you what you think he prays for you feign ignorance and indifference.
> 
> I think that's exactly what you think he was doing and it disgusts you, which is why you're so critical of him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do care that people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us.  That's a real concern, because I don't want to live in the Live Action Version of _A Handmaid's Tale_.
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> People of faith link _everything_ in their lives to their faith, including their work. That's the life of earnest and sincere faith. Football was/is Tebow's vocation. Lots of people of faith pray every day on the job; to have the strength to deal fairly with ignorant assholes like yourself or the will to do the job right and well or just to give thanks for the job.
> 
> If you weren't so full of contempt you would at least understand that much, if not agree with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is, people who attribute everything to their Magic Sky Fairy don't do much the make the world better and often try to make it worse.
> 
> Religion is like a penis.  It's okay to have one.  It's okay to be proud of it. But when you whip it out and try to stick it in people's faces, I'm going to have a problem with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're nothing but a lying little fuck, Joe. You admitted it. As such, you're a piece of shit human being who's deserving of no respect or deference.
> 
> You're such a profound fucking scumbag you don't even recognize it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, did I hurt your feelings when I pointed out it was kind of creepy that you snoop around in your employees private lives?
> 
> 
> 
> Batcat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satan is in charge of this world at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, man, reading the bible, I'm having a hard time seeing how Satan is the bad guy.  God kills thousands of people, or demands his followers kill people, for often the most trivial of offenses.  He kills babies!!!
> 
> Satan only kills 10 people in the Book of Job, and then it was because he had a bet with God about whether he could make Job curse God.
Click to expand...


When I started studying the Bible about fifteen years ago the same things disturbed me. Over the years I have basically resolved those issues but I still feel sorry for the ten people Satan killed in his bet with God about Job. 

This article although lengthy sums up why God was for the extermination of the people who lived in Canaan. Be sure to read the very last section on child sacrifice.





__





						The Extermination of the Canaanites
					

How could an all-loving God could command the extermination of the Canaanites and have Israel carry it out in Joshua through Judges?




					www.knowingthebible.net


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually know what Tebow prayed about during these little prayer sessions on the field?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you are desperate for attention, aren't you?
> 
> Was there a reason why he needed to pray in the middle of a game?
Click to expand...


For him, perhaps there was.

Just like Kaepernick felt he had a reason to kneel in the middle of the National Anthem.

In what way was Tebow being disruptive? In what way had he done something which countless athletes had not done prior, or have done since?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you don't know, correct? And you don't want to know, correct?
> 
> I understand. I mean, can you imagine how devastating it would be to your argument if you found that Tebow in fact, did _not_ pray to God for football victories? I wouldn't want to answer that question either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I couldn't care less what some small minded bible thumper asked his imaginary sky fairy for .
> 
> I think he trivialized his own beliefs by linking football with his faith.
Click to expand...


And Kaeprnick trivialized his beliefs by linking football with his cause...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, did I hurt your feelings when I pointed out it was kind of creepy that you snoop around in your employees private lives?



Not in the least, scumbag. Like I said, my employees love me.

Frankly, if you've never asked someone "How's the family?" that's pretty fuckin' weird. That's pretty much the extent of the "snooping".

I would like to hire you, though. I would like to hire you just so you can see, first hand, how well my employees are treated and how much mutual respect they and I have for each other.

And then I'll unceremoniously fire you for being a scumbag and have Iron Bob escort you from the premises...


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> t. The problem isn't that he couldn't get a job, it was that they all conspired NOT to give him one


So what? Wasnt it you who claimed that freedom of speech doesn't free from consequences afterwards and that a business can fire an employer if their words or deeds threaten the business' reputation?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

JoeB131 said:


> The problem isn't that he couldn't get a job, it was that they all conspired NOT to give him one.



Conspired? He was a mediocre trouble making crybaby.
No conspiracy required for teams to decide not to sign him.


----------



## Dadoalex

WinterBorn said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
Click to expand...

Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."

If you want to give advice then listen to this....

Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Dadoalex said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
Click to expand...


No, there is no rules about "poor taste".

The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.

You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.

I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.

Take a deep breath and stay on topic.


----------



## JoeB131

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You are fixated on this (most likely incorrect) belief that you know he is praying to God to help him win football games because you allude to it time and time again. If your problem is that you think people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us then stick with that. Don't pretend you know what he prays about when you have no idea.



Wow, you really are needy, aren't you?  let's move on to someone who has a point.  




ESay said:


> So what? Wasnt it you who claimed that freedom of speech doesn't free from consequences afterwards and that a business can fire an employer if their words or deeds threaten the business' reputation?



Not at all....  I was pointing out that conservatives who are whining a mannish woman got fired from playing third fiddle to a puppet were happy to screw with this man's career.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Frankly, if you've never asked someone "How's the family?" that's pretty fuckin' weird. That's pretty much the extent of the "snooping".



That's not what you claimed, you claimed you looked into people's family lives and how it might be effecting their work... but nothing to do with the topic of this thread. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I would like to hire you, though. I would like to hire you just so you can see, first hand, how well my employees are treated and how much mutual respect they and I have for each other.
> 
> And then I'll unceremoniously fire you for being a scumbag and have Iron Bob escort you from the premises...



The fact that you treat employees like that at all tell me that I'd probably want to keep as far away from you as possible... not that you could afford me, anyway.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

XponentialChaos said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
Click to expand...

If he could play he would be playing.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

WinterBorn said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
Click to expand...

Poor caddokid is frustrated.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> That's not what you claimed, you claimed you looked into people's family lives and how it might be effecting their work... but nothing to do with the topic of this thread.



You're such a lying little fuck.

I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.

If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...



> The fact that you treat employees like that at all tell me that I'd probably want to keep as far away from you as possible... not that you could afford me, anyway.



First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.

I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.

And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are fixated on this (most likely incorrect) belief that you know he is praying to God to help him win football games because you allude to it time and time again. If your problem is that you think people like him are trying to impose their silly Bronze Age Beliefs on the rest of us then stick with that. Don't pretend you know what he prays about when you have no idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are needy, aren't you?  let's move on to someone who has a point.
Click to expand...


Nice try. Once again you contradicted yourself. Plus, you got called on your arrogant bullshit presuming to know what Tebow prayed about.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...



Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.) 



Canon Shooter said:


> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.



Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?  

Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...



Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you claimed, you claimed you looked into people's family lives and how it might be effecting their work... but nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you treat employees like that at all tell me that I'd probably want to keep as far away from you as possible... not that you could afford me, anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
Click to expand...

You could buy him but you'd be buying a bunch of debt and zero intangible assets. LOL


----------



## Dadoalex

WinterBorn said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
Click to expand...

I was on topic.
You and the rest of the moral police are drifting.
Take your own advice Abby.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?
> 
> Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM
Click to expand...

Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.


----------



## Canon Shooter

What's the resident lying scumbag whining about now...



JoeB131 said:


> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of



No, I fired them for breaking company rules.

I have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible...



> and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance.



I had no idea that you were so delicate that "How's the family?" qualifies as "prying".



> (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)



And, if their manager is the problem, wouldn't I want to know that? If an employee of yours has a problem that's being caused by his manager, wouldn't you want to know that?

Well, no, because you're a shitty manager, so you probably wouldn't...



> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?



I've stated all along that I've owned two business. One of them pretty much runs on auto-pilot, though, and there are never really any personnel  issues as the company actually has very few employees.

Sports car? Well, I've got a pretty nice Mercedes. It's a 2014, though, so I don't know that saying I own a seven year old automobile is exactly "bragging". But it's still a fun ride:





I don't own a boat, and I'm not married. I _do_, however, have a smokin' hot Puerto Rican girlfriend. She looks good in the passenger seat of the Benz, too...



> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM



No you didn't.

Remember, you're an admitted liar. You shouldn't expect anything you say to be believed...


----------



## Canon Shooter

AzogtheDefiler said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?
> 
> Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.
Click to expand...


Joe is jealous.

He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...


----------



## Dadoalex

AzogtheDefiler said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor caddokid is frustrated.
Click to expand...

Says the lifetime president of 
INCEL Anonymous


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Canon Shooter said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?
> 
> Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...
Click to expand...

He does. He is a resume writer who barely makes mid five figures and blames the rich Jews for his ills.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Dadoalex said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor caddokid is frustrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the lifetime president of
> INCEL Anonymous
Click to expand...

LMAO...you were banned under your prior ID....looking to double down, caddokid?


----------



## WinterBorn

Dadoalex said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was on topic.
> You and the rest of the moral police are drifting.
> Take your own advice Abby.
Click to expand...


Continuing the discussion of the rules has no bearing on the topic of "Consequence Culture".

But now you know not to call people pedophiles.


----------



## Canon Shooter

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?
> 
> Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He does. He is a resume writer who barely makes mid five figures and blames the rich Jews for his ills.
Click to expand...


I don't really see "resume writer" as a business which one builds. It's more like a side hustle than anything else...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

Canon Shooter said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're such a lying little fuck.
> 
> I don't "look into people's lives". I talk to my employees.
> 
> If I sense something amiss, I might ask further questions. If they say they'd rather not discuss it, that's the end of it. If they say "Yeah, there are problems", I ask them if there's any way I can help. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I care about my employees. You, being a self-centered little scumbag, care only about yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, not what you claimed earlier.. you claimed you fired them for talking about stuff in the workplace you didn't approve of and pried into their private lives if you thought it was effecting their performance. (Because heaven forbid that it might actually be managements fault.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> First, my two businesses have combined budgets of about $25,000,000. Personally, I cleared just over $700K last year. I don't bring this up to brag, I bring it up to deflate your egotistical "not that you could afford me" comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, now you have TWO businesses.  And you have a sports car and are married to a supermodel.  Are you going to tell us about your yacht next?
> 
> Seems like you are the one who has a "deflated" ego, buddy.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd buy and sell your worthless ass.
> 
> And I don't treat my employees like that. I _would _treat _you _like that, though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you couldn't afford me.  Think the last time I worked for a company that made that little money, was 1999.   Shit, I handled purchasing accounts bigger than $25MM
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He does. He is a resume writer who barely makes mid five figures and blames the rich Jews for his ills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't really see "resume writer" as a business which one builds. It's more like a side hustle than anything else...
Click to expand...

Bingo!!!! He basically writes lies for people who cannot write their own shit. Pretty weak sauce. But he is here constantly complaining. You see his idiotic quotes in my siggy.


----------



## XponentialChaos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
Click to expand...


If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up. 

The “baggage” is exactly the point.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible


What does that mean on practice? If say you heard Peter and Jack argue about gay marriage during a lunchtime, what are you supposed to do?


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean on practice? If say you heard Peter and Jack argue about gay marriage during a lunchtime, what are you supposed to do?
Click to expand...


If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.

But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

XponentialChaos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up.
> 
> The “baggage” is exactly the point.
Click to expand...

So you disagree that if he could play that he would playing? OK...LOL

Same thing I said to religious nuts about Tebow.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean on practice? If say you heard Peter and Jack argue about gay marriage during a lunchtime, what are you supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
Click to expand...

They are off the clock but on the company premises, of course. And I suppose it was you who established these rules. What was the main reason?


----------



## XponentialChaos

AzogtheDefiler said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up.
> 
> The “baggage” is exactly the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you disagree that if he could play that he would playing? OK...LOL
> 
> Same thing I said to religious nuts about Tebow.
Click to expand...


As I figured, you completely ignore the "baggage" statement.

So here, let me help you out.


This is a video of NFL fans burning their NFL gear because they were upset about the kneeling thing.  This is the "baggage" that you conveniently didn't want to address.  

So let's call it what it is.  Kaepernick alienated NFL fans who were upset about the kneeling thing and NFL owners didn't want to bring in that "baggage".  Kaepernick was effectively cancelled because fans were offended by his protest.

It's not surprising that conservative posters who cry "CANCEL CULTURE!" the loudest completely ignore it when it comes from their side.  You guys don't care about cancel culture.  You just care when the left does it.

Now do me a favor and go ahead and continue to ignore the "baggage" statement, showing that you completely ignored the point.  Then I can give you a "like" and you can continue to pretend to be objective about cancel culture.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

XponentialChaos said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up.
> 
> The “baggage” is exactly the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you disagree that if he could play that he would playing? OK...LOL
> 
> Same thing I said to religious nuts about Tebow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I figured, you completely ignore the "baggage" statement.
> 
> So here, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> This is a video of NFL fans burning their NFL gear because they were upset about the kneeling thing.  This is the "baggage" that you conveniently didn't want to address.
> 
> So let's call it what it is.  Kaepernick alienated NFL fans who were upset about the kneeling thing and NFL owners didn't want to bring in that "baggage".  Kaepernick was effectively cancelled because fans were offended by his protest.
> 
> It's not surprising that conservative posters who cry "CANCEL CULTURE!" the loudest completely ignore it when it comes from their side.  You guys don't care about cancel culture.  You just care when the left does it.
> 
> Now do me a favor and go ahead and continue to ignore the "baggage" statement, showing that you completely ignored the point.  Then I can give you a "like" and you can continue to pretend to be objective about cancel culture.
Click to expand...

Because of a few fans? LOL
I don't buy it. If Kaep could play he would play


----------



## WinterBorn

AzogtheDefiler said:


> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up.
> 
> The “baggage” is exactly the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you disagree that if he could play that he would playing? OK...LOL
> 
> Same thing I said to religious nuts about Tebow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I figured, you completely ignore the "baggage" statement.
> 
> So here, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> This is a video of NFL fans burning their NFL gear because they were upset about the kneeling thing.  This is the "baggage" that you conveniently didn't want to address.
> 
> So let's call it what it is.  Kaepernick alienated NFL fans who were upset about the kneeling thing and NFL owners didn't want to bring in that "baggage".  Kaepernick was effectively cancelled because fans were offended by his protest.
> 
> It's not surprising that conservative posters who cry "CANCEL CULTURE!" the loudest completely ignore it when it comes from their side.  You guys don't care about cancel culture.  You just care when the left does it.
> 
> Now do me a favor and go ahead and continue to ignore the "baggage" statement, showing that you completely ignored the point.  Then I can give you a "like" and you can continue to pretend to be objective about cancel culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of a few fans? LOL
> I don't buy it. If Kaep could play he would play
Click to expand...


I always thought Tebow shot himself in the foot by insisting he would only play QB.   He would have made a helluva tightend.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

WinterBorn said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> XponentialChaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point dumb ass....you idiots claim he was canceled by the Right...when it is obvious to normal people you don't know what you are talking about.....you couldn't watch the democrat party controlled CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, PBS the late night comedians, the hollywood entertainment shows or award shows without seeing them kiss his ass, you dumb ass....
> 
> That is the exact fucking opposite of being canceled....you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You still don't get it because you're retarded.
> 
> He received a ton of backlash for kneeling, you moron.
> 
> To the point that he couldn't get a job anywhere else, you shit bird.
> 
> So yes, he was cancelled, you moron.
> 
> You idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you twerp-he couldn't get a job because *he was a shitty quarterback with three 747s worth of baggage*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "baggage" are you talking about?  You mean the baggage of getting shunned by NFL fans who got their feelings hurt and boycotted the NFL completely over his actions?  You mean how they "cancelled" him?  _That_ baggage?
> 
> Are you all caught up now?  Retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If he could play he would be playing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you’re going to interject, then maybe you can comment on the “baggage” that the other poster brought up.
> 
> The “baggage” is exactly the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you disagree that if he could play that he would playing? OK...LOL
> 
> Same thing I said to religious nuts about Tebow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I figured, you completely ignore the "baggage" statement.
> 
> So here, let me help you out.
> 
> 
> This is a video of NFL fans burning their NFL gear because they were upset about the kneeling thing.  This is the "baggage" that you conveniently didn't want to address.
> 
> So let's call it what it is.  Kaepernick alienated NFL fans who were upset about the kneeling thing and NFL owners didn't want to bring in that "baggage".  Kaepernick was effectively cancelled because fans were offended by his protest.
> 
> It's not surprising that conservative posters who cry "CANCEL CULTURE!" the loudest completely ignore it when it comes from their side.  You guys don't care about cancel culture.  You just care when the left does it.
> 
> Now do me a favor and go ahead and continue to ignore the "baggage" statement, showing that you completely ignored the point.  Then I can give you a "like" and you can continue to pretend to be objective about cancel culture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because of a few fans? LOL
> I don't buy it. If Kaep could play he would play
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I always thought Tebow shot himself in the foot by insisting he would only play QB.   He would have made a helluva tightend.
Click to expand...

Or FB...100%

Antonio Brown played. If he played anyone can play. Why? He can still play. 

National Felon League has zero morals.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean on practice? If say you heard Peter and Jack argue about gay marriage during a lunchtime, what are you supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are off the clock but on the company premises, of course. And I suppose it was you who established these rules. What was the main reason?
Click to expand...


Yes, I established these rules.

Nothing creates a good argument like religion and/or politics.

Certainly there is a time and place for such discussions. When I'm paying you to do a job, I would much rather have you concentrate on your job than I would have you get into some "ORANGE MAN BAD" argument or start throwing punches over someone's drawing of Allah.

Such things have no home in the workplace...


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Bullshit Joe. Bullshit. POs are nothing big deal. That is not the same as running a business or acquiring a $25mm company. You are such a liar it is hilarious.



Yeah, whatever, you'd wonder why there was any unemployment with all the supposed business geniuses that hang here. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And, if their manager is the problem, wouldn't I want to know that? If an employee of yours has a problem that's being caused by his manager, wouldn't you want to know that?



I certainly wouldn't trust a higher manager with a complaint about a manager.  

If I had a problem with a manager, my go-to would be to start sending resumes.  



Canon Shooter said:


> ports car? Well, I've got a pretty nice Mercedes.



Holy shit, yo uactually posted a picture of "your" car? Man, you must be insecure!!!  

I think I need to handle you very gently now, you are easily bruised.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...



Naw, I just don't consider "Screwing over other people to have a nicer car" to be much of a career goal.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, I just don't consider "Screwing over other people to have a nicer car" to be much of a career goal.
Click to expand...

Yet in your job that is what you do. Or do you guaranty a raise for all the people you fuck over when you mess up their resumes?


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> have a "No religion/No politics" rule in the workplace, and it is inflexible
> 
> 
> 
> What does that mean on practice? If say you heard Peter and Jack argue about gay marriage during a lunchtime, what are you supposed to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are off the clock but on the company premises, of course. And I suppose it was you who established these rules. What was the main reason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I established these rules.
> 
> Nothing creates a good argument like religion and/or politics.
> 
> Certainly there is a time and place for such discussions. When I'm paying you to do a job, I would much rather have you concentrate on your job than I would have you get into some "ORANGE MAN BAD" argument or start throwing punches over someone's drawing of Allah.
> 
> Such things have no home in the workplace...
Click to expand...

I dont talk about the situation when Peter and Jack are engaged in an argument and dont do their work. That is understandable. But at the time of a lunch? That is at least strange.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Yet in your job that is what you do. Or do you guaranty a raise for all the people you fuck over when you mess up their resumes?



Wouldn't know, most of my customers get better jobs... 

They recommend me to friends and neighbors.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet in your job that is what you do. Or do you guaranty a raise for all the people you fuck over when you mess up their resumes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, most of my customers get better jobs...
> 
> They recommend me to friends and neighbors.
Click to expand...

So do you or do you not guaranty better jobs and salaries and I don't buy the second part of your post.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> So do you or do you not guaranty better jobs and salaries and I don't buy the second part of your post.



One of my competitors guarantees that.  Then you get into the fine print and find they really don't.  

Here's the thing. The resume doesn't get you the job.  The resume gets you an interview.   And only if you are sending it to jobs you are actually qualified for.  It really is up to you to send it to the right companies, then do your research on the company and make sure that you do well in the interview.

Beyond that, I have a pretty high success rate, even after Trump Plague wrecked the economy.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So do you or do you not guaranty better jobs and salaries and I don't buy the second part of your post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my competitors guarantees that.  Then you get into the fine print and find they really don't.
> 
> Here's the thing. The resume doesn't get you the job.  The resume gets you an interview.   And only if you are sending it to jobs you are actually qualified for.  It really is up to you to send it to the right companies, then do your research on the company and make sure that you do well in the interview.
> 
> Beyond that, I have a pretty high success rate, even after Trump Plague wrecked the economy.
Click to expand...

How do you know the “success rate “ is due to you? How do you measure it? I mean you’re clearly an insane person.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> How do you know the “success rate “ is due to you? How do you measure it? I mean you’re clearly an insane person.



Here's how I measure it.  They weren't able to get interviews before me, they got them after I helped them out. 

Now, I make a concerted effort to keep track of my clients and follow up with them.  I connect with them on LinkedIn and sometimes Facebook.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know the “success rate “ is due to you? How do you measure it? I mean you’re clearly an insane person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's how I measure it.  They weren't able to get interviews before me, they got them after I helped them out.
> 
> Now, I make a concerted effort to keep track of my clients and follow up with them.  I connect with them on LinkedIn and sometimes Facebook.
Click to expand...

Stats? Lol


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Joe is jealous.
> 
> He knows he could never build and run his own company. He's not smart enough...



Actually, he probably is.

But he's lazy...and probably too much of a prick.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> I don't really see "resume writer" as a business which one builds. It's more like a side hustle than anything else...


It might also explain the unemployment rate in Chicago...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...



So...an employee can't pray over lunch?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet in your job that is what you do. Or do you guaranty a raise for all the people you fuck over when you mess up their resumes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't know, most of my customers get better jobs...
> 
> They recommend me to friends and neighbors.
Click to expand...

From bathroom cleaner to fry cook?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Now, I make a concerted effort to keep track of my clients and follow up with them.  I connect with them on LinkedIn and sometimes Facebook.



So, you stalk your clients??

They paid you to provide a service, not to be your buddy.

Keeping track of them and "following up" on them can't possibly be welcome. You did your job, now get the fuck out of their lives.

Freak...


----------



## Canon Shooter

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
Click to expand...


I've not encountered that yet.

In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> So, you stalk your clients??
> 
> They paid you to provide a service, not to be your buddy.
> 
> Keeping track of them and "following up" on them can't possibly be welcome. You did your job, now get the fuck out of their lives.



Actually, I connect with them on linked in.   Kind of useful, as they frequently come back with questions or want additional advice.  I also post interesting articles about the job market, interview tips or just things I think are interesting....  

Get with the times, man, Social Media is where it's at.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you stalk your clients??
> 
> They paid you to provide a service, not to be your buddy.
> 
> Keeping track of them and "following up" on them can't possibly be welcome. You did your job, now get the fuck out of their lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I connect with them on linked in.   Kind of useful, as they frequently come back with questions or want additional advice.  I also post interesting articles about the job market, interview tips or just things I think are interesting....
> 
> Get with the times, man, Social Media is where it's at.
Click to expand...


You like to "keep track" of your clients.

That's stalking.

You've got some serious issues...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You like to "keep track" of your clients.
> 
> That's stalking.
> 
> You've got some serious issues...



Um, no, it would be stalking if They didn't friend or connect with me, and I was following them on line, anyway.  That would be stalking.  

Now, not sure if you are familiar with LinkedIn, but when you start a new position, it shows up as "Mary Smith started a new position at Acme".   And usually when someone gets a job, I send them a nice note congratulating them.  

I also know some people don't update their linked in, or don't really use it, because they sometimes show up as being at their old job. "Bob Smith is celebrating his fifth anniversery at EvilCo." when I know he quit three years ago. 

Get with the times, Grandpa.


----------



## Soupnazi630

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

There was nothing anywhere in any of her posts which was transphobic or anti semetic.

COlin Kaepermich was fired because he was second rate not because of his kneeling crap and his kneeling crap was trivial compared to his other vile actions such as defending convicted murderers and communism.

Fonda supported the enemy and helped torment our POWS.

The Dixie Chucks are doing well in their career and were never censored

Your analogies are false equivelancies and you are a proven moron ass usual


----------



## JoeB131

Soupnazi630 said:


> There was nothing anywhere in any of her posts which was transphobic or anti semetic.



When you have a name like "Soup Nazi", I can't take you seriously on what isn't "anti-semetic." 



Soupnazi630 said:


> COlin Kaepermich was fired because he was second rate not because of his kneeling crap and his kneeling crap was trivial compared to his other vile actions such as defending convicted murderers and communism.



Okay.  He was fired for kneeling.  Deal with it.  



Soupnazi630 said:


> Fonda supported the enemy and helped torment our POWS.



Really? YOu mean she went down and tortured people?   Or she just showed up in their country and showed, "Hey, this is what your tax dollars are paying for." 



Soupnazi630 said:


> The Dixie Chucks are doing well in their career and were never censored



Actually, no.  The stopped charting after that and had to change genres.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
Click to expand...

It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, no, it would be stalking if They didn't friend or connect with me, and I was following them on line, anyway. That would be stalking.



You said you "keep track" of them.

LinkedIn is only one way to do that. Given the type of personality you are, it would surprise no one if you used other means to "keep track" of them...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You said you "keep track" of them.
> 
> LinkedIn is only one way to do that. Given the type of personality you are, it would surprise no one if you used other means to "keep track" of them...



I'm sure there are.  A lot of them keep in touch with me by email.  some on facebook. Some of them I hear about after one of their friends say, "Hey, Mary Smith gave me your number".  Some of them come back second and third times when they need updates.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
Click to expand...


I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said you "keep track" of them.
> 
> LinkedIn is only one way to do that. Given the type of personality you are, it would surprise no one if you used other means to "keep track" of them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure there are.  A lot of them keep in touch with me by email.  some on facebook. Some of them I hear about after one of their friends say, "Hey, Mary Smith gave me your number".  Some of them come back second and third times when they need updates.
Click to expand...


I wish I could believe you.

But you're a liar, so...


----------



## Soupnazi630

JoeB131 said:


> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing anywhere in any of her posts which was transphobic or anti semetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you have a name like "Soup Nazi", I can't take you seriously on what isn't "anti-semetic."
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> COlin Kaepermich was fired because he was second rate not because of his kneeling crap and his kneeling crap was trivial compared to his other vile actions such as defending convicted murderers and communism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay.  He was fired for kneeling.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fonda supported the enemy and helped torment our POWS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? YOu mean she went down and tortured people?   Or she just showed up in their country and showed, "Hey, this is what your tax dollars are paying for."
> 
> 
> 
> Soupnazi630 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dixie Chucks are doing well in their career and were never censored
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, no.  The stopped charting after that and had to change genres.
Click to expand...

With such low intelligence you cannot distinguish between a sitcom character and a nazi NO ONE takes you seriously.

She said nothing anti semetic and that is fact but we have already proven long ago thast you are a dunce  who knows nothing of history.

He was not fired for kneeling and that is fact he was fired because he was simply not a great player in comparison to others. He was second rate,

The Dixie Chuncks are still touring and doing quite well they had to do nothing and were never censored.

She supported the enemy killing and toruring our POWs she is the worst sort of scum.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
Click to expand...

That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
Click to expand...


Jack can join Peter.

And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jack can join Peter.
> 
> And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...
Click to expand...

Okay, so I should ask the question I asked before. What was the reason to set such rules? If they change nothing on practice.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jack can join Peter.
> 
> And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so I should ask the question I asked before. What was the reason to set such rules? If they change nothing on practice.
Click to expand...


Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jack can join Peter.
> 
> And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so I should ask the question I asked before. What was the reason to set such rules? If they change nothing on practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...
Click to expand...

Well, of course it is your right as an employer to set the rules on your property. But from my point of view, as a hired worker, I find them awkward and meaningless.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jack can join Peter.
> 
> And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so I should ask the question I asked before. What was the reason to set such rules? If they change nothing on practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, of course it is your right as an employer to set the rules on your property. But from my point of view, as a hired worker, I find them awkward and meaningless.
Click to expand...


I see.

I don't care.

Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're off the clock and off company premises? I don't care what they talk about.
> 
> But Peter and Jack both know that they're jeopardizing their jobs by having such a discussion under my roof, because workplace rules do not allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...an employee can't pray over lunch?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not encountered that yet.
> 
> In the interest of continuity, though, I would say probably not...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It seems all he will have to do is to stand out of the gates for a couple of yards and take his time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would even be inclined to give such a person a little bit of a longer lunch break...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is good, but the situation seems to be absurd. Peter is praying at the front of your gates and he gets extra hours for a lunch, but Jack does the same several yards farther from him inside the territory and he can well be fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jack can join Peter.
> 
> And he'd get, maybe, an extra 10 or 15 minutes. Not "hours"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, so I should ask the question I asked before. What was the reason to set such rules? If they change nothing on practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, of course it is your right as an employer to set the rules on your property. But from my point of view, as a hired worker, I find them awkward and meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
Click to expand...

If the workers are doing their job, all private discussions can be prohibited. Because they can lead away from fulfilling the duties properly. No matter about politics, religion, haircuts or hot chicks someone picked up the day before.

But when the time is off, during a lunch or when the shifts are changing, it has little sense. It doesn't affect the working process and personal qualities are much more important in a working environment than political or religious views.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> If the workers are doing their job, all private discussions can be prohibited. Because they can lead away from fulfilling the duties properly. No matter about politics, religion, haircuts or hot chicks someone picked up the day before.



I have no problem with people talking about last night's ball game, or cars or whatever.

But politics and religion are on my third rail. In my 58 years I have seen countless instances where the discussion of either of those two topics has gone way past "heated" and turned into actual fights. You may like that dynamic in your work place. I don't like it in mine, and I won't allow it...



> But when the time is off, during a lunch or when the shifts are changing, it has little sense. It doesn't affect the working process and *personal qualities are much more important in a working environment than political or religious views*.



I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Religious beliefs are some of the most personal qualities people can have.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the workers are doing their job, all private discussions can be prohibited. Because they can lead away from fulfilling the duties properly. No matter about politics, religion, haircuts or hot chicks someone picked up the day before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with people talking about last night's ball game, or cars or whatever.
> 
> But politics and religion are on my third rail. In my 58 years I have seen countless instances where the discussion of either of those two topics has gone way past "heated" and turned into actual fights. You may like that dynamic in your work place. I don't like it in mine, and I won't allow it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But when the time is off, during a lunch or when the shifts are changing, it has little sense. It doesn't affect the working process and *personal qualities are much more important in a working environment than political or religious views*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Religious beliefs are some of the most personal qualities people can have.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe we live in too different societies (not maybe, but that is for sure. Our societies have absolutely different cultural backgrounds).

Though, the society I live in is also highly polarized, but I have never seen the fights over political or religious preferences on working places.

Saying about personal qualities I meant fairness, treatment of other people, honesty/dishonesty etc.


----------



## JusticeHammer

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


Jane fonda is a traitorous bitch. Kolin kapernic is a spoiled rich crybaby. The vietnam war by the way was a demscum war, lyndon johnson was a doltard.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Though, the society I live in is also highly polarized, but I have never seen the fights over political or religious preferences on working places.



Well, I certainly have, and it would be irresponsible of me as a business owner to ignore that it happens...


----------



## Mac-7

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, it just resulted in a lot of mockery because he so trivialized his faith.


Tebow was a target of the godless left because he dared to believe in Jesus

Thats very threatening to libs


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I wish I could believe you.
> 
> But you're a liar, so...



Says the guy who changed his story three times about why he fired someone.


----------



## JoeB131

JusticeHammer said:


> Jane fonda is a traitorous bitch. Kolin kapernic is a spoiled rich crybaby. The vietnam war by the way was a demscum war, lyndon johnson was a doltard.



Sadly, the Vietnam War was one where both parties agreed.  Ike sent the first troops there, and Goldwater wanted to turn it into a parking lot.  Nixon escalated the war trying to get the Vietnamese to the table.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...



So...do you openly state "no Muslims need apply" or do you keep that sub rosa?


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?



Not getting sued, mostly.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish I could believe you.
> 
> But you're a liar, so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the guy who changed his story three times about why he fired someone.
Click to expand...


No I didn't.

Then again, you're a self-admitted scumbag liar...


----------



## Canon Shooter

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing riles emotions more than disagreements on politics or religion. I won't allow such disagreements in my place of business...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So...do you openly state "no Muslims need apply" or do you keep that sub rosa?
Click to expand...


I have three Muslims who work for me.

What's your point?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
Click to expand...


That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.

I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> No I didn't.
> 
> Then again, you're a self-admitted scumbag liar...



Version 1- You fired the guy for larceny. 

Version 2- He made promises to vendors that made you look bad. 

Version 3- He put dinners with customers on his expense account (which, frankly, has been a pretty normal activity as long as I've been in procurement.) 

All of which deflected from the the fact you were more interested in sticking your nose into the wage-slaves lunch time talk than following up on what your field employees were actually doing out there.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I didn't.
> 
> Then again, you're a self-admitted scumbag liar...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Version 1- You fired the guy for larceny.
> 
> Version 2- He made promises to vendors that made you look bad.
> 
> Version 3- He put dinners with customers on his expense account (which, frankly, has been a pretty normal activity as long as I've been in procurement.)
> 
> All of which deflected from the the fact you were more interested in sticking your nose into the wage-slaves lunch time talk than following up on what your field employees were actually doing out there.
Click to expand...


Wow, you really are a dumbfuck.

The guy represented himself as an officer of my company. He was not an officer of my company.

He charged expensive dinners, gifts and plane tickets to his company credit card. He had no business doing that, as the person he was treating to these lavish offerings was not his customer.

In the end, he did a lot of damage to the relationship between the two companies. We've gotten back on an even keel, but it took a while.

So, you see, those aren't three different stories, they're all one story you stupid fuck.

You know nothing of running, and certainly not of owning, a business of any size. If you did, you would be belching up the ignorant nonsense you do here.

Now, run along, liar...


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
Click to expand...


Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.
Click to expand...


Well, then I guess they're not devout.

If they are, they can clock out, leave the property and pray...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Wow, you really are a dumbfuck.
> 
> The guy represented himself as an officer of my company. He was not an officer of my company.
> 
> He charged expensive dinners, gifts and plane tickets to his company credit card. He had no business doing that, as the person he was treating to these lavish offerings was not his customer.
> 
> In the end, he did a lot of damage to the relationship between the two companies. We've gotten back on an even keel, but it took a while.



This is version #4 of the story.  Again, sounds like pretty bad leadership on your part.  Why did you give him a company credit card if he didn't have any significant authority? How was he dealing with a company that wasn't one of his accounts without anyone noticing?  You know, maybe if you spent less time trying to fire people for talking about politics in the lunch room, you might have noticed something amiss. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You know nothing of running, and certainly not of owning, a business of any size. If you did, you would be belching up the ignorant nonsense you do here.



Guy, I dealt with little companies like yours all the time, doing exactly what this poor schlub did... trying to bribe purchasing agents and buyers to throw business his way.


----------



## struth

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.
Click to expand...

I didn't see where he said he didn't permit them.  Federal law just requires an employer to make for reasonable accomedations....it does not, specifically it does not require paid breaks.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> This is version #4 of the story.



Again, proving you're nothing but a lying asshole. I've told the same version each time, so go fuck yourself...



> Again, sounds like pretty bad leadership on your part.



He was a bad apple. None of my other people did what he did...



> Why did you give him a company credit card if he didn't have any significant authority?



All of my sales guys have company credit cards. He's the only one who tried to pull this bullshit...




> How was he dealing with a company that wasn't one of his accounts without anyone noticing?



Um, hey dumbass, we did notice. That's how he got caught.

You really are a stupid little simp, aren't you?



> You know, maybe if you spent less time trying to fire people for talking about politics in the lunch room, you might have noticed something amiss.



I don't try to fire people for talking politics in the lunchroom.

And, again, he was caught, because we did notice something amiss...



> Guy, I dealt with little companies like yours all the time, doing exactly what this poor schlub did... trying to bribe purchasing agents and buyers to throw business his way.



No, you haven't. We know you haven't because you're nothing but a piece of shit, self-admitted liar.

And not that I care to share any details with a lying little fuck like you, but he wasn't trying to bribe them to throw business his way.

Just stop pretending you know anything about my business or how I conduct business. My businesses are successful. My employees are happy. They're paid well and I haven't had anyone quit in over five years, and that was a kid who'd been accepted to the Naval Academy. In my industry, I'm one of the guys you want to work for.

Your opinion means complete dick.

Pretending you know anything only makes you look like a complete fool...


----------



## Canon Shooter

struth said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see where he said he didn't permit them.  Federal law just requires an employer to make for reasonable accomedations....it does not, specifically it does not require paid breaks.
Click to expand...


Exactly.

I would certainly accommodate them if they wished to pray during business hours. I won't pay them to do it, though.

Again, the Muslims who work for me haven't brought it up...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He was a bad apple. None of my other people did what he did...



And you hired him.  What does that say about you?  You picked his resume out of hundreds of others, spent less than an hour interviewing him because you are supposedly such a good judge of character.  Then you handed him a company credit card and was all surprised when he did stuff a lot of sales reps do. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, you haven't. We know you haven't because you're nothing but a piece of shit, self-admitted liar.
> 
> And not that I care to share any details with a lying little fuck like you, but he wasn't trying to bribe them to throw business his way.



Why would you buy someone at a customer dinner if you weren't trying to get business?  I mean, did they just look hungry?  



Canon Shooter said:


> Just stop pretending you know anything about my business or how I conduct business. My businesses are successful. My employees are happy. They're paid well and I haven't had anyone quit in over five years, and that was a kid who'd been accepted to the Naval Academy. In my industry, I'm one of the guys you want to work for.



Not on the basis of what you have posted here.  It sounds like you run a toxic, fear based work environment. 

What I've found is the smaller the company, the shittier the behavior.  

Am I hurting your feelings telling you things your employees are terrified to tell you?  I Know, I know, I'll stop before you start posting pictures of your dream car again.


----------



## struth

Canon Shooter said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see where he said he didn't permit them.  Federal law just requires an employer to make for reasonable accomedations....it does not, specifically it does not require paid breaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> I would certainly accommodate them if they wished to pray during business hours. I won't pay them to do it, though.
> 
> Again, the Muslims who work for me haven't brought it up...
Click to expand...

I happen to know a number of people that practice Islam...some first generation from the ME, a girl I dated and remain friends with, family escaped Afgan when the leftist from Moscow invaded.

Anyway, during the work day, she says her prayers, but says them to herself, quietly, she doesnt bow, and do the "official" stuff...take a minute and nobody would even notice..  Doesn't impact her job, and she feels like she is doing what her faith wants her too.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> And you hired him.  What does that say about you?  You picked his resume out of hundreds of others, spent less than an hour interviewing him because you are supposedly such a good judge of character.



He had a strong resume, and his references were solid; many of them people I've known for years. The guy worked for many of them. They were pretty well shocked to learn of his transgressions...



> Then you handed him a company credit card



Because his position required it...



> and was all surprised when he did stuff a lot of sales reps do.



He wasn't acting as a sales rep when he was spending my company's money...



> Why would you buy someone at a customer dinner if you weren't trying to get business?  I mean, did they just look hungry?



Again, I'm not compelled to share the details with you...



> Not on the basis of what you have posted here.  It sounds like you run a toxic, fear based work environment.



Says the guy who has admitted to approaching business dishonestly.

If nothing else, take solace in the fact that I don't hire self-admitted scumbag liars, so it's unlikely you'll have a parking spot in my lot...



> What I've found is the smaller the company, the shittier the behavior.



You're a know-nothing little twit. 

You make me laugh...



> Am I hurting your feelings telling you things your employees are terrified to tell you?  I Know, I know, I'll stop before you start posting pictures of your dream car again.



Your jealousy is palpable.

Get a real job and maybe you can have nice things, too...


----------



## Canon Shooter

struth said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> struth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> I don't care.
> 
> Tell me, what would be the benefit of allowing such discussions on company time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not getting sued, mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That suggests that, by _not _allowing it, I open myself to legal action.
> 
> I can assure you, that's definitely not the case...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well...yes, it is. If you have actual devout Muslims working for you, they pray 5x a day. If you do not permit that, you will probably be sued and you will certainly lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't see where he said he didn't permit them.  Federal law just requires an employer to make for reasonable accomedations....it does not, specifically it does not require paid breaks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> I would certainly accommodate them if they wished to pray during business hours. I won't pay them to do it, though.
> 
> Again, the Muslims who work for me haven't brought it up...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I happen to know a number of people that practice Islam...some first generation from the ME, a girl I dated and remain friends with, family escaped Afgan when the leftist from Moscow invaded.
> 
> Anyway, during the work day, she says her prayers, but says them to herself, quietly, she doesnt bow, and do the "official" stuff...take a minute and nobody would even notice..  Doesn't impact her job, and she feels like she is doing what her faith wants her too.
Click to expand...


Well, if that's what they're doing, then they do it well...


----------



## JusticeHammer

JoeB131 said:


> JusticeHammer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane fonda is a traitorous bitch. Kolin kapernic is a spoiled rich crybaby. The vietnam war by the way was a demscum war, lyndon johnson was a doltard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, the Vietnam War was one where both parties agreed.  Ike sent the first troops there, and Goldwater wanted to turn it into a parking lot.  Nixon escalated the war trying to get the Vietnamese to the table.
Click to expand...

Nixon pulled us out. Johnson escalated it.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He had a strong resume, and his references were solid; many of them people I've known for years. The guy worked for many of them. They were pretty well shocked to learn of his transgressions...




Yeah, this story sounds fishier every time you tell it... So someone who was a professional for years, had a good reputation in the industry, misrepresented what his role was, made deals with a company he didn't rep to, spent money buying people dinners and trips... and you were clueless the whole time and couldn't tell from an interview that he wouldn't do this. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He wasn't acting as a sales rep when he was spending my company's money...



Wait, now, he had a company credit card, and he was pretending to be a sales rep (even though he wasn't going to get a commission from it and the guy who was the sales rep would have noticed).



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, I'm not compelled to share the details with you...



Probably a good call, Version #6 of this story would have even more holes in it.  Probably best to quit while you're behind. 




Canon Shooter said:


> If nothing else, take solace in the fact that I don't hire self-admitted scumbag liars, so it's unlikely you'll have a parking spot in my lot...



Point is, you couldn't afford me and I wouldn't waste time even sending a resume to a D-lister like you.  If I were in the market and I'm not right now.


----------



## JoeB131

JusticeHammer said:


> Nixon pulled us out. Johnson escalated it.



Nixon escalated the war by staging a coup in Cambodia and then launching a war into it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, this story sounds fishier every time you tell it... So someone who was a professional for years, had a good reputation in the industry, misrepresented what his role was, made deals with a company he didn't rep to, spent money buying people dinners and trips... and you were clueless the whole time and couldn't tell from an interview that he wouldn't do this.



Initially he wrote off the expenses as incurred entertaining his own account. My accounting manager brought the expenses to the attention of our CFO when they seemed to be climbing a bit high, and he brought them to me.

That's how it works.

You've never worked in a real business, though, so you wouldn't understand that...



> Wait, now, he had a company credit card, and he was pretending to be a sales rep (even though he wasn't going to get a commission from it and the guy who was the sales rep would have noticed).



No.

Dipshit.

He was a sales rep. He misrepresented himself as an officer in my company (say, as a COO or CFO).

Sales reps aren't officers of companies, you ignorant little turd...



> Probably a good call, Version #6 of this story would have even more holes in it.  Probably best to quit while you're behind.



There are no holes in the story. The fact that you don't have all the facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist. If you were more important, I might share them all with you...



> LOL! Bitch, I'd buy and sell your sorry ass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Point is, you couldn't afford me and I wouldn't waste time even sending a resume to a D-lister like you.  If I were in the market and I'm not right now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't have a market. You're unhireable, simply because you're an admitted liar and you approach business dishonestly...
> 
> My facilities manager made $90K last year. My head product development engineer made close to $140K.
> 
> You don't make near those amounts, and you damn well know it...
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Initially he wrote off the expenses as incurred entertaining his own account. My accounting manager brought the expenses to the attention of our CFO when they seemed to be climbing a bit high, and he brought them to me.
> 
> That's how it works.
> 
> You've never worked in a real business, though, so you wouldn't understand that...



Real business, never would have gotten that far.  Frankly, when I had to travel, I had to document everything I did.  


Canon Shooter said:


> He was a sales rep. He misrepresented himself as an officer in my company (say, as a COO or CFO).
> 
> Sales reps aren't officers of companies, you ignorant little turd...



Sounds to me like your rinky-dink little company didn't have clear titles or responsibilities... honestly, this sounds more and more fishy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> There are no holes in the story. The fact that you don't have all the facts doesn't mean the facts don't exist. If you were more important, I might share them all with you...



Actually, it sounds as fishy as hell.  Seriously, you hired someone who was a crook, he stole a lot of money from you misrepresenting himself to a major customer who you think would KNOW who the officers of your company were before they started lavishing bribes on them. 

I was a buyer for years, if someone showed up and said to me, "Hey, I'm the New COO of EvilCo and I'm going to buy you a trip to Hawaii", I'd be a little suspicious.  I think I might even make a call to whoever I had been dealing with at your company and said, "Um, what's up with this guy?"  


*My facilities manager made $90K last year. My head product development engineer made close to $140K.

You don't make near those amounts, and you damn well know it... *


Wow. That impresses me even less.   In Chicago, facilities managers can make up to 140K a year.  





__





						Facilities Manager Salary in Chicago, IL | Salary.com
					

View Facilities Manager Salary in Chicago, IL, and get a free salary report with salary range, bonus, and benefits information.



					www.salary.com
				




I doubt you are paying your buyers anything close to what I used to make before I struck out on my own consulting business.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Real business, never would have gotten that far.  Frankly, when I had to travel, I had to document everything I did.



So do my people.

This clown simply said he was entertaining his clients when, in fact, he was entertaining someone who _wasn't_ his client.

I suppose if I were a micro-manager maybe I'd have figured it out immediately, but I don't operate like that.

In the end, though, it all worked out. He now has a felony record, he had to pay restitution, his reputation is, much like yours, complete dogshit and we still enjoy a valuable relationship with the other company...



> Sounds to me like your rinky-dink little company didn't have clear titles or responsibilities... honestly, this sounds more and more fishy.



You honestly are the most retarded person I've ever encountered.

We have very clear titles with very clear responsibilities. He simply tried swinging outside his weight class, and he got caught...



> Actually, it sounds as fishy as hell.  Seriously, you hired someone who was a crook, he stole a lot of money from you misrepresenting himself to a major customer who you think would KNOW who the officers of your company were before they started lavishing bribes on them.



Again, you don't have all of the facts, so every time you make a guess you only make yourself look more fucking stupid...



> I was a buyer for years



Bullshit...



> if somene showed up and said to me, "Hey, I'm the New COO of EvilCo and I'm going to buy you a trip to Hawaii", I'd be a little suspicious.  I think I might even make a call to whoever I had been dealing with at your company and said, "Um, what's up with this guy?"



I can't speak as to why the person he was entertaining didn't do that and, if I could, I wouldn't...



> Wow. That impresses me even less.   In Chicago, facilities managers can make up to 140K a year.







__





						Facilities Manager Salary in Chicago, IL | Salary.com
					

View Facilities Manager Salary in Chicago, IL, and get a free salary report with salary range, bonus, and benefits information.



					www.salary.com
				



[/quote]

Do you put a lot of effort into being this clueless? Because it seems to come rather effortlessly to you.

Chicago has a population that is ten times the size of our entire county and the cost of living in Chicago is much higher. Furthermore, as stated o n YOUR link, the salary range for a facilities manager in Chicago starts at right around $90K. You're a dishonest little fuck, though, and you didn't want to admit that, despite the much higher cost of living, a facilities manager in Chicago may only make $5,000 more a year than a facilities manager in my county.

So, yeah, if my company were in Chicago, yeah, I imagine I'd be paying my facilities manager more.

Thank you for that, Captain Obvious...



> I doubt you are paying your buyers anything close to what I used to make before I *struck out* on my own consulting business.



I strongly suspect that's all you've ever succeeded at: striking out.

No one wants to hire a dishonest liar, and that, by your own admission, is what you are...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> This clown simply said he was entertaining his clients when, in fact, he was entertaining someone who _wasn't_ his client.
> 
> I suppose if I were a micro-manager maybe I'd have figured it out immediately, but I don't operate like that.



you just said you listen in our your employees to make sure they aren't talking politics and religion.  



Canon Shooter said:


> We have very clear titles with very clear responsibilities. He simply tried swinging outside his weight class, and he got caught...



Obviously, you didn't if the guy was that far off the reservation...but since you aren't telling the whole story, we can fill in the blanks. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Chicago has a population that is ten times the size of our entire county and the cost of living in Chicago is much higher.



Um, yeah, I live in a place that actually has stuff happening in it....  I doubt you'd last a week outside of podunk county.  




Canon Shooter said:


> Furthermore, as stated o n YOUR link, the salary range for a facilities manager in Chicago starts at right around $90K. You're a dishonest little fuck, though, and you didn't want to admit that, despite the much higher cost of living, a facilities manager in Chicago may only make $5,000 more a year than a facilities manager in my county.
> 
> So, yeah, if my company were in Chicago, yeah, I imagine I'd be paying my facilities manager more.



So what are you paying your purchasing agents?  I think that's the big question.  I promise you, it isn't what I used to make.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I strongly suspect that's all you've ever succeeded at: striking out.



Well, you'd be wrong as usual. I had a pretty good career in the army, advanced pretty consistently in the logistics supply chain field and now I run my own business.  Mind you, I don't have a bunch of employees who are sort of desperate....


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> you just said you listen in our your employees to make sure they aren't talking politics and religion.



Liar.

I've never made that statement...



> Obviously, you didn't if the guy was that far off the reservation...but since you aren't telling the whole story, we can fill in the blanks.



He tried to game the system to his advantage; hardly the first time anyone in the history of American business has tried it, and doubtful it'll be the last.

As for filling in the blanks, fuck you. I'd rather watch you make ignorant assumptions and prove how retarded you are than give you all the details. I've little reason to share such info with a worthless, lying piece of shit douchebag like you...



> Um, yeah, I live in a place that actually has stuff happening in it....  I doubt you'd last a week outside of podunk county.



I'm 58 years old. 

I've only been in this county seven years, but my businesses started 15 years ago. I moved them out of California because, well, California. I ran my businesses, successfully, in San Diego County, population about 3 million...



> So what are you paying your purchasing agents?  I think that's the big question.  I promise you, it isn't what I used to make.



Again, I'll just sit back and watch you talk about your fantasy salary. I know you'd like to know, so fuck you. If I told you I paid them $50K you'd mock it. If I told you I paid them $500K, you'd mock that.

See, that's what a posting history does. It allows people to see how disingenuous you are. I already know what your response will be, so there's no reason for me to share such information with you.



> Well, you'd be wrong as usual. I had a pretty good career in the army, advanced pretty consistently in the logistics supply chain field and now I run my own business.  Mind you, I don't have a bunch of employees who are sort of desperate...



My people are far from desperate.

And I don't believe for a second that you run your own business. You're probably some minimum-wage lackey down at the local Jiffy Chef, trying to act real important on the internet.

You know what's funny?

If you hadn't been a complete prick, I'd probably share more information with you. But watching your mental flailing as you try to pretend you kn ow anything about me or my businesses is funny. I'd rather see you make yourself look like an ass (which you've done a bang up job at) than converse with you about the specifics at hand...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He tried to game the system to his advantage; hardly the first time anyone in the history of American business has tried it, and doubtful it'll be the last.
> 
> As for filling in the blanks, fuck you. I'd rather watch you make ignorant assumptions and prove how retarded you are than give you all the details. I've little reason to share such info with a worthless, lying piece of shit douchebag like you...



yeah, probably better than admitting you are a D-lister whose employees are putting one over on him. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, I'll just sit back and watch you talk about your fantasy salary. I know you'd like to know, so fuck you. If I told you I paid them $50K you'd mock it. If I told you I paid them $500K, you'd mock that.
> 
> See, that's what a posting history does. It allows people to see how disingenuous you are. I already know what your response will be, so there's no reason for me to share such information with you.



Meh, no, I know exactly what I was making when I did purchasing...  I'm just amused that you had to go with two unrelated positions to brag on yourself. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And I don't believe for a second that you run your own business. You're probably some minimum-wage lackey down at the local Jiffy Chef, trying to act real important on the internet.



Yet you are the one taking this personally, for whatever reason.  YOu've really invested too much in this conversation... I think much like your hero Trump, your narcissism is toxic.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> yeah, probably better than admitting you are a D-lister whose employees are putting one over on him.



I guess you misssed tghe part where he was caught and prosecuted.

That's because you're a fucking retard...



> Meh, no, I know exactly what I was making when I did purchasing...  I'm just amused that you had to go with two unrelated positions to brag on yourself.



You've never done purchasing. It's clear that you're not nearly that intelligent...



> Yet you are the one taking this personally, for whatever reason.  YOu've really invested too much in this conversation... I think much like your hero Trump, your narcissism is toxic.



In order for me to take it personally, I would need to care about your opinion.

Seeing as you're nothing but a self-admitted scumbag liar, your opinion means nothing...[/QUOTE]


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I guess you misssed tghe part where he was caught and prosecuted.
> 
> That's because you're a fucking retard...



A good manager never would have let it get that far. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You've never done purchasing. It's clear that you're not nearly that intelligent...



Been doing it for 20 years...  but you do go on. 



Canon Shooter said:


> In order for me to take it personally, I would need to care about your opinion.
> 
> Seeing as you're nothing but a self-admitted scumbag liar, your opinion means nothing..



Right, that's why you're following me around from thread to thread...   

I probably should have realized how fragile your D-list ego was.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> A good manager never would have let it get that far.



A good manager makes sure he has his ducks in a row before accusing someone of wrongdoing. My accounting team made sure they had strong evidence before they brought it to me.

When we laid it all out for him you could hear the gasp of air escape him. We nailed him. We nailed him, he knew it, and all was made right with the world.

That's what good managers do. God only knows what a dipshit like you would've done...



> Been doing it for 20 years...  but you do go on.



All you've done for 20 years is run your mouth...



> Right, that's why you're following me around from thread to thread...



LOL!!

Doofuss, I do nothing of the sort...



> I probably should have realized how fragile your D-list ego was.



Again, not knowing anything about my business, your opinion means dick. All you have is the nonsensical bullshit you belch up in a jealous rage because you realize you're unsuccessful and, in all probability, will always be so.

You're a sad little man who lives vicariously through others but, left to your own devices, you're nothing...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> A good manager makes sure he has his ducks in a row before accusing someone of wrongdoing. My accounting team made sure they had strong evidence before they brought it to me.
> 
> When we laid it all out for him you could hear the gasp of air escape him. We nailed him. We nailed him, he knew it, and all was made right with the world.
> 
> That's what good managers do. God only knows what a dipshit like you would've done...



A good manager never would have hired him to start with, because he would have done proper vetting before hiring him. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, not knowing anything about my business, your opinion means dick. All you have is the nonsensical bullshit you belch up in a jealous rage because you realize you're unsuccessful and, in all probability, will always be so.



I have to go by what you say... 

You stick your nose in the personal business of your employees.
You fire people for conversations that have nothing to so with work.
And one of your sales reps ran up a bunch of bills because he was poorly supervised.  

Keeping in mind you are spinning this story where you are the hero, I'm sure that the reality is much, much, much worse.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> A good manager never would have hired him to start with, because he would have done proper vetting before hiring him.



Based on his resume, his references and his interview there was no reason not to hire him. There was nothing which indicated he'd do something like this.

At some point while working at my company, he decided to go rogue.

You're an idiot and a fool if you think that doesn't happen from time to time...



> I have to go by what you say...



Yes, you do...



> You stick your nose in the personal business of your employees.



My employees see it differently. They appreciate the fact that "the boss" takes an interest. If they were to tell me it made them uncomfortable, I would stop.

And they know that.

So, again, your opinion means dick...



> You fire people for conversations that have nothing to so with work.



No, I don't.

There's a zero tolerance policy on the topics of religion and politics. That's all. If two guys want to talk about a football game or cars or whatever while they work, I have little problem with that, so long as there's no negative impact on their work...



> And one of your sales reps ran up a bunch of bills because he was poorly supervised.



Again, you don't have, nor will you have, all the facts, so your opinion means, let's say it together: DICK...



> Keeping in mind you are spinning this story where you are the hero, I'm sure that the reality is much, much, much worse.



I'm hardly a hero. I'm a guy who owns two successful businesses staffed with people who, save for that one jerk-off, are happy at work. It's hard to ask for more than that from your people. If they're happy they're going to produce. If they're happy it means you're doing something right. Well, not you, of course. _You've_ never had people who worked for you and, if you did, they'd be fucking miserable.

Every single one of your posts smacks with jealousy. You see someone who's done pretty well, and you're angry that you're just too big a fuck up to be even half as successful. It's okay, it really is. For all I've accomplished in my life, I know there are others who've accomplished far more than I. I also know there are people who, in their wildest dreams, will never be more than some hourly drone who can only be content with wishing they weren't complete fuck ups.

You know, people like you...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Based on his resume, his references and his interview there was no reason not to hire him. There was nothing which indicated he'd do something like this.
> 
> At some point while working at my company, he decided to go rogue.
> 
> You're an idiot and a fool if you think that doesn't happen from time to time...



I've never seen it happen.  I have seen managers make up bullshit stories to justify firing employees, though. 



Canon Shooter said:


> There's a zero tolerance policy on the topics of religion and politics. That's all. If two guys want to talk about a football game or cars or whatever while they work, I have little problem with that, so long as there's no negative impact on their work...



Again, why is any of this your business?  I mean, if your employees are taking swings at each other over Transubstantiation, it's probably because you have a toxic work environment. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I'm hardly a hero. I'm a guy who owns two successful businesses staffed with people who, save for that one jerk-off, are happy at work. It's hard to ask for more than that from your people. If they're happy they're going to produce. If they're happy it means you're doing something right. Well, not you, of course. _You've_ never had people who worked for you and, if you did, they'd be fucking miserable.



I understand people in East Germany were really happy, too.   

Actually, I have had people who worked for me when I was a supervisor in the 90's.   Most of them were happy because they knew I had their back.  In fact, I was able to keep my core team together for nearly two years in a place where other teams were blowing through people like Red Shirts on Star Trek. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Every single one of your posts smacks with jealousy. You see someone who's done pretty well, and you're angry that you're just too big a fuck up to be even half as successful. It's okay, it really is. For all I've accomplished in my life, I know there are others who've accomplished far more than I. I also know there are people who, in their wildest dreams, will never be more than some hourly drone who can only be content with wishing they weren't complete fuck ups.



Wouldn't know, I haven't worked "hourly" since the 1990's...  I've been on salary since 2000.  But the fact that you show such contempt for working people is probably why you would be horrible to work for. 

Like most bullies, the worst thing in your life is someone who stands up to you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I've never seen it happen.



Well, you're hardly the bellweather for what occurs in business, so this is not surprising...



> I have seen managers make up bullshit stories to justify firing employees, though.



I don't have to justify anything. I can fire someone for wearing red sneakers if I want to.

I don't doubt, though, that you've had plenty of managers fire you...



> Again, why is any of this your business?



It's my house, that's why...



> I mean, if your employees are taking swings at each other over Transubstantiation, it's probably because you have a toxic work environment.



No, it means that they're discussing a volatile topic.

They don't have to come to blows for it to be a problem...



> understand *people in East Germany were really happy*, too.
> 
> Actually, *I have had people who worked for me* when I was a supervisor in the 90's.   *Most of them were happy* because they knew I had their back.



Do you even think about what you're posting, or are you suffering from some sort on internet Tourette's where you just blurt shit out?

In trying to make me look bad, you just made yourself look every bit as bad, only _you _also look stupid...



> In fact, I was able to keep my core team together for nearly two years



"Nearly two years"? Like almost a _whole_ two years?

And you're proud of that?

That's fucking pathetic.

My core team has two people who've been with me since day one (15 years now), three who've been with me over ten years (they get a nice watch when they hit that mark, too) and one for seven years.

Bragging about "nearly two years" is fucking sad.

But it tells me more about you. You couldn't even reach the two year mark.

Talk about a shitty manager...



> in a place where other teams were blowing through people like Red Shirts on Star Trek.



I have no idea what that means but, then again, I'm an adult living in the real world and not trying to exist in some fantasyland.

Seriously, so much more about you is coming into focus as a result of this latest post of yours...



> Wouldn't know, I haven't worked "hourly" since the 1990's...  I've been on salary since 2000.  But the fact that you show such contempt for working people is probably why you would be horrible to work for.



I don't show contempt to hourly workers. I'd show contempt to you, though...



> Like most bullies, the worst thing in your life is someone who stands up to you.



Well, I welcome that. As soon as you find someone with the sack to do that, send him my way, because you're beginning to get boring as fuck...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, you're hardly the bellweather for what occurs in business, so this is not surprising...



Except I've worked for multi-national corporations... you not so much. 



Canon Shooter said:


> "Nearly two years"? Like almost a _whole_ two years?
> 
> And you're proud of that?



GIven what that company was like, um, yeah.  It was actually an accomplishment, given the second shift couldn't keep people for more than a couple of months.   The went through five shift supervisors in a year before I got the job, and I had to build an effective team, which I did.   Meanwhile, going back to "everyone lies", the reason it wasn't longer was because the owners of the company decided to move operations to Wisconsin and lie to us about it until they were ready to go.  They shot themselves in the foot, because the found the couldn't really compete in Chicago without a presence in Chicago.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I don't show contempt to hourly workers. I'd show contempt to you, though...



Yes, I'm living in your head rent free... How many threads did you have to look through to find one where you could go into off topic rants because I hurt your little feelings, buddy. 

Did you spend all day in your office muttering how you couldn't wait to get home to show me?  



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, I welcome that. As soon as you find someone with the sack to do that, send him my way, because you're beginning to get boring as fuck...



Sure, buddy, that's why you are engaging in cyber-stalking.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I don't have to justify anything. I can fire someone for wearing red sneakers if I want to.
> 
> I don't doubt, though, that you've had plenty of managers fire you...



Actually, only once.  And that was because they found out I was shopping my resume.  

But you are making my whole point. You shouldn't be able to fire someone because he's wearing red sneakers. Or because he's talking about politics in the lunch room.  You should only have the right to do that if you legitimately have a complaint, and retraining didn't work out.   This is why every company should have a mandatory union presence.  Because shit stains like you are bosses.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Except I've worked for multi-national corporations... you not so much.



I've worked for one, from 2001, when I retired from the military, to 2006, when I left to start my own business(es) in a completely different field. The President of the company I worked for is probably the most respected in his field, and everything I know about owning and running my own company I learned from him. He used to walk around and ask people how they were and how their family was. No one ever saw that as "prying". He's the one who, as a devout Christian, first put an unwaverable moratorium on political and religious discussions at the workplace. He was the son of a US Navy Boatswain's Mate and he never went to college.

He now owns a $125 million a year company.

He's one of the smartest men I've ever known...



> GIven what that company was like, um, yeah.  It was actually an accomplishment, given the second shift couldn't keep people for more than a couple of months.   The went through five shift supervisors in a year before I got the job, and I had to build an effective team, which I did.   Meanwhile, going back to "everyone lies", the reason it wasn't longer was because the owners of the company decided to move operations to Wisconsin and lie to us about it until they were ready to go.  They shot themselves in the foot, because the found the couldn't really compete in Chicago without a presence in Chicago.



Two years; Hell, not even two years, is nothing to beat your chest over...



> Yes, I'm living in your head rent free... How many threads did you have to look through to find one where you could go into off topic rants because I hurt your little feelings, buddy.



LOL!

Not a single one, actually...



> Did you spend all day in your office muttering how you couldn't wait to get home to show me?



Not hardly.

I was out on my buddy's boat fishing off the shelf today.

Come to think of it, I didn't think about you until I saw your whiny little rants here this afternoon...



> Sure, buddy, that's why you are engaging in cyber-stalking.



You've got serious issues, dipshit. I'd recommend professional counseling of some sort...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, only once.  And that was because they found out I was shopping my resume.



Only pieces of shit get fired...



> But you are making my whole point. You shouldn't be able to fire someone because he's wearing red sneakers. Or because he's talking about politics in the lunch room.



The fuck I shouldn't.

It's my name on company letterhead. It's my money in the company bank accounts. If I want to fire you because the Jets had another losing season, guess what? You're getting shit-canned.

But just because I _can _do that doesn't mean I _do_...



> You should only have the right to do that if you legitimately have a complaint, and retraining didn't work out.   This is why every company should have a mandatory union presence.  Because shit stains like you are bosses.



Well, when I consider how many people I've seen voluntarily leave my employ over the last 15 years, I'm comfortable knowing that, as a company owner and "boss" my employees are pretty goddamn happy. They don't need to unionize. They don't _want _to unionize. They enjoy working for me. Aside from that, I can't think of a single company in my field which is unionized.

So, yeah, let's see what we've learned:

1) You don't have a clue what you're talking about
2) You're dishonest in your business dealings
3) You're an admitted liar (undoubtedly helps you with #2)
4) You lack the skills and talent to keep a "core team" together for very long
5) You're a whiny snit
6) Fuck you

Yeah, I'd say that about sums it up...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Two years; Hell, not even two years, is nothing to beat your chest over...



Given what was going on with that company and that industry, yes, yes, it was. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The fuck I shouldn't.
> 
> It's my name on company letterhead. It's my money in the company bank accounts. If I want to fire you because the Jets had another losing season, guess what? You're getting shit-canned.
> 
> But just because I _can _do that doesn't mean I _do_...



Uh, no, guy.  Workers should have rights and protections....   That's the whole point.  Business owners who can't deal with that shouldn't be business owners.   America was a MUCH better place when we had strong unions and government took the side of the workers.  You know, before the Republicans fucked everything up and then put on MAGA hats without admitting they were the reason why American ceased to be "Great". 

The thing that should ABSOLUTELY scare the shit out of you is how close Bernie Sanders got, twice.   Some crazy socialist appealed to a lot of people because people like you have made America a shit sandwich for the working man.  

But, no, let's not do any introspection.   Let's be angry because Joe hurt my feelings on the internet. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, when I consider how many people I've seen voluntarily leave my employ over the last 15 years, I'm comfortable knowing that, as a company owner and "boss" my employees are pretty goddamn happy. They don't need to unionize. They don't _want _to unionize. They enjoy working for me. Aside from that, I can't think of a single company in my field which is unionized.



Uh, yeah, guy, Happy like East German Workers were happy.   Shit, if I worked for a guy who would fire my co-workers on a whim or even file criminal charges because of his bad management, I'd pretend to be happy, too.  Right until I was halfway out the door.   Of course, you said you moved out of California to Podunk County in some Red State because you didn't like operating in a state where workers still had a few rights.  

So let's review. 

1) You suck at interviewing people.
2) You fire people on a whim.
3) You really hate the thought that workers might have rights.
4) You weirdly stalk people who hurt your sensitive feelings. 
5) You really are a piece of shit. 
6) Fuck you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Given what was going on with that company and that industry, yes, yes, it was.



So, what you're saying is that you really didn't improve the situation at all. If you were as shit-hot as you'd like people here to believe, you'd have put two years in your rear view mirror and gone for five, at least. Two years is a failure.

The bottom line is that you failed to keep a team together for even two years...



> Uh, no, guy.  Workers should have rights and protections....   That's the whole point.  Business owners who can't deal with that shouldn't be business owners.   America was a MUCH better place when we had strong unions and government took the side of the workers.  You know, before the Republicans fucked everything up and then put on MAGA hats without admitting they were the reason why American ceased to be "Great".



The problem with that is asshats like you who believe that workers should have ALL the rights and business owners should act on the whim of the union.

Fuck that, and fuck you.

If unions were interested in being fair, it would be a different story. But shitheads like you don't want business owners to have any rights whatsoever, and that just won't fly.

It's not my job to make sure someone has a place to work. It's my job to produce a product and a service, and I'm pretty much at the top of my game in that regard. The fact that my people don't want to leave, and that dismissals are few and far between, is all I need to know that unionizing would be a worthless endeavor here...



> The thing that should ABSOLUTELY scare the shit out of you is how close Bernie Sanders got, twice.   Some crazy socialist appealed to a lot of people because people like you have made America a shit sandwich for the working man.



I'm 58 years old. I'm fortunate to be in a position where I can shut it all down and retire tomorrow. If the state of Florida were to mandate that I had to allow my workers to unionize, that's exactly what would happen.

But I'm confident my employees would throw whatever union rep showed up out on his ass.

See, again, my people are happy. I keep them happy. They're paid better than most in the same position at other companies. They've got benefits out the ass, 401K (and the company matches that to 8%; the norm is 6%), two weeks paid vacation after their first year (as opposed to one week, which is standard), and that's in addition to the shutdowns we do around the Christmas holidays and 4th of July), employee purchase program (they can buy our products at manufacturer cost plus 15%; which is simply unheard of in the industry). 

Every employee in the company has received an annual bonus equal to double their pre-tax monthly pay for the last nine years.

We offer three $10,000 college scholarships a year to children of our employees (they're awarded every year at our Christmas party). If an employee wants to go back to school, and his or her course of study is applicable to the workplace and will increase that employees value to the company, the company covers half the tuition and the cost of all books. 

Headhunters don't really bother with contacting people at either of my companies only because they know there's a snowball's chance in Hell that they can get them...



> But, no, let's not do any introspection.   Let's be angry because Joe hurt my feelings on the internet.



Is that what you think you did? Oh, Joey, no. No, you didn't, sport. Apologies for having given you that impression...



> Uh, yeah, guy, Happy like East German Workers were happy.   Shit, if I worked for a guy who would fire my co-workers on a whim or even file criminal charges because of his bad management, I'd pretend to be happy, too.



Again, dipshit, as I said: Just because I _can _fire someone on a whim doesn't mean I _do_...



> Right until I was halfway out the door.   Of course, you said you moved out of California to Podunk County in some Red State because you didn't like operating in a state where workers still had a few rights.



No, I moved to a red state because the taxes on business in California were stupid-ridiculous.

We're now in Florida, where there's also no state income tax. My employees LOVE that, because not only are they paid more than the industry norm, they get to keep more of it, too.

So let's review:



> 1) You suck at interviewing people.



One person out of how many I've interviewed over 15 years? I'd say that's a strong track record. It also demonstrates that you know dick about interviewing potential employees...



> 2) You fire people on a whim.



Ah, there's the liar I was waiting for...



> 3) You really hate the thought that workers might have rights.



Not at all. I simply believe that workers can have rights without oppressive unions representing them...



> 4) You weirdly stalk people who hurt your sensitive feelings.



Yeah, no...



> 5) You really are a piece of shit.



If you mattered, that might bother me...



> 6) Fuck you.



Run out of your own material?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> So, what you're saying is that you really didn't improve the situation at all. If you were as shit-hot as you'd like people here to believe, you'd have put two years in your rear view mirror and gone for five, at least. Two years is a failure.
> 
> The bottom line is that you failed to keep a team together for even two years...



I fantastically improved it in terms of inventory accuracy, employee retention, fulfilled orders, warehouse safety, etc.   People higher up than me were making bad decisions, with one owner putting the profits up his nose and the other giving all his money to his church.    They ran the company into the ground within a year of inheriting it from their parents... although I'm not sure if even good managers could have saved it. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The problem with that is asshats like you who believe that workers should have ALL the rights and business owners should act on the whim of the union.
> 
> Fuck that, and fuck you.
> 
> If unions were interested in being fair, it would be a different story. But shitheads like you don't want business owners to have any rights whatsoever, and that just won't fly.



Wow, hit a nerve, did I?   Frankly, good managers wouldn't be bothered by that.  They can maintain good relations by being fair. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Headhunters don't really bother with contacting people at either of my companies only because they know there's a snowball's chance in Hell that they can get them...



Do you really think that your employees would tell you if a headhunter contacted them?  

I mean, come on... most people don't want their bosses to know they are looking at other options. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Is that what you think you did? Oh, Joey, no. No, you didn't, sport. Apologies for having given you that impression...



You've been stalking me for a week now.  

I'd say you really are hurt... I'm sorry.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I fantastically improved it in terms of inventory accuracy, employee retention, fulfilled orders, warehouse safety, etc.   People higher up than me were making bad decisions, with one owner putting the profits up his nose and the other giving all his money to his church.



Personally, the only people I know who work for drug addicts are other drug addicts.

Maybe you should see someone about your drug issues, Joe. Seriously, man, I care about you...



> They ran the company into the ground within a year of inheriting it from their parents... although I'm not sure if even good managers could have saved it.



Well, nice to see you admit what's already known; that you weren't a good manager...



> Wow, hit a nerve, did I?



Sorry, cupcake, you ain't that good...



> Frankly, good managers wouldn't be bothered by that.  They can maintain good relations by being fair.



See, the fatal flaw in your argument in favor of unions is that you make the blanket assumption that anyone who owns a company where the workers _aren't_ unionized is evil, and that's just not true at all.

Go through that list of everything my company does for its employees and tell me what's evil. Tell me where a union rep could negotiate them a better deal and I'll show you the list of things that evaporate once the employees unionize.

That's an honest challenge which I don't think you're up to.

I dare you to prove me wrong...



> Do you really think that your employees would tell you if a headhunter contacted them?



Oh, I've been told about it several times, usually with the employee laughing about it...



> I mean, come on... most people don't want their bosses to know they are looking at other options.



That's what you can't seem to get through your thick skull: My people _aren't_ looking at other options...



> You've been stalking me for a week now.



You're fuckin' delusional.

We've been having a discussion and you see that as stalking?

I was unaware at how truly delicate your psyche must be. Maybe the internet's not for you...



> I'd say you really are hurt... I'm sorry.



Says the guy who can't have a conversation without claiming he's being stalked.

You're a weird fuck, I'll give ya' that...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You like to "keep track" of your clients.
> 
> That's stalking.
> 
> You've got some serious issues...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, it would be stalking if They didn't friend or connect with me, and I was following them on line, anyway.  That would be stalking.
> 
> Now, not sure if you are familiar with LinkedIn, but when you start a new position, it shows up as "Mary Smith started a new position at Acme".   And usually when someone gets a job, I send them a nice note congratulating them.
> 
> I also know some people don't update their linked in, or don't really use it, because they sometimes show up as being at their old job. "Bob Smith is celebrating his fifth anniversery at EvilCo." when I know he quit three years ago.
> 
> Get with the times, Grandpa.
Click to expand...

LinkedIn is one word as is online. Get with the times, old man.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Personally, the only people I know who work for drug addicts are other drug addicts.
> 
> Maybe you should see someone about your drug issues, Joe. Seriously, man, I care about you...



Actually, um, no.  This guy wasn't the owner when I was hired.  His parents were.   Then they retired and Nose Candy and Bible Boy ran the company into the ground in two years. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, nice to see you admit what's already known; that you weren't a good manager...



Again, I did my part fine...   

The problem was, of course, that the market changed entirely, from independent shops to chain stores... which means they ran out of customers.   Six other distributors in the same industry also went out of business in the same period. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, the fatal flaw in your argument in favor of unions is that you make the blanket assumption that anyone who owns a company where the workers _aren't_ unionized is evil, and that's just not true at all.



I make the blanket assumption about human nature.   People abuse power if there isn't a check on it.   Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  

If anything, I've seen more abuses in smaller companies because they've really got less controls than larger ones.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Go through that list of everything my company does for its employees and tell me what's evil. Tell me where a union rep could negotiate them a better deal and I'll show you the list of things that evaporate once the employees unionize.
> 
> That's an honest challenge which I don't think you're up to.



Since you won't tell me the name of your company, that's a moot point.   



Canon Shooter said:


> You're fuckin' delusional.
> 
> We've been having a discussion and you see that as stalking?



Uh, we had the discussion on another thread, then you showed up on this one to continue the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of cancel culture.    (And it's the only thread I've started in a couple of weeks.)


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, um, no.  This guy wasn't the owner when I was hired.  His parents were.   Then they retired and Nose Candy and Bible Boy ran the company into the ground in two years.



Well, the writing was on the wall. If you were a bit more astute and actually paid attention, you'd have seen that.

You chose to stay with a company run by a drug addict. That's undeniable...



> Again, I did my part fine...



Well, yes, if I suppose your "part" was helping a drug addict run the company into the ground...



> The problem was, of course, that the market changed entirely, from independent shops to chain stores... which means they ran out of customers.   Six other distributors in the same industry also went out of business in the same period.



So says you.

What companies were those?



> I make the blanket assumption about human nature.



And that's what makes you ignorant and stupid... 



> People abuse power if there isn't a check on it.   Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.



More nonsense...



> If anything, I've seen more abuses in smaller companies because they've really got less controls than larger ones.



Um, okay.

Assuming that there will be abuses in every smaller company is stupid...



> Since you won't tell me the name of your company, that's a moot point.



No, it's not. You can certainly tell if something is good or bad without knowing the name of the company. If you can't do that, then you're nearly as smart or talented as you'd like us to believe.

But you and I both know the truth as to why you won't do it. You won't do it because you know that a union shop wouldn't have benefits and perks that good. You just can't be honest enough to admit it...



> Uh, we had the discussion on another thread, then you showed up on this one to continue the conversation, which has nothing to do with the topic of cancel culture.    (And it's the only thread I've started in a couple of weeks.)



And the topic was one I have interest in, so I contributed. As threads will often do, this one has gone back down the road traveled in that other thread.

If you see that as "stalking" then you've got some pretty fucking severe emotional issues...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, the writing was on the wall. If you were a bit more astute and actually paid attention, you'd have seen that.
> 
> You chose to stay with a company run by a drug addict. That's undeniable...



One who was 90 miles away and I didn't interact with every day....  But, yes, that was my first hard lesson that most business owners are kind of scumbags...  I'm sure you can relate.  I was actually more offended by his brother, who was the bible thumper.  



Canon Shooter said:


> And the topic was one I have interest in, so I contributed.



Really? Because, frankly, you added nothing to it and didn't even discuss the topic. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, it's not. You can certainly tell if something is good or bad without knowing the name of the company. If you can't do that, then you're nearly as smart or talented as you'd like us to believe.



Actually, everything you've described is bad, from your hiring people who steal from you to firing people for their conversations to apparently having employees taking swings at each other.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, everything you've described is bad, from your hiring people who steal from you to firing people for their conversations to apparently having employees taking swings at each other.



Really?

From an earlier post of mine:

"_See, again, my people are happy. I keep them happy. They're paid better than most in the same position at other companies. They've got benefits out the ass, 401K (and the company matches that to 8%; the norm is 6%), two weeks paid vacation after their first year (as opposed to one week, which is standard), and that's in addition to the shutdowns we do around the Christmas holidays and 4th of July), employee purchase program (they can buy our products at manufacturer cost plus 15%; which is simply unheard of in the industry). 

Every employee in the company has received an annual bonus equal to double their pre-tax monthly pay for the last nine years.

We offer three $10,000 college scholarships a year to children of our employees (they're awarded every year at our Christmas party). If an employee wants to go back to school, and his or her course of study is applicable to the workplace and will increase that employees value to the company, the company covers half the tuition and the cost of all books_." 

What's bad there?

What do you see there that could be viewed as being detrimental to an employee's morale or well being?

That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good.

In my years of owning two businesses, I've one single instance where an employee went rogue and one single instance where two guys got into a fight.

Two instances in 15 years. Somehow, you see that as a failing track record, yet you weren't even talented enough to keep a core team together for two years.

If you want to see an unqualified example of failure, look in a mirror. You hate the fact that I can run a successful business with happy employees without the stench of a union being involved...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Really?
> 
> From an earlier post of mine:



You also said that you keep them from talking about politics or religion because you don't want them fighting. 

Frankly, I've never seen fighting anywhere that isn't already a tension-filled toxic work place.



Canon Shooter said:


> In my years of owning two businesses, I've one single instance where an employee went rogue and one single instance where two guys got into a fight.



Funny, I've been in the post military workplace for 30 years now, I've never seen a physical fight in a workplace and never heard about an employee going rogue.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Two instances in 15 years. Somehow, you see that as a failing track record, yet you weren't even talented enough to keep a core team together for two years.



You missed the point of that story.   The point was, I was able to end high turnover on that team and make it cohesive.  Of course, Nose Candy and Bible Boy eventually bankrupted the whole company... but that wasn't on me. 



Canon Shooter said:


> That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good.



Why would any of that go away?   Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.  

As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Funny, I've been in the post military workplace for 30 years now, I've never seen a physical fight in a workplace and never heard about an employee going rogue.



Well, shit, then I guess it can't ever happen.

You're a fuckin' dunce...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> You missed the point of that story.   The point was, I was able to end high turnover on that team and make it cohesive.  Of course, Nose Candy and Bible Boy eventually bankrupted the whole company... but that wasn't on me.



You were quite clear when you stated that you couldn't keep your core team together for even two years.

There's not a lot to be proud of there...



> Why would any of that go away?



Because if a union is going to come in and organize in my shop, they're going to do it with the absolute minimum in place, that's why. My people have it pretty damn good, and they know it, though, so there's exactly zero threat of my people unionizing. It won't happen.

But you still haven't answered my question. You're attempting to paint a picture of my company as being a bad place to work. Well, if that's true (which it isn't, but I'll play along), please explain how that list of things I do for my employees falls in line with my company being a bad place to work.



> Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.



"Family things"? Like what?



> As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.



And there are plenty of people; about 150 or so who work for me, who are perfectly happy with their 401K. Your desire to have a union pension instead is hardly compelling enough to make anyone want to change what _they _have.

Unions serve no real purpose, and I don't know that I've ever known a union boss who shouldn't have been in jail...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> That's what I do for my employees. And every bit of it would go away if my employees were unionized. My people don't need, nor do they want, to be unionized. You ignored it the first time I posted it because you have no argument against it. You know a union shop would never be that good


What you do for your employees, if that is true, shows that you are a decent employer and care for people. But the question is much wider than that. Employers should have a possibility to protect their rights. I think that a situation in which an employee can be fired because his boss have bad mood today or his favorite team lost an event isnt appropriate. 

There should be a protection. And I am not talking about unions. There should be a clear regulation that protects workers' rights.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, shit, then I guess it can't ever happen.
> 
> You're a fuckin' dunce...



I'm sure it can happen.  The question you have to ask is WHY does it happen to you.  

My guess is, you aren't capable of that level of self-awareness. 




Canon Shooter said:


> You were quite clear when you stated that you couldn't keep your core team together for even two years.
> 
> There's not a lot to be proud of there...



Do you have English comprehension problems?  My team was fine... Until Nose Candy ran the company into the ground. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And there are plenty of people; about 150 or so who work for me, who are perfectly happy with their 401K. Your desire to have a union pension instead is hardly compelling enough to make anyone want to change what _they _have.



Any fool who is happy with a 401K really can't be reasoned with.  Did they all get amnesia in 2008?


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> What you do for your employees, if that is true, shows that you are a decent employer and care for people.



Oh, I do. Very much...



> Employers should have a possibility to protect their rights.



Thank you. We are in total agreement on this point.

Idiots like Joe would rather live in a world where I, as the employer, have my rights dictated to me by my employees union...



> I think that a situation in which an employee can be fired because his boss have bad mood today or his favorite team lost an event isnt appropriate.



I joke about "at will" employment, but it's really very simple:  At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, *except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability*.  Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

So, no, I actually can't fire an employee if the Jets lose (again) or if I'm in a bad mood and not be held legally accountable for it. But, if someone is consistently five minutes late coming back from lunch, or continually wears inappropriate attire, they certainly can be fired...



> There should be a protection. And I am not talking about unions. There should be a clear regulation that protects workers' rights.



What employee rights would you like to see protected?

And what employer rights would you like to see protected?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I'm sure it can happen.  The question you have to ask is WHY does it happen to you.



It doesn't, dumb ass. 

It _happened_. It doesn't "happen". Once in each instance; a guy goes rogue and there was a fight. To say "WHY does it happen to you" infers that it _continues _to happen.

But you're a liar, so approaching this conversation with any level of honesty is of no interest to you...



> Do you have English comprehension problems?  My team was fine... Until Nose Candy ran the company into the ground.



Sure...



> Any fool who is happy with a 401K really can't be reasoned with.  Did they all get amnesia in 2008?



Nothing's bulletproof, including pensions. Ask those city employees in San Diego how they fared when thousands of them lost their pensions.

Personally, my 401K is doing pretty fucking good at the moment. Sure, the market goes up and down, but that's understood going in. I have a good deal of gold, as well.

Why do you continue to ignore the list of things that I do for my employees? It's rather apparent that, as a proponent of unions, you're quite certain that those things could never be negotiated with an employer. You're just afraid to admit that I treat my employers far better than any union ever would. My people want for nothing. A union would be detrimental to them and they know it.

See, not only would I not want them to unionize, _they_ don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> It _happened_. It doesn't "happen". Once in each instance; a guy goes rogue and there was a fight. To say "WHY does it happen to you" infers that it _continues _to happen.



The point is, it happened to you, which isn't a very good description of your "leadership".  I mean, I had some truly shitty managers... but nothing like that. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, not only would I not want them to unionize, _they_ don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...



I'm sure if any employee ever talked about unionizing, you'd fire him.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The point is, it happened to you, which isn't a very good description of your "leadership".  I mean, I had some truly shitty managers... but nothing like that.



Each instance occurred once.

Hundreds of employees over 15 years. That's not too bad a record.

Oh, and it only happened at one of my two companies...



> I'm sure if any employee ever talked about unionizing, you'd fire him.



That's like saying if a monkey flew out of your ass you'd climb the Eiffel Tower.

It's not gonna' happen. o one in my companies are remotely interested in unions beyond how bad things would be made by the presence of a union.

You know I how I can tell that a union would make things shitty? Because I listed a number of things that I do for my people, which I absolutely do not have to do, and you continually ignore them. You're afraid to address them. You know a union could never get them such things. Despite your support for the idea of unions, you're just not smart enough to out-do an employer who truly cares about his people,. You're just too big a fucking coward to admit it...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You know I how I can tell that a union would make things shitty? Because I listed a number of things that I do for my people, which I absolutely do not have to do, and you continually ignore them. You're afraid to address them. You know a union could never get them such things. Despite your support for the idea of unions, you're just not smart enough to out-do an employer who truly cares about his people,. You're just too big a fucking coward to admit it...



Guy, the monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster.  Frankly, everything you've posted here indicates you'd be an nightmare to work for.  That you've managed to find people you can bully into compliance doesn't impress me.  

Nothing you've listed is really very impressive compared to the benefits of a union, which is workers' protections and job security.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, the monster never looks in the mirror and sees a monster.  Frankly, everything you've posted here indicates you'd be an nightmare to work for.  That you've managed to find people you can bully into compliance doesn't impress me.



I've no doubt that I'd be a nightmare for _you _to work for, simplpy because you want me, as an employer, to have no protections when it comes employing people. Here's a tip for you, nipplehead: My businesses don't exist to make sure people have jobs. My businesses exist to make money, and they do. In return, my employees are compensated well for their efforts...



> Nothing you've listed is really very impressive compared to the benefits of a union, which is workers' protections and job security.



You are such a lying little cowardly bitch.

My employees already enjoy job security. They don't need to pay some inflated union payola to get them that. But here's the difference between you and me:

If an employee is a fuck up, I'll fire him for being a fuck up. You, on the other hand, think I should keep him employed and on the payroll. That's why you couldn't keep your "core team" together: you're all too willing to work with fuck-ups. I'm not. My employees know that, if they do their job, their job is 100% safe. They also know that, if they fuck up, their job _isn't_ 100% safe.

That's how it's supposed to work.

For the record, I've talked to people who are union, and they're blown away when they hear the list of benefits and perks my employees enjoy.

If you could unionize my employees, what would you want me, as the employer, to agree to? Honestly, I don't think you've got the sack to answer this, either...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I've no doubt that I'd be a nightmare for _you _to work for, simplpy because you want me, as an employer, to have no protections when it comes employing people. Here's a tip for you, nipplehead: My businesses don't exist to make sure people have jobs. My businesses exist to make money, and they do. In return, my employees are compensated well for their efforts...



And that's the problem. 

Businesses exist to provide goods and services...  These could be done just as well by employee-managed enterprises than capitalist managed ones.   

The country worked a lot better when it was mostly unionized, workers had protections and people could work a job for 25 years and get a pension. 

Now, that you've found a bunch of battered housewives to put up with your behavior really doesn't reflect well. 



Canon Shooter said:


> If an employee is a fuck up, I'll fire him for being a fuck up. You, on the other hand, think I should keep him employed and on the payroll. That's why you couldn't keep your "core team" together: you're all too willing to work with fuck-ups. I'm not. My employees know that, if they do their job, their job is 100% safe. They also know that, if they fuck up, their job _isn't_ 100% safe.



Uh, guy, you said you'd fire people for having conversations you didn't approve of.  I know you've tried to walk that back and say you don't do it very often, but that doesn't sound like it's related to job performance at all.  

The problem with that company is that they paid people shit, they didn't have the proper working equipment... I was able to make those changes, and I had to fight with Nose Candy and his minions to get them.  

yes, keeping people around is better than having to train a new person every month, which is exactly where we were at up to that point. 



Canon Shooter said:


> If you could unionize my employees, what would you want me, as the employer, to agree to? Honestly, I don't think you've got the sack to answer this, either...



Well, to start with, you actually have to show cause before you fire someone, and they have an appeals process.  

Of course, you'd never agree to that.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> And that's the problem.
> 
> Businesses exist to provide goods and services...  These could be done just as well by employee-managed enterprises than capitalist managed ones.



Well, by saying could be "employee managed just as well", you've failed to make the argument for changing it. I would want it managed _better _but, according to you, that wouldn't happen.

Thanks for pointing that out...



> The country worked a lot better when it was mostly unionized, workers had protections and people could work a job for 25 years and get a pension.



How so?

Specific examples, please...



> Now, that you've found a bunch of battered housewives to put up with your behavior really doesn't reflect well.



What the fuck?

This is why you're a useless little bag of skin. You make statements with absolutely zero attachment to reality.

Battered housewives? What the fuck are you talking about?



> Uh, guy, you said you'd fire people for having conversations you didn't approve of.  I know you've tried to walk that back and say you don't do it very often, but that doesn't sound like it's related to job performance at all.



It's happened once. Guys were talking politics and got into a fight. Yeah, they were both fired. My shop has rules, and they're hardly overbearing. Break my very simple, and sparse number of rules and you're gone. Why would you want me to continue to employ someone who basically says "fuck the rules", and why would you want to remove the ability of me to fire him for doing that?



> The problem with that company is that they paid people shit, they didn't have the proper working equipment... I was able to make those changes, and I had to fight with Nose Candy and his minions to get them.



It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

I also find it interesting that you believe that my people fighting is a negative reflection on me as a business owner.

You've just admitted to fighting yourself. So, what does that say about _you_? Exactly how big a piece of shit are you that your fighting is justified but someone else's is not? I don't fight with employees...



> yes, keeping people around is better than having to train a new person every month, which is exactly where we were at up to that point.



If you say so.

Then again, you hadn't even reached the two year mark, so it's difficult to really say you'd reached "that point"...



> Well, to start with, you actually have to show cause before you fire someone...



I do. That's part of being in an "at will" state. I can't fire someone for wearing corduroys instead of jeans. I can, however, if he's constantly fucking up, I can (and absolutely should) fire him for that...



> and they have an appeals process.
> 
> Of course, you'd never agree to that.



Well, yeah, I might not. 

What's involved in the appeals process? Who does that go before? Is it a non-unionized company rep or a union rep?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, by saying could be "employee managed just as well", you've failed to make the argument for changing it. I would want it managed _better _but, according to you, that wouldn't happen.



Wow, you're babbling...  

Hey, here's the thing.  Do you ever wonder why so many people voted for Bernie Sanders last time?  




Canon Shooter said:


> It's happened once. Guys were talking politics and got into a fight. Yeah, they were both fired. My shop has rules, and they're hardly overbearing. Break my very simple, and sparse number of rules and you're gone. Why would you want me to continue to employ someone who basically says "fuck the rules", and why would you want to remove the ability of me to fire him for doing that?



If people are having fistfights in your workplace, it must be a pretty toxic workplace. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You've just admitted to fighting yourself. So, what does that say about _you_? Exactly how big a piece of shit are you that your fighting is justified but someone else's is not? I don't fight with employees...



Are you a fucking retard, that you don't understand context.  Nope, I didn't go to Nose Candy's office in Milwaukee and get into a fist fight with him until he gave us proper equipment.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I do. That's part of being in an "at will" state. I can't fire someone for wearing corduroys instead of jeans. I can, however, if he's constantly fucking up, I can (and absolutely should) fire him for that...



Um, no, the point of At Will employment is you don't have to give a reason.  

Besides, you earlier said that you could fire someone for wearing red shoes..  



Canon Shooter said:


> What's involved in the appeals process? Who does that go before? Is it a non-unionized company rep or a union rep?



Oh, a union rep, absolutely...  or a board of arbitration...  that works, too.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> What employee rights would you like to see protected?
> 
> And what employer rights would you like to see protected?


Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.

But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.


----------



## JoeB131

ESay said:


> Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.
> 
> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.



The problem with that is that the burden in an at-will employment situation is on the employee.  

For instance, I have said the thing that turned me from being a pretty conservative guy to someone who is about one step from voting for Bernie is that when I busted up my knee in 2007 and required a lot of expensive surgery and rehabilitation, my boss's go to was to try to encourage me to quit, and then downsizing me in a reorganization even though I had seniority over everyone in the office. 

Now, my lawyer said, I had a pretty darned good case for medical and age discrimination.  It helps when a boss is such a moron he blurts out, "you're too old to retrain" (I was 46 at the time) in front of many witnesses.  Of course, that would have required me to spend hundreds of hours in court fighting the case.  Not to mention my name coming up in court records whenever future employers did a background check.  

A system that puts workers' rights above employers rights would be the opposite of that.  the burden should be on them on why they are downsizing their long-term employees beyond "I think I can get someone cheaper now." 

I would favor a system of, yeah, you can lay people off, but they have to be the first one you offer jobs back to if you are hiring again.


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.
> 
> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the burden in an at-will employment situation is on the employee.
> 
> For instance, I have said the thing that turned me from being a pretty conservative guy to someone who is about one step from voting for Bernie is that when I busted up my knee in 2007 and required a lot of expensive surgery and rehabilitation, my boss's go to was to try to encourage me to quit, and then downsizing me in a reorganization even though I had seniority over everyone in the office.
> 
> Now, my lawyer said, I had a pretty darned good case for medical and age discrimination.  It helps when a boss is such a moron he blurts out, "you're too old to retrain" (I was 46 at the time) in front of many witnesses.  Of course, that would have required me to spend hundreds of hours in court fighting the case.  Not to mention my name coming up in court records whenever future employers did a background check.
> 
> A system that puts workers' rights above employers rights would be the opposite of that.  the burden should be on them on why they are downsizing their long-term employees beyond "I think I can get someone cheaper now."
> 
> I would favor a system of, yeah, you can lay people off, but they have to be the first one you offer jobs back to if you are hiring again.
Click to expand...

Well, as always there are two sides of a coin. If someone gets some injury (not related to the work process) and needs some relatively long term of rehabilitation, what should the employer do? Keep the worker's place until they get to the job again, hire a temporary worker who will be fired when the old one gets to the job, keep paying them a part of the salary for a period of rehabilitation?

Basically, you should agree the relations between an employer and employee is like buying some product. As long as you fail to offer it, you dont get paid.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Wow, you're babbling...



And you failed to make a compelling argument.

Your position is that I should want to allow someone else to step in and do something that's "just as good" as what I do.

That's fucking stupid...



> Hey, here's the thing.  Do you ever wonder why so many people voted for Bernie Sanders last time?



Many people are stupid.

Why didn't he win?




> If people are having fistfights in your workplace, it must be a pretty toxic workplace.



Again, dumbfuck, it's happened once, some years back. People aren't "having fist fights". There was one, and it was the result of two people ignoring a very simple workplace rule...



> Are you a fucking retard, that you don't understand context.  Nope, I didn't go to Nose Candy's office in Milwaukee and get into a fist fight with him until he gave us proper equipment.



But you said you had to fight with him...



> Um, no, the point of At Will employment is you don't have to give a reason.



You're fucking stupid.

If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay. I also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...



> Besides, you earlier said that you could fire someone for wearing red shoes.



Sad you didn't catch the sarcasm. Pity, I thought you were sharper than that...



> Oh, a union rep, absolutely...  or a board of arbitration...  that works, too.



And who would be on this board of arbitration?


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.



I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.

They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.
> 
> They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...
Click to expand...

That was harsh, really. I dont think that a worker should be fired for single breaching of the rules. They should have been punished of course (get fined, get worse shifts etc.) But not fired, especially if they had worked properly before.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very simple policy in my business: No political or religious discussions in the work place, period. That rule is absolutely inflexible.
> 
> They both engaged in it nonetheless, so they were both shown the door...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was harsh, really. I dont think that a worker should be fired for single breaching of the rules. They should have been punished of course (get fined, get worse shifts etc.) But not fired, especially if they had worked properly before.
Click to expand...


Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.

The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...


----------



## miketx

JoeB131 said:


> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.


Nothing irrational about being concerned about mentally ill freaks.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Why would any of that go away?   Frankly, My dad was unionized, and his companies did family things all the time.
> 
> As far as a 401K, I'd take a union pension over a 401K any day of the week.



But you're not too bright.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Nothing's bulletproof, including pensions. Ask those city employees in San Diego how they fared when thousands of them lost their pensions.
> 
> Personally, my 401K is doing pretty fucking good at the moment. Sure, the market goes up and down, but that's understood going in. I have a good deal of gold, as well.
> 
> Why do you continue to ignore the list of things that I do for my employees? It's rather apparent that, as a proponent of unions, you're quite certain that those things could never be negotiated with an employer. You're just afraid to admit that I treat my employers far better than any union ever would. My people want for nothing. A union would be detrimental to them and they know it.
> 
> See, not only would I not want them to unionize, _they_ don't want to unionize. Despite whatever intellectual pablum you belch up, that's what tells me I'm doing right by my people/...



Central States Pension Fund will be the next to implode. Yes, it's a union pension. (Though sometimes called the "UPS pension fund", it's not-I recall than nickname came from most people in it being UPS drivers.)


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Sad you didn't catch the sarcasm. Pity, I thought you were sharper than that...



Joey was never the sharpest spoon in the drawer.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
Click to expand...

You know she said nothing about transsexuals.  She didn't say anything racist.  What she said was that democrats treat republicans the same way Hitler treated the Jews.

Where was the transphobic remark?

Disney has gone full baizuo.


----------



## Thoth001

Tipsycatlover said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know she said nothing about transsexuals.  She didn't say anything racist.  What she said was that democrats treat republicans the same way Hitler treated the Jews.
> 
> Where was the transphobic remark?
> 
> Disney has gone full baizuo.
Click to expand...


I have thought about this and we should realize that most of Disney's products are made in China. I am pretty sure that is how China is now controlling Disney. According to this link their are over 30,000 Disney facilities in China. This was a very very bad idea for Disney and many other companies to put their facilities in China to make more money. Now we are all suffering because China has many of these companies by the balls. Thanks Henry Kissenger, scum of the Earth.









						Reports on labor conditions in Chinese factories: China Labor Watch
					

Read the latest reports. China Labor Watch has conducted hundreds of in-depth assessments of labor conditions in Chinese factories.




					www.chinalaborwatch.org
				








__





						Henry Kissinger: traitor to America
					





					www.tldm.org


----------



## JoeB131

ESay said:


> Well, as always there are two sides of a coin. If someone gets some injury (not related to the work process) and needs some relatively long term of rehabilitation, what should the employer do? Keep the worker's place until they get to the job again, hire a temporary worker who will be fired when the old one gets to the job, keep paying them a part of the salary for a period of rehabilitation?



Uh, yeah, that works for me.  Some people prefer temporary work.  



ESay said:


> Basically, you should agree the relations between an employer and employee is like buying some product. As long as you fail to offer it, you dont get paid.



You see, that's what I don't buy... labor as a commodity.  I think that's what has gotten us to where we are at today.

Used to be, you joined the union, you got a life time job and retired to get a pension.  

Now, we get a situation where most people change jobs every five years...  Companies intentionally reorganize to shed workers and bring on new ones they can pay less.  The concept of the "McJob" is too common in our economy today.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Many people are stupid.
> 
> Why didn't he win?



Corporate America threw everything they had at him... propped up Biden, who had to promise his followers he'd do some of what he promised.  

here's the reason why someone like Bernie is probably inevitable.  

40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth. 
The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth. 
The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth.  Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019... 
The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth.  Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%.  This is simply an unworkable situation.  

Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them.  



Canon Shooter said:


> If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, *if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay.  * also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...



Let's talk about that.  In 2000, I worked with a woman who was gay.  But she was mostly in the closet.  You could describe her as a "Lipstick Lesbian". Well, she brought her partner to our Holiday Party (they were Jews, so they didn't call it a Christmas Party) and her partner was dressed in a dude's suit, just so no one missed the point.    

Six weeks later, she was "downsized".  Every last one of us knew they let her go because they found out she was gay.  - which by the way, in Illinois at that time, there were no legal protections against.  Further showing the bullshit, a couple months later, they filled that position again with someone else. 

Now, in a unionized environment with worker's protections, that shit never would have went down. 

(Incidently, happy ending, I wrote her a resume, and she was able to land a job with the company's competitor within a week. She went on to have a solid career in quality management.) 



Canon Shooter said:


> And who would be on this board of arbitration?



A committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet....


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...



Wow, of all the things I could think of to discuss during an interview, the last thing any sensible person would say, "Don't you dare talk about politics or religion!!!"


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many people are stupid.
> 
> Why didn't he win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporate America threw everything they had at him... propped up Biden, who had to promise his followers he'd do some of what he promised.
> 
> here's the reason why someone like Bernie is probably inevitable.
> 
> 40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth.
> The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth.
> The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth.  Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019...
> The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth.  Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%.  This is simply an unworkable situation.
> 
> Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I want to fire someone, I need to be able to justify it. Like, for instance, *if you worked for me I wouldn't be able to fire you because you're gay.  * also can't fire someone for being black or for being a Muslim. Those firings would be illegal. Please stop pretending that you're smart enough to converse about this. You're way out of your depth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's talk about that.  In 2000, I worked with a woman who was gay.  But she was mostly in the closet.  You could describe her as a "Lipstick Lesbian". Well, she brought her partner to our Holiday Party (they were Jews, so they didn't call it a Christmas Party) and her partner was dressed in a dude's suit, just so no one missed the point.
> 
> Six weeks later, she was "downsized".  Every last one of us knew they let her go because they found out she was gay.  - which by the way, in Illinois at that time, there were no legal protections against.  Further showing the bullshit, a couple months later, they filled that position again with someone else.
> 
> Now, in a unionized environment with worker's protections, that shit never would have went down.
> 
> (Incidently, happy ending, I wrote her a resume, and she was able to land a job with the company's competitor within a week. She went on to have a solid career in quality management.)
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And who would be on this board of arbitration?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet....
Click to expand...


Well, then no. If you're not interested in providing an actual answer to a reasonable question, then there's no reason to believe you're nearly intelligent enough to continue this conversation...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, then no. If you're not interested in providing an actual answer to a reasonable question, then there's no reason to believe you're nearly intelligent enough to continue this conversation...



I gave you an answer, just not one you would like.  I'm kind of not treating you seriously anymore because it's pretty clear that you live in mortal terror that someone might tell you what constitutes fair play.


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, that works for me. Some people prefer temporary work


How about the payment? Should the employer provide some payments during the rehabilitation?



JoeB131 said:


> Used to be, you joined the union, you got a life time job and retired to get a pension


Again, the two sides of a coin. If an employee is sure the union will protect their 'rights' against the employer, they may become not too eager to do their job properly.


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> % of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth.
> The "Middle" 20% of the population controls less than 5% of the wealth.
> The next bunch up controls 7% of the wealth. Incidentally, this is probably where I fell in terms of property and income in 2019...
> The top 20% controls 87% of the wealth. Of that, 43% of the wealth is controlled by the top 1%. This is simply an unworkable situation.
> 
> Eventually, you are going to get the people in the bottom 60% are going to figure out this system doesn't work for them


So, what is the solution? Take everything away and share it all?



JoeB131 said:


> committee dedicated the the power of the people's Soviet


Yeah, it has been done already. Didn't work out well, though.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell ya' what: when you start signing the checks at my company, you can decide what happens when the rules get broken.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that I have very few rules in place. Every single person who gets hired here understands this, and they understand that there's a zero tolerance policy on religious and political discussions. That's not something that's sprung on them during orientation. They know that by the end of their first interview...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, of all the things I could think of to discuss during an interview, the last thing any sensible person would say, "Don't you dare talk about politics or religion!!!"
Click to expand...


And there you go making assumptions about things you're completely ignorant of. No one says "Don't you dare!" do anything.

We know before the end of the first interview whether or not a person will be asked back for a second interview. If a person is asked back for a second interview, that means the decision was made during the first interview to offer the person the job. A candidate would have to do something catastrophic to torpedo the job offer which, practically speaking, is all the second interview really is. So, towards the end of the first interview the candidate is given an employee "handbook". There's not a lot to it; a few pages, all of which are gone over with the new hire at the interview. Within those pages is a sort of "do's and don'ts" section and, in that section, it lists things which are prohibited, one of which is discussions regarding politics and/or religion. I think it comes right after the whole "drug free workplace" blurb.

When the candidate comes back for the second interview he signs a form saying that he fully understands the contents of the employee handbook, and that he will abide by the contents. He signs a statement with which he (or she) acknowledges they understand that failure to abide by the rules laid out in the employee handbook is sufficient cause for immediate termination. 

Trust me, no one ever puts a gun to someone's head to force them to sign. They do it of their own volition, and they know, when they sign, that they will be held accountable for their actions.

Perhaps you see something wrong with treating employees like adults and holding them accountable for what they do, but I certainly don't...


----------



## JoeB131

ESay said:


> How about the payment? Should the employer provide some payments during the rehabilitation?



Why not?  Actually, most companies offer disability insurance...  



ESay said:


> Again, the two sides of a coin. If an employee is sure the union will protect their 'rights' against the employer, they may become not too eager to do their job properly.



I guess.  That sounds like a management problem. Frankly, if the only way you have to motivate people is by fear, your business is going to kind of suck, anyway.  



ESay said:


> So, what is the solution? Take everything away and share it all?



Wouldn't be surprised if we get there a lot sooner than you think.   Again, the only thing that keeps this country from being more liberal is the GOP has gotten VERY GOOD at using racial, religious and sexual fears to keep poor dumb white people voting against their own economic interests.   Remember when Dubya was going to save us all from Gay Marriage in 2004?  How did that turn out?  Oh, he didn't.  But he did let his bankster buddies loot the economy and stuck us all with the bill.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I gave you an answer, just not one you would like.



I guess I was holding out some sliver of hope that you might be able to formulate an coherent response using your own intellect.

Please accept my apologies for making such a baseless and unfounded assumption about you...



> I'm kind of not treating you seriously anymore because it's pretty clear that you live in mortal terror that someone might tell you what constitutes fair play.



How many company representatives are on the arbitration board? Is it an even number of company/union people? More company folks? More union folks? I've never had to deal with an arbitration board, so this is something I have no knowledge of. If you choose to not educate me that's fine, but that also means you need to stop whining when I disagree with you...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I guess. That sounds like a management problem.



It could just as easily be a "lazy employee with a union job" problem...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> And there you go making assumptions about things you're completely ignorant of. No one says "Don't you dare!" do anything.
> 
> We know before the end of the first interview whether or not a person will be asked back for a second interview. If a person is asked back for a second interview, that means the decision was made during the first interview to offer the person the job.



Um, so how did the guy who charged a bunch of stuff to his credit card slip through this brilliant system? 

Now, that was a cheap shot, but it shows how broken the system of hiring actually is.  

You look at a bunch of resumes, most of them written by someone else. So all the resume part does is prove "who hired the best resume writer."  Most people suck at writing resumes.  

So out of those 400 resumes you got in, you interview, what five of them for one hour, and then you've picked one.  

to put the absurdity of this in perspective, you'd never marry anyone after one date.  But we take jobs/offer jobs on the basis of one interview, in something that will hopefully be a years long relationship. 



Canon Shooter said:


> So, towards the end of the first interview the candidate is given an employee "handbook". There's not a lot to it; a few pages, all of which are gone over with the new hire at the interview. Within those pages is a sort of "do's and don'ts" section and, in that section, it lists things which are prohibited, one of which is discussions regarding politics and/or religion. I think it comes right after the whole "drug free workplace" blurb.



YOu really think anyone reads the employee handbook?   Yes, I'm very familiar with this bit of corporate asshattery, probably something I would get rid of right after At-Will employment.   The problem with employee handbooks is that they all say "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT".  In short, it's a bunch of obligations on the part of the employee, while putting no obligations on the part of the employer.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Trust me, no one ever puts a gun to someone's head to force them to sign. They do it of their own volition, and they know, when they sign, that they will be held accountable for their actions.
> 
> Perhaps you see something wrong with treating employees like adults and holding them accountable for what they do, but I certainly don't...



Again, the problem there is the problem with coercion. They desperately need the job, so you as the employer have the advantage.   Heaven forbid that we level the playing field.   I mean, it would be nice if Toxic bosses came with labels, but mostly you don't.


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> Why not? Actually, most companies offer disability insurance


Disability insurance is a good thing, but the employer isn't an insurance company and hardly they should carry a burden of these payments (if that is not their fault, of course).




JoeB131 said:


> guess. That sounds like a management problem. Frankly, if the only way you have to motivate people is by fear, your business is going to kind of suck, anyway


Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.




JoeB131 said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if we get there a lot sooner than you think. Again, the only thing that keeps this country from being more liberal is the GOP has gotten VERY GOOD at using racial, religious and sexual fears to keep poor dumb white people voting against their own economic interests


As I said above, it has already been tried and didn't work out well.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I guess I was holding out some sliver of hope that you might be able to formulate an coherent response using your own intellect.
> 
> Please accept my apologies for making such a baseless and unfounded assumption about you...



Again, I've given you a response...  just not one you'd like.  

I'd like to go back to the good old days when the playing field was even because you had unions and government looking out for the working man.  



Canon Shooter said:


> How many company representatives are on the arbitration board?



Zero. That was easy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Is it an even number of company/union people? More company folks? More union folks? I've never had to deal with an arbitration board, so this is something I have no knowledge of. If you choose to not educate me that's fine, but that also means you need to stop whining when I disagree with you...



Ideally, it should be a neutral party...but they should have a bias towards working people. Which means no bullshit, "I put him on a PIP and then wrote him up every other day."  Most sensible people would see that for what it is.  Most people would also see real employee misconduct for what it is. 

But in my career, frankly, I've seen more employer misconduct than employee misconduct, and not just what has been directed against me personally.  ( I would say in my entire career, maybe only three incidents against me personally.)


----------



## JoeB131

ESay said:


> Disability insurance is a good thing, but the employer isn't an insurance company and hardly they should carry a burden of these payments (if that is not their fault, of course).



Okay. I'm all for a government program that does this. On the same point, this is why I favor universal health care.  Your employer shouldn't have the literal power of life and death over you. 



ESay said:


> Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.



Okay.  How about, "Have sex with me or look for another job?"  Or 'Do these things that aren't in your job description and you aren't trained for, or look for another job."  Or "Do this thing without proper safety equipment or look for another job."  



ESay said:


> As I said above, it has already been tried and didn't work out well.



Really, When and where?  I mean, you guys aren't going to keep trying to drag out the USSR, are you? The USSR did fine... it survived the other European Empires by decades.  

America did just fine in that period after the New Deal all the way up until Reagan.  Guys like my dad had union jobs, they were able to take care of their families and live nice middle class lifestyles.  

But as Herbert Hoover observed, "The problem with Capitalism is Capitalists.... They're too damned greedy."


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, so how did the guy who charged a bunch of stuff to his credit card slip through this brilliant system?



He was with the company for over five years before he went rogue. There was nothing to suggest he would ever do it, simply because he never had and, when we hired him, it wasn't something he was thinking of doing...



> Now, that was a cheap shot, but it shows how broken the system of hiring actually is.



No, it's a fair question. Also, then, a fair question would be this: How should I go about hiring people? How many interviews should they be given? My facilities manager had one interview, came back for a second "interview" during which we made him a formal offer, and he's been an absolutely stellar employee for almost ten years.

_That _sure worked out pretty good...



> You look at a bunch of resumes, most of them written by someone else. So all the resume part does is prove "who hired the best resume writer."  Most people suck at writing resumes.



Since retiring from the Navy, I've needed resumes for two jobs. I wrote both of them. I'm pretty sure they were horribly written, but they got me in for the interview, which is what landed me the job in both instances...



> So out of those 400 resumes you got in, you interview, what five of them for one hour, and then you've picked one.
> 
> to put the absurdity of this in perspective, you'd never marry anyone after one date.  But we take jobs/offer jobs on the basis of one interview, in something that will hopefully be a years long relationship.



Again, what's your suggestion for an alternative?



> You really think anyone reads the employee handbook?



Two things: First, the handbook is gone through, page by page, with the new hire by the HR Director and my hiring manager. That way, a person can't say they were unaware of something in it. Second, if someone signs a document stating that they've read it, and they haven't, then he puts himself in jeopardy from the word "go". It's not my fault if someone falsely claims they did something...



> Yes, I'm very familiar with this bit of corporate asshattery, probably something I would get rid of right after At-Will employment.   The problem with employee handbooks is that they all say "THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT".



Ours says nothing of the sort...



> In short, it's a bunch of obligations on the part of the employee, while putting no obligations on the part of the employer.



Simply untrue.

As the employer, it's my obligation to provide a workplace which is safe and secure. It's my obligation to provide a workplace where an employee doesn't feel threatened because of the color of his skin, his sexual orientation or his religion. It's my obligation to pay my people for the jobs they perform. It's my obligation to ensure the workplace adheres to the rules, regulations and standards of the state of Florida so that my employees can be confident that they're not being exposed to anything harmful (goes back to reason #1). 

Those are just a few but, as the employer, my list of obligations far outweighs the list of obligations we place on an employee...



> Again, the problem there is the problem with coercion. They desperately need the job, so you as the employer have the advantage.   Heaven forbid that we level the playing field.   I mean, it would be nice if Toxic bosses came with labels, but mostly you don't.



A level playing field??

Last time I checked, it was my name on the building. It's my money in the bank accounts. 

How, exactly, do you "level the playing field" with people who have have so much less invested in the company?

And I don't coerce anyone. When someone is made an offer, it's represents a fair wage for the work to be performed. In most cases, the initial pay being offered is _more _than what would be offered by one of my competitors. You seem to be hung up on the whole "advantage" idea. Hey, _it's my fucking company_. As the owner of the company, why should I allow anyone _else _to have the advantage when it comes to matters of running my company? 

That's fucking insane.

As for the whole "toxic bosses" thing, you're proving only to be an ignorant little whiner. I've got 156 employees, spread between two companies, who would disagree with you.

Their opinions matter to me. Yours do not. _They _matter to me. You do not...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He was with the company for over five years before he went rogue. There was nothing to suggest he would ever do it, simply because he never had and, when we hired him, it wasn't something he was thinking of doing...



Version #7 of this story.  He had been there for five years, and then one day decided to misrepresent his position and put a bunch of plane tickets and dinners on his company credit card. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, it's a fair question. Also, then, a fair question would be this: How should I go about hiring people? How many interviews should they be given? My facilities manager had one interview, came back for a second "interview" during which we made him a formal offer, and he's been an absolutely stellar employee for almost ten years.
> 
> _That _sure worked out pretty good...



Well, I'd do more than one interview, to start with.   It sounds like you got lucky in that case...  Frankly, I've seen people who were tenative in interviews, and turned out good, I've seen people who've interviewed great, and turned out to be awful.  

One of the things I've done in my career is "Temp to Hire", which actually works out well, you get to know each other, but either side can walk if it isn't working.  



Canon Shooter said:


> As for the whole "toxic bosses" thing, you're proving only to be an ignorant little whiner. I've got 156 employees, spread between two companies, who would disagree with you.



I'm sure they wouldn't dare disagree with you.  I mean, earlier in this thread you wanked off at the thought of hiring me just to fire me.... I am sure people who actually work for you get to see this kind of toxic shit every day.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Again, I've given you a response...  just not one you'd like.



Truth be told, I do prefer replies which require intellect and brain power. You seem unburdened by either of those...

I'd like to go back to the good old days when the playing field was even because you had unions and government looking out for the working man. 



> Zero. That was easy.



Well, that's reason enough not to have it...



> Ideally, it should be a neutral party...but they should have a bias towards working people. Which means no bullshit...



No, it means he's not a neutral party.

A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...



> But in my career, frankly, I've seen more employer misconduct than employee misconduct, and not just what has been directed against me personally.  ( I would say in my entire career, maybe only three incidents against me personally.)



I've seen plenty on both sides, which is why I've vowed, since the day I opened my doors, to hold myself, and those who work for me, to a higher standard, Believe it or not, the employees like being held to a higher standard. I have no use for anyone who wants to work here and "just do enough", which is what a union would work to ensure. 

My employees aren't "union employees". They're better than that...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Version #7 of this story.



Same version, dipshit...



> He had been there for five years, and then one day decided to misrepresent his position and put a bunch of plane tickets and dinners on his company credit card.



In a nutshell, yeah.

Keep in mind, I haven't shared with you, nor am I likely to, the "why" behind what he did...



> Well, I'd do more than one interview, to start with.   It sounds like you got lucky in that case...



No, that tends to be the norm for me.

With only an occasional exception, I guess I'm just a better judge of people than you are...



> One of the things I've done in my career is "Temp to Hire", which actually works out well, you get to know each other, but either side can walk if it isn't working.



I can do that now...



> I'm sure they wouldn't dare disagree with you.  I mean, earlier in this thread you wanked off at the thought of hiring me just to fire me.... I am sure people who actually work for you get to see this kind of toxic shit every day.



"Wanked off"?

Odd.

If you worked for me, I would fire you because I can already tell that you lack the high quality of character and integrity I demand from my people, and because, by your own admission, you are a liar and approach business dishonestly.

But, in truth, I wouldn't hire you if _you _paid _me_...


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Why by fear? It seems quite reasonable to me - get you work done properly and get paid for it or look for another job.



Joe is incapable of accepting that a non-union employee can be happy at his job. See, Joe's the kind of guy who really can't take care of himself or his affairs. He needs someone else to do it for him. He doesn't like the fact that employees might actually be held to a standard...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> No, it means he's not a neutral party.
> 
> A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...



Well, we know you wouldn't like it... but that's a selling point as far as I'm concerned.  



Canon Shooter said:


> If you worked for me, I would fire you because I can already tell that you lack the high quality of character and integrity I demand from my people, and because, by your own admission, you are a liar and approach business dishonestly.



Again, I know, man, you spend all this time on what you would do if you had power over me... the sign of a toxic boss... one that gets off on that sort of thing.  

It's just too bad you people don't come with labels.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Joe is incapable of accepting that a non-union employee can be happy at his job. See, Joe's the kind of guy who really can't take care of himself or his affairs. He needs someone else to do it for him. He doesn't like the fact that employees might actually be held to a standard...



Hey, guy, if people were truly "happy" at their jobs, you wouldn't have to pay them to do them.  

Again, I noticed you skipped over the story I told about my friend who was fired when the bosses found out she was gay.  I've also seen women fired because they were pregnant, people who were fired because they ticked off someone who was sleeping with the boss, people who were fired because they ran up too many medical bills (not just me), people who were fired because they complained about unsafe working conditions.   

I take care of my own affairs just fine, thanks.   

I'm all for holding employees to a standard as long as employers are held to the same standards.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it means he's not a neutral party.
> 
> A neutral party has no bias. None. Period. Any bias at all means the whole thing is unfair and, as such, is useless...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, we know you wouldn't like it... but that's a selling point as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...


Why would I?

Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?

People like you are why I'll never have a union shop. I would close my doors and retire before I allowed that to happen.

Then again, my employees wouldn't allow it, either, so I'm in good shape...



> It's just too bad you people don't come with labels.



Luckily, intelligent folks don't need people like you to have labels. We can tell you're worthless, lazy and dishonest just by how you present yourself...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Why would I?
> 
> Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?
> 
> People like you are why I'll never have a union shop. I would close my doors and retire before I allowed that to happen.



The world would be better off if you did.   

I'm sure you'd be horrified at having to treat your employees fairly. 

Now, I'll be fair.. I've never worked in a union shop.  My Dad did, both of my idiot brothers do.  (Ironically, they don't get the only reason they have anything near middle class is because of a union).  

I'm not even sure I'd want to work in a union shop.  I'm actually kind of happy with what I'm doing now. 

But here's the thing.  






This is NOT a good trend..> This is the Trend that gets you a Castro or a Chavez or a Bernie sanders. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Luckily, intelligent folks don't need people like you to have labels. We can tell you're worthless, lazy and dishonest just by how you present yourself...



Really?  I've worked for multi-national corporations....  have gotten very good reviews and was often entrusted to train other employees.   So there's that.  

You never did say what you pay your purchasing people, but it's probably less than what I've made.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Hey, guy, if people were truly "happy" at their jobs, you wouldn't have to pay them to do them.



That's the dumbest fucking thing you've said yet.

I can't even comment on that it's so fucking stupid...



> Again, I noticed you skipped over the story I told about my friend who was fired when the bosses found out she was gay.



That's funny coming from the guy who has continued to ignore the list of things I do for my people, that I certainly don't have to...



> I've also seen women fired because they were pregnant, people who were fired because they ticked off someone who was sleeping with the boss, people who were fired because they ran up too many medical bills (not just me), people who were fired because they complained about unsafe working conditions.



I don't know where you live (I want to guess Illinois), but I'd be willing to bet that state law provides for a myriad of protections for workers. Ever hear of "maternity leave"? That's dictated by US labor law. It says that I, as an employer, have to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave to a someone who has a baby or adopts a child. Well, I don't like doing that. So, instead of paying them nothing, they're paid half their salary while they're on leave. I'm sure you'll let us know why my doing that is bad, and how my doing that makes me a "toxic boss", though.

Also, that's not something I would ever agree to in a union negotiation.



> I take care of my own affairs just fine, thanks.



Right...  



> I'm all for holding employees to a standard as long as employers are held to the same standards.



Another lie. 

I hold myself to far higher standards than I hold my employees. As their employer, I believe that's the right thing to do. They know it, they see it and they appreciate it.

You, on the other hand, have already indicated that "fairness" is not something you're interested in whatsoever. Remember? You want arbitration boards skewed in favor of an employee. 

How is _that _fair?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> That's funny coming from the guy who has continued to ignore the list of things I do for my people, that I certainly don't have to...



Because I don't care.  Most of what you list are common practice in real companies. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I don't know where you live (I want to guess Illinois), but I'd be willing to bet that state law provides for a myriad of protections for workers. Ever hear of "maternity leave"?



Again, most of those protections are meaningless in a "At Will/Right To work" employment situation.  Of course, they didn't tell those ladies they were being fired for being preggers or that guy that he was being fired because the boss's girlfriend was upset about their previous relationship.  They had "official" reasons.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You, on the other hand, have already indicated that "fairness" is not something you're interested in whatsoever. Remember? You want arbitration boards skewed in favor of an employee.
> 
> How is _that _fair?



because the employer already has most of the advantages...  

you can tell who the GOP's enemies are- Unions, Lawyers and Government- anyone who might make the playing field a little more level.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did. I personally know several little bitches on the left who felt he should not be allowed to put his faith on display as he did, and that he should be removed from the roster...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... so did that have any real effect?  Um. No.  People got Kap fired.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I won't speak to what someone's God is invested in. I will, however, say that this has nothing to do with what God is invested in and everything to do with what Kaepernick and Tebow were invested in...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree.  Kap was addressing a real, honest to God (pun intended) problem.  Tebow was trying to waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man, I just love dipshit idiots like you.
> 
> I don't have a God, dumbass. I'm Agnostic. But ignorant little nippleheads like you will jump to such a conclusion simply because I choose to come down more in support of someone who kneels in prayer as opposed to the little whining bitch who kneels in protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I could see someone who actually believes in a Magic Sky Fairy being offended by Tebow.  Who wins a football game is trivial... in the "cosmic" scheme of things.  But of all the things to pray for, you know instead of World Peace or a Cure for Cancer, he prays for winning a football game.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the difference between you and me:
> 
> I do not believe in God. I can allow for the possibility of some "higher power", but I suspect I'll go to my grave never knowing who or what that is. I don't begrudge anyone their religious beliefs. I'm intelligent enough to understand that faith plays a large role in the lives of many, and that's perfectly okay. Why would I have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know, maybe because religion is used by those in power to keep people complacent instead of demanding needed change.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You, on the other hand, are so juvenile and immature that you can't even allow yourself to respect the fact that someone believes differently than you and, as a result, you mock them.
> 
> You're nothing but an ignorant child...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I mock them because their beliefs are silly.
Click to expand...

Trans beliefs are just as silly and deserve to be mocked as well.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The world would be better off if you did.



Not knowing what industry I'm in, that's a profoundly ignorant thing to say.

You ignored my question: Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?



> I'm sure you'd be horrified at having to treat your employees fairly.



I treat them more than fairly, and they know it.

You continuing to state otherwise only makes you look silly, because it certainly doesn't make it true...



> Now, I'll be fair.. I've never worked in a union shop.  My Dad did, both of my idiot brothers do.



That's a damn shame your dad's three sons are all idiots...



> I'm not even sure I'd want to work in a union shop.  I'm actually kind of happy with what I'm doing now.



You're defeating your own argument...



> Really?  I've worked for multi-national corporations....  have gotten very good reviews and was often entrusted to train other employees.   So there's that.



You're also a liar, so there's really no reason to believe you. I don't believe youy've ever been trusted with anything...



> You never did say what you pay your purchasing people, but it's probably less than what I've made.



Is that what this is about? You want to crow about how much more you've been paid than the people who work for me?

What an egotistical little whining liar you are.

What you've made makes no difference to me, nor does it interest me enough to divulge what I pay my people. It's enough to keep them more than happy.

And, just to illustrate this further, earlier in this thread I mentioned that my facilities manager makes just over $85K a year. You mwent on to demaen that, saying that some facilities managers in Chicago make over $120K a year. But, being the dishonest little fuck that you are, you neglected to mention that the range for what's considered the "norm" for a facilities manager in Chicago actually starts around $90K, only $5K more than what I pay my guy.

When you consider the costs of living in each location, my guy fares a whole lot better...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Not knowing what industry I'm in, that's a profoundly ignorant thing to say.
> 
> You ignored my question: Why are you completely disinterested in showing fairness to both parties?



Because the system is already slanted towards the business owner... 



Canon Shooter said:


> I treat them more than fairly, and they know it.



Again, I'm sure there was a plantation owner who said the same thing about his slaves. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Is that what this is about? You want to crow about how much more you've been paid than the people who work for me?
> 
> What an egotistical little whining liar you are.
> 
> What you've made makes no difference to me, nor does it interest me enough to divulge what I pay my people. It's enough to keep them more than happy.



So essentially, my statement that you couldn't afford me stands, as you didn't even try to tell me what you paid purchasing folks. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And, just to illustrate this further, earlier in this thread I mentioned that my facilities manager makes just over $85K a year. You mwent on to demaen that, saying that some facilities managers in Chicago make over $120K a year. But, being the dishonest little fuck that you are, you neglected to mention that the range for what's considered the "norm" for a facilities manager in Chicago actually starts around $90K, only $5K more than what I pay my guy.



Actually, costs of living in Chicago vs. Orlando aren't that different. 



			https://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/chicago-il/orlando-fl/35000
		


*A salary of $35,000 in Chicago, Illinois could decrease to $33,396 in Orlando, Florida (assumptions include Homeowner, no Child Care, and Taxes are not considered.*


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Because I don't care.  Most of what you list are common practice in real companies.



No, actually, they're not. In fact, they're quite rare...



> Again, most of those protections are meaningless in a "At Will/Right To work" employment situation.  Of course, they didn't tell those ladies they were being fired for being preggers or that guy that he was being fired because the boss's girlfriend was upset about their previous relationship.  They had "official" reasons.



And how would a biased arbitrator be able to determine a fair outcome or determine that the reason was other than the "official" reason?



> because the employer already has most of the advantages...



So, just so I'm straight on this: You want a biased arbitrator to be the person who determines whether or not I can fire someone?



> you can tell who the GOP's enemies are- Unions, Lawyers and Government- anyone who might make the playing field a little more level.



Yeah, fuck a level playing field. Why should someone who _hasn't_ put millions of dollars into my companies over the last 15 years have the same rights or a "level playing field". What the fuck does that even mean. In my entire working life, I've always understood that the guy whose name is on the building is the Head Motherfucker What's In Charge. He makes the rules and I, as an employee, get to follow the rules. If I want to be paid more, I need to show that I'm worth more. If I don't want to be fired, I need to not break the rules. A union makes a willingness to do those things unimportant...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> And how would a biased arbitrator be able to determine a fair outcome or determine that the reason was other than the "official" reason?



How I would do it?  Talk to the coworkers, to start with.  

Review all the documentation.  If all the reviews were positive up until the week that they started pushing them out, I'd be suspicious.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, fuck a level playing field. Why should someone who _hasn't_ put millions of dollars into my companies over the last 15 years have the same rights or a "level playing field". What the fuck does that even mean. In my entire working life, I've always understood that the guy whose name is on the building is the Head Motherfucker What's In Charge. He makes the rules and I, as an employee, get to follow the rules. If I want to be paid more, I need to show that I'm worth more. If I don't want to be fired, I need to not break the rules. A union makes a willingness to do those things unimportant...



Wow, spoken like a bully who just got punched in the nose. 

Sounds like on some level, you know that you've pulled some shady shit, and wouldn't want a third party to look at it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Because the system is already slanted towards the business owner...



Why shouldn't it be?



> Again, I'm sure there was a plantation owner who said the same thing about his slaves.



The ignorance you continually display is stunning...



> So essentially, my statement that you couldn't afford me stands, as you didn't even try to tell me what you paid purchasing folks.



Oh, I've no doubt I could afford you. I just don't believe you'd be anywhere near worth it...



> Actually, costs of living in Chicago vs. Orlando aren't that different.
> 
> *A salary of $35,000 in Chicago, Illinois could decrease to $33,396 in Orlando, Florida (assumptions include Homeowner, no Child Care, and Taxes are not considered.*



That might matter if I lived in Orlando.

But, you're the King of Assumptions and, once again, have made a stupid one. I'm in a small town in northeastern Florida, just south of the Georgia state line. The cost of living is far less here than in Orlando.

You need to stop pretending you know what you're talking about...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> How I would do it?  Talk to the coworkers, to start with.
> 
> Review all the documentation.  If all the reviews were positive up until the week that they started pushing them out, I'd be suspicious.



Wrong.

First, a biased arbitrator cannot, by virtue of the fact that he's biased, reach a fair and equitable solution.

Second, unless you've been a union arbitrator, you're just blowing smoke...



> Wow, spoken like a bully who just got punched in the nose.



No, I've just pretty much grown weary of conversing with some egotistical, lying scumbag about how well I treat my people when he can offer nothing of value in return...



> Sounds like on some level, you know that you've pulled some shady shit, and wouldn't want a third party to look at it.



I welcome it.

See, I really do hold myself to a ridiculously high standard. It's the only way I'm able to justify holding my employees to high standards.

You, on the other hand, would never survive in an environment where you actually had to prove your worth. You would never survive in an environment where you had to rely only on yourself, as opposed to some biased arbitrator, to ensure you kept your job.

If it wasn't for this weird desire of mine to see what sort of dipshit ignorance you post next, you'd have been on ignore pages ago. But, I have to give you credit, you certainly excel at displaying an ever increasing level of stupidity and ignorance, and it makes me laugh...


----------



## ESay

JoeB131 said:


> Okay. I'm all for a government program that does this. On the same point, this is why I favor universal health care. Your employer shouldn't have the literal power of life and death over you


But someone needs to pay for these government programs and universal health care.




JoeB131 said:


> Okay. How about, "Have sex with me or look for another job?" Or 'Do these things that aren't in your job description and you aren't trained for, or look for another job." Or "Do this thing without proper safety equipment or look for another job


And that is why I said above that there should be clear regulations which protect employees from being fired unfairly. This regulations should be universal, not depending on the unions and be in a form of a law.



JoeB131 said:


> Really, When and where? I mean, you guys aren't going to keep trying to drag out the USSR, are you? The USSR did fine... it survived the other European Empires by decades


Yes, I meant the USSR, why not. It lasted for only 70 years and its economic 'miracle' was possible thanks to millions of rightless and virtually 'for free' workers in 30-40s. And it did well only from 60s to mid-80s.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Why shouldn't it be?



Because there are more workers than business owners... 

Seriously, you'll be on a boat somewhere fleeing somewhere and you'll still be wondering what you did wrong.  Kind of like the Cuban Americans.... those shit never figured it out, either. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Wrong.
> 
> First, a biased arbitrator cannot, by virtue of the fact that he's biased, reach a fair and equitable solution.



Sure they can.  Fair is biased towards the working people.  

You see, you could round up all the capitalists tomorrow, shoot every last fucking one of them, and the country would go on.  there'd be some disruption, but we'd be fine.  

The one thing we SHOULD have learned from Trump Plague is that the working man is indispensable.  That's why we had to declare so many of us "Essential" to get them to risk dying of a disease to keep the country going while the "Capitalists" hid behind their Zoom screens.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You, on the other hand, would never survive in an environment where you actually had to prove your worth. You would never survive in an environment where you had to rely only on yourself, as opposed to some biased arbitrator, to ensure you kept your job.



Actually I did just fine... I'm pretty happy with my career...  And again, since you won't tell me what you pay your buyers, that tells me you couldn't afford me.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Because there are more workers than business owners...



Um, that doesn't really answer the question...

Seriously, you'll be on a boat somewhere fleeing somewhere and you'll still be wondering what you did wrong.  Kind of like the Cuban Americans.... those shit never figured it out, either.



> Sure they can.  Fair is biased towards the working people.



Biased, by definition, cannot be fair.

Please tell me you're really not stupid enough to believe otherwise.

It's fine if you want to argue why everything should be swayed towards the worker. I can debate that all day long. But saying that someone who has a predisposed bias is "fair" is a level of stupidity I don't think I've encountered in my 58 years...



> You see, you could round up all the capitalists tomorrow, shoot every last fucking one of them, and the country would go on.  there'd be some disruption, but we'd be fine.



If we beheaded every resume writer life would go on, as well, and with no discernible disruption...



> The one thing we SHOULD have learned from Trump Plague is that the working man is indispensable.



I know my people are  indispensable. That's why they're paid as well as they are and why I take care of them...



> Actually I did just fine... I'm pretty happy with my career...  And again, since you won't tell me what you pay your buyers, that tells me you couldn't afford me.



I don't really give a shit what you say it tells you.

Since you used an example of a Chicago-based facilities manager last time, I'll use an example for a Chicago-based purchasing agent this time.

According to Salary.com, the average pay for a purchasing agent in Chicago is $66,393; roughly $47K on the low end and $89K on the high.

Salary.com Salary Wizard- Do you know what you're worth? | Salary-Calculator | Salary.com

My two most senior purchasing agent both make six figures.

Seriously, stop pretending you know anything about how I do business and treat employees. It's only making you look sad and pathetic...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> It's fine if you want to argue why everything should be swayed towards the worker. I can debate that all day long. But saying that someone who has a predisposed bias is "fair" is a level of stupidity I don't think I've encountered in my 58 years...



The level of stupidity is thinking continuing to screw the working man is going to have a happy ending. 

Let's play an association game. 

France, 1787
Russia 1917
China 1949
Cuba 1959
Iran 1979

Those were all those places where "Fair" meant the Rich could beat the poor into submission with money and power... until the poor figured out, "Hey, there are a lot more of us!" 



Canon Shooter said:


> My two most senior purchasing agent both make six figures.



I didn't ask your most senior guys... but given it took you this long to finally throw something out there, I can take it with a grain of salt....   

Is this the part where you start showing me pictures of someone else's car and claim it's yours?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The level of stupidity is thinking continuing to screw the working man is going to have a happy ending.



That's the point, you stupid dumbfuck: I'm NOT screwing my people.

Jesus Fucking Christ. How much more stupid do you plan on getting?



> I didn't ask your most senior guys... but given it took you this long to finally throw something out there, I can take it with a grain of salt



So? You didn't ask me for the most junior ones, either. You're just upset that you're wrong. You never got paid near six figures and, for whatever reason, you decided that no one else could've been, either.

If I decide to put you on ignore, it'll be for this kind of bullshit: You ask me for information. I give you that information. That information makes you looks stupid so you dismiss it.

You're a pretty sorry piece of shit, Joey...



> Is this the part where you start showing me pictures of someone else's car and claim it's yours?



Ah, yes, there's that jealousy again. First off, Joey, you're the liar, not me. You even admit it. But, I guess when you don't work hard enough to have nice things, all you can do is whine about what others have. Maybe one day you can work hard and have nice things. I say "maybe" because, quite frankly, I don't believe you've _ever _worked hard. You're a loser.

And regarding pictures of cars, only an idiot fuck like you would try to impress people with a photo of a seven year old Mercedes...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> So? You didn't ask me for the most junior ones, either. You're just upset that you're wrong. You never got paid near six figures and, for whatever reason, you decided that no one else could've been, either.



Actually, I did, and the fact you didn't list your purchasing people until you checked what Chicago salaries were (which aren't any higher than Florida salaries) tells me you are making shit up.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Ah, yes, there's that jealousy again. First off, Joey, you're the liar, not me. You even admit it. But, I guess when you don't work hard enough to have nice things, all you can do is whine about what others have. Maybe one day you can work hard and have nice things. I say "maybe" because, quite frankly, I don't believe you've _ever _worked hard. You're a loser.



Naw, man, I don't worry about material things.  Most of my excess money goes into the bank.  It was a big help last year when Trump wrecked the economy.   I don't need a fancy car when a practical car gets me where I need to go.   The fact you obsess about material things tells me you are the one who values his life based on them.  

I measure my life by how many people I've helped over the years.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I did, and the fact you didn't list your purchasing people until you checked what Chicago salaries were (which aren't any higher than Florida salaries) tells me you are making shit up.



Of course I checked. Why wouldn't I? I wanted to know if you were going to accuse me of being a tight-ass when it came to salaries in case you made $5K more than my guys in a city where the cost of living is so much more.

You're accusing me of making shit up for no other reason than you never expected that I pay my people as well as I do...



> Naw, man, I don't worry about material things. `



Me neither...



> Most of my excess money goes into the bank.  It was a big help last year when Trump wrecked the economy.



I've got plenty of money in the bank, and my businesses actually did pretty good last year, considering the pandemic affect. And it wasn't Trump, it was the virus. Smart people understand this...



> I don't need a fancy car when a practical car gets me where I need to go.   The fact you obsess about material things tells me you are the one who values his life based on them.



I think it's absolutely hysterical that you accuse _me _of being obsessed with material things when _you're_ the one who keeps bringing them up. 

Your problem, and this is pretty evident that you only obsess about the material things _other _people have. That's called jealousy. Seriously, you need to read what you've typed out before you hit "Post reply". I posted one picture of a seven year old car and, apparently, that equates to an obsession of material things? 

Dude, your brain is fucked.

Oh, and it's a "practical" car, a 2014 Chevy Malibu that I bought from my late aunt's estate for $6,900, that gets me where I need to go 90% of the time:


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You're accusing me of making shit up for no other reason than you never expected that I pay my people as well as I do...



Naw, I accuse you of making stuff up because you are kind of a scumbag who fires people for personal conversations. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Oh, and it's a "practical" car, a 2014 Chevy Malibu that I bought from my late aunt's estate for $6,900, that gets me where I need to go 90% of the time:



Holy shit, he's posting a picture of a DIFFERENT car, this time.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, I accuse you of making stuff up because you are kind of a scumbag who fires people for personal conversations.



Hey, when you're on the company dime, you follow the company rules. I fail to see a problem there. Every company owner and supervisor I know understands that. It's the shitty supervisors; guys like you, who allow your employees to step all over you for no other reason than you don't have the sack to be a man and do what's right...



Canon Shooter said:


> Holy shit, he's posting a picture of a DIFFERENT car, this time.



Well, yeah. You were so overcome with jealousy over me posting a photo of my seven year old Mercedes that I thought I'd scale it back a bit and post something a bit more pedestrian, just for you...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Hey, when you're on the company dime, you follow the company rules. I fail to see a problem there. Every company owner and supervisor I know understands that. It's the shitty supervisors; guys like you, who allow your employees to step all over you for no other reason than you don't have the sack to be a man and do what's right...



Guy, nobody wants to work in East Germany where the Stasi are making sure you aren't having unauthorized conversations.   That you've found a few people willing to put up with this sort of behavior is your own business.  Most people I know never would.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, nobody wants to work in East Germany where the Stasi are making sure you aren't having unauthorized conversations.   That you've found a few people willing to put up with this sort of behavior is your own business.  Most people I know never would.



If you can't get through the workday without talking about politics or religion, you're a sorry sack of shit.

And "a few" people? You mean the 150-some-odd people who work for me, many of which have been with me for years and years? I know that seems unthinkable to someone whose major accomplishment in his entire pathetic business life was keeping a core team together for ALMOST two years but, hey, believe it. It happens.

And you're right, douchebag, it IS my business. And my business is successful. You know why? Because even if I were to allow this to be a union shop, my people would reject it. I know people who would seek employment elsewhere.

I'm a pretty well known name in my industry, and I enjoy respect from colleagues and competitors. Their opinions matter to me. The opinion of some wannabe' on the internet means nothing, because the wannabe means nothing. 

You mean nothing.

You're a worthless, lying bag of air...


----------



## initforme

Canon has benefited from the greatest most productive hard working generation this nation has ever seen....the world has ever seen.  The labor market is awash in these workers.   Kudos to you.


----------



## sartre play

Two men praying for what they wanted. No way did this effect my paycheck my home children  your or my life. Hate or dislike for either one just a way to avoid real problems that we cant easily solve.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> If you can't get through the workday without talking about politics or religion, you're a sorry sack of shit.



Except that isn't what you said.... oh, never mind, you change your story more often than Trump. 

Why is talking about politics and religion firable, but talking about sports isn't?  They would both be a waste of productive time, I guess.   

You know, if you want a place with no social interaction and just a bunch of robots that sit in their cubicles. 

Was this guy based on you?






Canon Shooter said:


> And you're right, douchebag, it IS my business. And my business is successful. You know why? Because even if I were to allow this to be a union shop, my people would reject it. I know people who would seek employment elsewhere.



Yeah, somehow, I doubt you ever had that discussion with them, and frankly, if anyone talked union, you'd fire them.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Why is talking about politics and religion firable, but talking about sports isn't?  They would both be a waste of productive time, I guess.



I've explained why. If you're so stupid that you've already forgotten it, that's too fucking bad.

You know, the funniest part abouot this is that you're all upset about it while my people aren't. They don't really give a fuck...



> You know, if you want a place with no social interaction and just a bunch of robots that sit in their cubicles.





> Yeah, somehow, I doubt you ever had that discussion with them, and frankly, if anyone talked union, you'd fire them.



Such an ignorant, know-nothing little douchebag you are. That conversation's been had, and it didn't last very long. Nobody wanted to be a union shop and no one got fired for talking about it.

See, a good boss doesn't worry about unions, because a good boss makes sure he takes care of his people, makes them happy and gives them more than a union would ever get for them...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I've explained why. If you're so stupid that you've already forgotten it, that's too fucking bad.
> 
> You know, the funniest part abouot this is that you're all upset about it while my people aren't. They don't really give a fuck...



Then why are you spending so much time trying to get validation from me?  

Okay... okay... I should have realized how fragile your ego was.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained why. If you're so stupid that you've already forgotten it, that's too fucking bad.
> 
> You know, the funniest part about this is that you're all upset about it while my people aren't. They don't really give a fuck...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why are you spending so much time trying to get validation from me?
> 
> Okay... okay... I should have realized how fragile your ego was.
Click to expand...


I've done no such thing.

All I've done is try to answer your monumentally ignorant questions. Unfortunately, I was unaware you were one those those people who can't ever be second best. When you see someone who has it better than you, do make every attempt to demean, diminish and demoralize, simply because a rational, adult discussion would prove you wrong.

You've decided that all business owners suck because you weren't smart enough to avoid getting fucked over by yours. Well, hey, too fuckin' bad, Chief. Knowing what I can tell from your posts here, you're not likely to be someone who anyone is eager to employ and, if already employed, someone who a boss wouldn't mind firing. That's why you want unions: So you can be a failure and still have a job.

Well, fuck that. Fuck that, fuck unions and fuck you.

You're cloaked in failure and a loser.

And that's all you'll ever be.

Oh, and I haven't posted any photos of my boat yet but, hey, maybe if you ask real nice...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I've done no such thing.
> 
> All I've done is try to answer your monumentally ignorant questions. Unfortunately, I was unaware you were one those those people who can't ever be second best. When you see someone who has it better than you, do make every attempt to demean, diminish and demoralize, simply because a rational, adult discussion would prove you wrong.



Naw, man, I can see I've hit a nerve, and I should have been more sensitive to your feelings...

Sorry, man...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You've decided that all business owners suck because you weren't smart enough to avoid getting fucked over by yours. Well, hey, too fuckin' bad, Chief. Knowing what I can tell from your posts here, you're not likely to be someone who anyone is eager to employ and, if already employed, someone who a boss wouldn't mind firing. That's why you want unions: So you can be a failure and still have a job.



Yawn... Again, I'm pretty proud of my career... even the icky parts... but most business owners are lying scumbags...   Maybe it's an occupational hazard of being in purchasing, people are blowing smoke up my ass all day, and you develop the skills to see through the bullshit.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've done no such thing.
> 
> All I've done is try to answer your monumentally ignorant questions. Unfortunately, I was unaware you were one those those people who can't ever be second best. When you see someone who has it better than you, do make every attempt to demean, diminish and demoralize, simply because a rational, adult discussion would prove you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, man, I can see I've hit a nerve, and I should have been more sensitive to your feelings...
> 
> Sorry, man...
Click to expand...


Well, according to you, I don't have any feelings. I'm just a heartless bastard. But that's better than being like you.

I'd rather be heartless than spineless...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, according to you, I don't have any feelings. I'm just a heartless bastard. But that's better than being like you.
> 
> I'd rather be heartless than spineless...



No, guy, you have feelings.. Unfortunately they are anger, spite, racism, and mean-spiritedness.... What you seem to lack is empathy, compassion and common decency...


----------



## Dadoalex

AzogtheDefiler said:


> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deannalw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dadoalex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you stopped sucking little boy dicks yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vile and against usmb rules.
> 
> Stupid pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was the post to which I was responding against the rules?
> If not, why not?
> And
> If not then why are you complaining to me.
> I simply responded.  I didn't initiate the accusations.
> complain to the mods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Asking if you drink often is in poor taste.  Accusing someone of pedophilia is against the rules.   Those sorts of comments will always be deleted and you will be warned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why?
> Why is one against the rules but not the other?
> Do the rules only specify pedophilia?  Or are the other forms of behavior off limits?  Is it the "legality" that is the problem or the inferred act?
> Seems the lines are rather arbitrary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All the rules on a forum like this are arbitrary.
> 
> But much of it is common sense.
> 
> Someone asking if you drink a lot is, as I said, in poor taste.    Accusing someone of pedophilia is crossing the line of decent behavior.
> 
> I suggest you take the time to read the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I suggest you find another drum to beat.  Or whatever you want to beat.
> 
> How was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was amusing.    You violated a rule.   Then you asked about the rules.    Now you get pissy about my answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote the rule that says "poor taste."
> 
> If you want to give advice then listen to this....
> 
> Find someone who gives two shits about your advice.
> Then, as long as you're not doing beastiality or pedophilia, have at it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is no rules about "poor taste".
> 
> The rule is about no bestiality and no pedophilia.   And no accusations of either.
> 
> You are the one who asked why one is against the rules and one is not.  I answered.
> 
> I don't give two shits whether you give two shits about my advice.   You asked and I answered.   Then you get all pissy.
> 
> Take a deep breath and stay on topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poor caddokid is frustrated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the lifetime president of
> INCEL Anonymous
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO...you were banned under your prior ID....looking to double down, caddokid?
Click to expand...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, according to you, I don't have any feelings. I'm just a heartless bastard. But that's better than being like you.
> 
> I'd rather be heartless than spineless...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, guy, you have feelings.. Unfortunately they are anger, spite, racism, and mean-spiritedness.... What you seem to lack is empathy, compassion and common decency...
Click to expand...


I can take your opinion of me, and counter it with the opinion of those who work for me.

You lose.

Every fucking time...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I can take your opinion of me, and counter it with the opinion of those who work for me.



yet you've spent the last six days arguing the point with me...  

Okay... 

I know you are kind of needy, but I don't think I can give you what you want. 

Do you have any thoughts on Gina Carano?  that's who this thread is about.   Disney probably thinks their employees love them, too.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> yet you've spent the last six days arguing the point with me...



I enjoy good banter.

I was holding out hope you might provide some, but...



> I know you are kind of needy...



Pal, I ain't needy in the least...



> but I don't think I can give you what you want.



Probably not.

I want to converse with someone displays intelligence, exercises reasoned thought and someone who isn't a complete douchebag.

So, yeah, I agree with you. You _can't_ provide any of those.



> Do you have any thoughts on Gina Carano?  that's who this thread is about.   Disney probably thinks their employees love them, too.



Some do, some don't. A friend's daughter works at Disneyworld in Orlando and absolutely loves it. But there are plenty of people who work there don't enjoy it, and don't like Disney as an employer. As far as Disney? They don't really give a fuck what their employees think. They're the largest single-site employer on the planet (75,000 in Orlando). They know if an employee gets pissed and quits, that job can be filled in a New York minute...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Pal, I ain't needy in the least...



Here you are, Day 5 of not being needy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Some do, some don't. A friend's daughter works at Disneyworld in Orlando and absolutely loves it. But there are plenty of people who work there don't enjoy it, and don't like Disney as an employer. As far as Disney? They don't really give a fuck what their employees think. They're the largest single-site employer on the planet (75,000 in Orlando). They know if an employee gets pissed and quits, that job can be filled in a New York minute...



But all you wingnuts are whining that they fired a mannish looking woman from a show where she played third fiddle to a guy with a bucket on his head and a puppet.


----------



## themirrorthief

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


entertainers depend on fans...screw the fans and they spend their money somewhere else


----------



## JoeB131

themirrorthief said:


> entertainers depend on fans...screw the fans and they spend their money somewhere else



They might.  I'm sure Disney took that into consideration when they fired Ms. Carano, realized that she didn't have a very big fan base and it was safe to party company with her.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Here you are, Day 5 of not being needy.[/quote]

You're such a tool.

I guess if I put you on ignore that would demonstrate how _not _needy I am, right?

See, truth be told, sometimes a person can be such an absolute fucking idiot that it's fun just to continually show how big an idiot he is. That's what I'm doing with you...



> But all you wingnuts are whining that they fired a mannish looking woman from a show where she played third fiddle to a guy with a bucket on his head and a puppet.



Hey, dipshit, I haven't said a fucking word about it, other than to say that an employer should have an absolute right to fire an employee. I don't know anything about Carano; probably wouldn't know her if I tripped over her. And whether or not I agree with her termination, that has zero bearing on whether or not I think Disney should retain that right.

Now, howsabout you show me where I've complained at all about her being fired.

You can't do that, because you're nothing but a fucking scumbag liar...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I guess if I put you on ignore that would demonstrate how _not _needy I am, right?



Do it. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Now, howsabout you show me where I've complained at all about her being fired.



That's right. You're here to stalk me, not actually discuss the topic of the thread, Captain Needy.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess if I put you on ignore that would demonstrate how _not _needy I am, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, howsabout you show me where I've complained at all about her being fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right. You're here to stalk me, not actually discuss the topic of the thread, Captain Needy.
Click to expand...


You asked me a question, you stupid fuck. My initial post was absolutely on-point (the one in which I drew a comparison with Tebow and Kaepernick).

You're nothing but a sorry little douchebag. You stupidly call me "needy" when I respond to your questions. Here's a little tip for ya', numbnuts: If you don't want an answer, don't ask the fucking question. Then you whine about me not talking about Carano, who you insist is the topic of the thread, despite the fact that YOU'RE the dumbfuck who included Kapernick in your thread title.

And, as threads will often do, this thread ran off on a bit of a tangent. That was fine as long as you were displaying your pride in your failure to be an effective leader, but as soon as you came to the realization that you're intellectually incapable of refuting any of my arguments, you whine about me being off topic, despite the fact that you spent plenty of time off topic yourself.

Exactly how fucking pathetic are you?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Just to revisit this:



JoeB131 said:


> That's right. You're here to stalk me, not actually discuss the topic of the thread, Captain Needy.



Actually, I was in complete agreement with you, so far as Disney had every right to fire her. You just got pissy when I pointed out there was no difference in what Tebow did from what Kaepernick did, and you filled your diaper and started whining.

If you think a person is "needy" because they disagree with you, well, that kind of explains your repeated career failures...


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


Carano was right to criticize BLM Marxists. Marxism = mass murder & dictatorship.

Tell us your pronouns now! Why haven’t you told us already bigot!?

Kaepernick is a ridiculous phony who profits off of slavery.









						Nike should quit lecturing on social justice — and atone for using slave labor in China
					

Woke companies are constantly hectoring America on its failings. The Social Justice Warriors who run Nike, for example, pompously inform us that they are fighting “against discrimination in communi…




					nypost.com
				




Limousine liberal Jane Fonda made her trip supporting North Vietnam in 1972 - almost 50 years ago!

Why are you so dumb JoeB131?


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was your last conversation with Tebow that you know what he was praying about and that he was trying to, how did you say it, "waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face"? IOW, you like to make up a whole bunch of stupid crap about what people are doing and insist you can read their minds or some such stupidity. Knowing him as a person of faith, he wasn't praying to win a stupid football game. You obviously have no idea what he was praying about but project your own imagination on him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right?  Tebow loved being the poster boy for the Religious Right.  Even tried to get the NFL to play an anti-abortion commercial during the super bowl.
Click to expand...

You're projecting again, because obviously you have absolutely no idea what he was praying about, yet here you are, confidently proclaiming to the world that you do. And you won't back down from it either.

Oh, and was that the commercial where he thanked his mom for giving him the chance to live, even though it she was in difficult circumstances at the time?


----------



## Canon Shooter

hadit said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was your last conversation with Tebow that you know what he was praying about and that he was trying to, how did you say it, "waive his faith around and stick it in everyone's face"? IOW, you like to make up a whole bunch of stupid crap about what people are doing and insist you can read their minds or some such stupidity. Knowing him as a person of faith, he wasn't praying to win a stupid football game. You obviously have no idea what he was praying about but project your own imagination on him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right?  Tebow loved being the poster boy for the Religious Right.  Even tried to get the NFL to play an anti-abortion commercial during the super bowl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're projecting again, because obviously you have absolutely no idea what he was praying about, yet here you are, confidently proclaiming to the world that you do. And you won't back down from it either.
> 
> Oh, and was that the commercial where he thanked his mom for giving him the chance to live, even though it she was in difficult circumstances at the time?
Click to expand...


Joe's an idiot.

For Joe, this is completely acceptable:






Why? Because Marcedes Lewis is black.

This is also acceptable to Joe:






Why? Because Amari Cooper is black.

For Joe, this is completely _un_acceptable:






Why? Because Tim Tebow is white.

Racism can be the only explanation for Joe's response. He's said nary a word about black athletes kneeling in silent prayer, but the very idea that a white athlete might do it is outright reprehensible to Joe...


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what you wrote above seems a reasonable 'regulation' to me. There are few doubts that employers should be able to carry out their own staff policy. And employees should be able to protect their rights if they were treated unfair.
> 
> But, frankly, I dont completely get what '* for no reason without incurring legal liability' *means on practice. Yes, if an employee repeatedly breaks the rules they should be fired. But you mentioned the guys which got to a fight over some political issue. And you fired them both. I think it is unfair. The fired should be the one who started the fight. The other one who fought back should have had the right to legally protect his case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that the burden in an at-will employment situation is on the employee.
> 
> For instance, I have said the thing that turned me from being a pretty conservative guy to someone who is about one step from voting for Bernie is that when I busted up my knee in 2007 and required a lot of expensive surgery and rehabilitation, my boss's go to was to try to encourage me to quit, and then downsizing me in a reorganization even though I had seniority over everyone in the office.
> 
> Now, my lawyer said, I had a pretty darned good case for medical and age discrimination.  It helps when a boss is such a moron he blurts out, "you're too old to retrain" (I was 46 at the time) in front of many witnesses.  Of course, that would have required me to spend hundreds of hours in court fighting the case.  Not to mention my name coming up in court records whenever future employers did a background check.
> 
> A system that puts workers' rights above employers rights would be the opposite of that.  the burden should be on them on why they are downsizing their long-term employees beyond "I think I can get someone cheaper now."
> 
> I would favor a system of, yeah, you can lay people off, but they have to be the first one you offer jobs back to if you are hiring again.
Click to expand...

Looks like another entitled white male bitter because he was fired for incompetence.

Seniority = racism





__





						Loading…
					





					irc.queensu.ca
				




Quit your whining you bigot!


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You asked me a question, you stupid fuck. My initial post was absolutely on-point (the one in which I drew a comparison with Tebow and Kaepernick).
> 
> You're nothing but a sorry little douchebag. You stupidly call me "needy" when I respond to your questions.



Um, yeah, buddy, you are seriously needy.  I don't think you have any friends.   Anyway, moving on. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, I was in complete agreement with you, so far as Disney had every right to fire her. You just got pissy when I pointed out there was no difference in what Tebow did from what Kaepernick did, and you filled your diaper and started whining.



Actually, there was a major difference.  Tebow, the FAKE Christian didn't suffer any consequences for his actions, which actually disrupted game play.  Kap did what he did during the fake ceremony of the National Anthem, which had no effect on the game... although it did get some white folks to blow their tops. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Racism can be the only explanation for Joe's response. He's said nary a word about black athletes kneeling in silent prayer, but the very idea that a white athlete might do it is outright reprehensible to Joe...



What's reprehensible to me is that we are still following bronze age superstitions in the 21st century... but that's another Topic, Captain Needy.   Of course, the Black Athlete's weren't "kneeling in silent prayer", they were "protesting police brutality and murder."


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> You're projecting again, because obviously you have absolutely no idea what he was praying about, yet here you are, confidently proclaiming to the world that you do. And you won't back down from it either.
> 
> Oh, and was that the commercial where he thanked his mom for giving him the chance to live, even though it she was in difficult circumstances at the time?



yeah, the one were she went to a third world country while pregnant and endangered the life of her child to try to convert people to Christianity when most of them were already Christian, just not the crazy kind.  Being raised by THAT kind of religious fanatic could fuck up a young kid's head.  



Thunderbird said:


> Looks like another entitled white male bitter because he was fired for incompetence.



Well, except I got exemplary reviews... the problem was after management managed to lose our biggest customer, instead of firing the newbees like you really should do, he fired all his older employees.  

The people who had gotten him that far, because it certainly wasn't because of his 'random acts of management'.


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're projecting again, because obviously you have absolutely no idea what he was praying about, yet here you are, confidently proclaiming to the world that you do. And you won't back down from it either.
> 
> Oh, and was that the commercial where he thanked his mom for giving him the chance to live, even though it she was in difficult circumstances at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the one were she went to a third world country while pregnant and endangered the life of her child to try to convert people to Christianity when most of them were already Christian, just not the crazy kind.  Being raised by THAT kind of religious fanatic could fuck up a young kid's head.
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like another entitled white male bitter because he was fired for incompetence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, except I got exemplary reviews... the problem was after management managed to lose our biggest customer, instead of firing the newbees like you really should do, he fired all his older employees.
> 
> The people who had gotten him that far, because it certainly wasn't because of his 'random acts of management'.
Click to expand...

As we’ve seen the seniority system is deeply racist. JoeB131 clings to said system thus exposing himself as a bigot.

Quit your crying JoeB131 and check your privilege!


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> As we’ve seen the seniority system is deeply racist. JoeB131 clings to said system thus exposing himself as a bigot.
> 
> Quit your crying JoeB131 and check your privilege!



Not sure how "seniority" is racist.  Wasn't even an issue at this place, as it had almost no black employees.  Oh, yeah, and my boss used the N-word on at least one occasion.  

Point is, if you have someone you hired a month ago and someone who you has worked for you for six years, this shouldn't be a question at all as to who gets cut first.  

Now, here's the thing, before I encountered this bit of age discrimination, I was probably perfectly happy with my white privilege, and maybe even bought into conservative arguments....  now I know that discrimination of any kind--- kind of sucks.


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we’ve seen the seniority system is deeply racist. JoeB131 clings to said system thus exposing himself as a bigot.
> 
> Quit your crying JoeB131 and check your privilege!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how "seniority" is racist.  Wasn't even an issue at this place, as it had almost no black employees.  Oh, yeah, and my boss used the N-word on at least one occasion.
> 
> Point is, if you have someone you hired a month ago and someone who you has worked for you for six years, this shouldn't be a question at all as to who gets cut first.
> 
> Now, here's the thing, before I encountered this bit of age discrimination, I was probably perfectly happy with my white privilege, and maybe even bought into conservative arguments....  now I know that discrimination of any kind--- kind of sucks.
Click to expand...

If you feel discrimination sucks why do you engage in discrimination you ridiculous bigot?!

I see you are in denial about your racism and white privilege. You demand your job back because of “seniority”. Don’t you see seniority privileges those who have already benefited from past privilege?! Moron, why do you think there were “almost no black employees”?! That job should be given to a POC! Why do you want to deprive a POC of a job?! Quit crying you bigot!

And why haven’t you told us your pronouns you transphobic monster?!

You are LITERALLY F•••ING HITLER!!! [Lol]


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> If you feel discrimination sucks why do you engage in discrimination you ridiculous bigot?!



Did someone tell you that "no you are" stopped being an effective method of debate after fifth grade? 



Thunderbird said:


> I see you are in denial about your racism and white privilege. You demand your job back because of “seniority”. Don’t you see seniority privileges those who have already benefited from past privilege?! Moron, why do you think there were “almost no black employees”?! That job should be given to a POC! Why do you want to deprive a POC of a job?! Quit crying you bigot!



Except it wasn't.  It was given to an idiot niece of a friend of the manager.  

I admit I've benefited from white privilege in my career.  Ab-so-fucking-lutely.  



Thunderbird said:


> And why haven’t you told us your pronouns you transphobic monster?!



Um, because it's pretty clear that I'm a dude.


----------



## Thunderbird

Thunderbird said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> As we’ve seen the seniority system is deeply racist. JoeB131 clings to said system thus exposing himself as a bigot.
> 
> Quit your crying JoeB131 and check your privilege!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how "seniority" is racist.  Wasn't even an issue at this place, as it had almost no black employees.  Oh, yeah, and my boss used the N-word on at least one occasion.
> 
> Point is, if you have someone you hired a month ago and someone who you has worked for you for six years, this shouldn't be a question at all as to who gets cut first.
> 
> Now, here's the thing, before I encountered this bit of age discrimination, I was probably perfectly happy with my white privilege, and maybe even bought into conservative arguments....  now I know that discrimination of any kind--- kind of sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you feel discrimination sucks why do you engage in discrimination you ridiculous bigot?!
> 
> I see you are in denial about your racism and white privilege. You demand your job back because of “seniority”. That job should be given to a POC! Why do you want to deprive a POC of a job?! Quit crying you bigot!
> 
> And why haven’t you told us your pronouns you transphobic monster?!
> 
> You are LITERALLY HITLER!!! [Lol]
Click to expand...




JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you feel discrimination sucks why do you engage in discrimination you ridiculous bigot?!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did someone tell you that "no you are" stopped being an effective method of debate after fifth grade?
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you are in denial about your racism and white privilege. You demand your job back because of “seniority”. Don’t you see seniority privileges those who have already benefited from past privilege?! Moron, why do you think there were “almost no black employees”?! That job should be given to a POC! Why do you want to deprive a POC of a job?! Quit crying you bigot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except it wasn't.  It was given to an idiot niece of a friend of the manager.
> 
> I admit I've benefited from white privilege in my career.  Ab-so-fucking-lutely.
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why haven’t you told us your pronouns you transphobic monster?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, because it's pretty clear that I'm a dude.
Click to expand...

So your job went to a woman, that’s why you are so bitter and angry! Stop your tantrum you misogynistic prick and celebrate as this woman takes your job! So sorry your male privilege didn’t save you. Lol

No we can’t assume you are a guy! Check your cis-gender privilege!

You admit you have benefited from white privilege. As recompense you should immediately offer up your home to an African American family. Otherwise you are a racist.


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> So your job went to a woman, that’s why you are so bitter and angry! Stop your tantrum you misogynistic prick and celebrate as this woman takes your job! So sorry your male privilege didn’t save you. Lol



Well, here's the thing with that.   I've been in my field for 20 years.  This woman was in purchasing for about a year and decided she really hated it.  This is why you consider seniority... experience, desire to do a job, knowledge of the industry... you know, qualifications.   

This woman wouldn't have gotten the job at all if she wasn't the daughter of a manager's friend.  So it was kind of "affirmative action for white people", but just in the wrong way.  

If anything, seniority should be an actual factor, because then you have a proven track record of accomplishments.


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your job went to a woman, that’s why you are so bitter and angry! Stop your tantrum you misogynistic prick and celebrate as this woman takes your job! So sorry your male privilege didn’t save you. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, here's the thing with that.   I've been in my field for 20 years.  This woman was in purchasing for about a year and decided she really hated it.  This is why you consider seniority... experience, desire to do a job, knowledge of the industry... you know, qualifications.
> 
> This woman wouldn't have gotten the job at all if she wasn't the daughter of a manager's friend.  So it was kind of "affirmative action for white people", but just in the wrong way.
> 
> If anything, seniority should be an actual factor, because then you have a proven track record of accomplishments.
Click to expand...

Of course to someone of your ilk women are inferior. F••• you and your bigoted male supremacy narrative.

And when are you moving out of your home to let in the new deserving black transgender undocumented occupants?


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> Of course to someone of your ilk women are inferior. F••• you and your bigoted male supremacy narrative.



Actually, she was inferior for the following reason. 

She had no experience in the field.  At that point, I had over 20 years experience in logistics, procurement and inventory management, including a stint in the US Army.   

Point is, you go home with the person who brought you to the dance.   His staff kept him afloat for years, the growth he enjoyed was because we put in so many hours.  But his go-to was to get rid of the experienced people and keep the people he just hired on the cheap.   And as he said, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union".  




Thunderbird said:


> And when are you moving out of your home to let in the new deserving black transgender undocumented occupants?



Actually, probably later this year, because they are disbanding my condo association and turning it into rentals.  It will probably get all turned into Section 8 housing, so I'm clearing the hell out.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, buddy, you are seriously needy.  I don't think you have any friends.   Anyway, moving on.



You only choose to move on once you've realized how big a failure you've been at debating.

You do it all the time, and I'm pretty sure the only person here who doesn't realize that is you...



> Actually, there was a major difference.  Tebow, the FAKE Christian didn't suffer any consequences for his actions, which actually disrupted game play.



I'm talking about differences in what they did, dipshit, not the outcome.

Why do you call Tebow a "fake" Christian? And how did his not suffering for his actions disrupt game play? How were the games disrupted? What is your opinion of black athletes who do the exact same thing as Tebow?



> Kap did what he did during the fake ceremony of the National Anthem, which had no effect on the game...



"Fake" ceremony? What's that supposed to even mean?



> although it did get some white folks to blow their tops.



And, for Kaepernick, he stupidly chose to piss off the wrong white folks; those who owned football teams. He brought too much baggage with him, which is why no one wanted to give him a job. I thought it was funny that he thought he could sue his way back into the NFL. He, like you, is nothing but an idiot loser and has-been at this point...



> What's reprehensible to me is that we are still following bronze age superstitions in the 21st century... but that's another Topic, Captain Needy.   Of course, the Black Athlete's weren't "kneeling in silent prayer", they were "protesting police brutality and murder."



So, your position is that there are no black athletes who kneel and say a quick prayer after they score a touchdown?

Man, how fucking ignorant and stupid are you, Joey?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You only choose to move on once you've realized how big a failure you've been at debating.
> 
> You do it all the time, and I'm pretty sure the only person here who doesn't realize that is you...



Again, I realize you are needy, but I'm a busy guy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I'm talking about differences in what they did, dipshit, not the outcome.
> 
> Why do you call Tebow a "fake" Christian? And how did his not suffering for his actions disrupt game play? How were the games disrupted? What is your opinion of black athletes who do the exact same thing as Tebow?



But the outcome is the important thing.  He was out there on the field making A RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.  You know, the kind of thing you fire your employees for doing because you are such a wonderful boss.  

Yeah, he's a fake Christian.   Another of these holier than thou types that put their religion in your face. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And, for Kaepernick, he stupidly chose to piss off the wrong white folks; those who owned football teams. He brought too much baggage with him, which is why no one wanted to give him a job. I thought it was funny that he thought he could sue his way back into the NFL. He, like you, is nothing but an idiot loser and has-been at this point...



Meh, not sure why, since the NFL completely knuckled under and supported BLM at the end of the day.  So kind of strikes me he was in the right.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Again, I realize you are needy, but I'm a busy guy.



Yeah, you keep saying that.

Can't be true, though...



> But the outcome is the important thing.  He was out there on the field making A RELIGIOUS STATEMENT.  You know, the kind of thing you fire your employees for doing because you are such a wonderful boss.



You continue to ignore the black athletes who do THE EXACT SAME THING when they score a touchdown. You just don't like it when Tebow does it because he's a white man, and you detest successful white men. You're a scumbag racist...



> Yeah, he's a fake Christian.   Another of these holier than thou types that put their religion in your face.



He wasn't putting it in anyone's face. He knelt on the sideline. Were the black athletes "fake Christians" for kneeling and praying after they scored a touchdown?



> Meh, not sure why, since the NFL completely knuckled under and supported BLM at the end of the day.  So kind of strikes me he was in the right.



What the NFL did, en masse, was a masterful stroke of strategic genius.

They were able to put themselves in a position where they were able to make it appear as though they were sympathetic to the cause, while maintaining their position that Colin Kaepernick, quite simply, no longer had a place in their league.

Colin Kaepernick protested his way out of the NFL...


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


False comparison's of course, as the issue's like they always do "shift from one thing to another over time". Catch up.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're projecting again, because obviously you have absolutely no idea what he was praying about, yet here you are, confidently proclaiming to the world that you do. And you won't back down from it either.
> 
> Oh, and was that the commercial where he thanked his mom for giving him the chance to live, even though it she was in difficult circumstances at the time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, the one were she went to a third world country while pregnant and endangered the life of her child to try to convert people to Christianity when most of them were already Christian, just not the crazy kind.  Being raised by THAT kind of religious fanatic could fuck up a young kid's head.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, that it didn't.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Well, except I got exemplary reviews...



Yeah, right. Exemplary reviews for failing to keep a "core team" together for even two years...



> the problem was after management managed to lose our biggest customer, instead of firing the newbees like you really should do, he fired all his older employees.



Were the newbies responsible for that customer? If not, firing them is stupid and makes no sense, because you've done nothing to address the problem. You fire the people who were responsible for losing that customer, regardless of their seniority.

But hey, if nothing else, at least that point of view offers some insight into your failed management style...


----------



## beagle9

Darkwind said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with.  It cannot get more unAmerican.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, if people are speaking against our way of life to the tune of getting a brainwashed voter base that goes along with their ideology's, and then it starts to destroy the foundations that created the environment that allowed our ways of life to strive, then yes they need to be cancelled out (stripped of their platforms), otherwise if using those platform's to destroy an American way of life against the majorities will.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you had to give this "Consequence Culture" thing its own discussion? Jesus please us.
> 
> I told you in the other discussion (what discussion? Ha Ha) that this ploy can and will work against you as much as it does for you. Be prepared to have this ploy thrown back in your face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As pointed out, you guys have been doing this for years.... you are just unhappy it is now being thrown back in your face.
Click to expand...

Oh is that right ?? So you are in favor of reverse discrimination in order to hopefully see "white" folks suffer for what their ancestor's or relative's did eh ??? Matters not that people today had nothing to do with any of it, but only that you get to see a white person suffer eh ????  You're dismissed.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, you keep saying that.
> 
> Can't be true, though...



I work close to 80 hours a week.. sure it can. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You continue to ignore the black athletes who do THE EXACT SAME THING when they score a touchdown. You just don't like it when Tebow does it because he's a white man, and you detest successful white men. You're a scumbag racist...



I wouldn't know what black athletes are doing, they weren't screaming Jesus in everyone's face like Tebow's mediocre ass was doing.  



Canon Shooter said:


> What the NFL did, en masse, was a masterful stroke of strategic genius.
> 
> They were able to put themselves in a position where they were able to make it appear as though they were sympathetic to the cause, while maintaining their position that Colin Kaepernick, quite simply, no longer had a place in their league.
> 
> Colin Kaepernick protested his way out of the NFL...



Actually, they ended up paying him a lot of money, incurred the anger of all the MAGAts, and revenues are kind of down... this is what is brilliant management by you? 



Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, right. Exemplary reviews for failing to keep a "core team" together for even two years...



Again, hard to keep them together when the whole national company goes under because Nose Candy kept making bad decisions.   

not that good management would have saved this company, they were probably doomed regardless. 

Kind of hard to have a business when all your customers disappear. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Were the newbies responsible for that customer? If not, firing them is stupid and makes no sense, because you've done nothing to address the problem. You fire the people who were responsible for losing that customer, regardless of their seniority.



Okay, that would have been the managers, who knew damned well that the contract was coming up and they needed to get it renewed.   None of those people got fired.   Even after we got fired, the managers all kept acting like nothing was wrong and they were going to come back on their knees begging us to take their business.  They didn't.  



Canon Shooter said:


> But hey, if nothing else, at least that point of view offers some insight into your failed management style...



I don't know, I wasn't a manager at THAT company.  I think they should have taken film of our managers and put them in business schools under "Don't do THAT!"  They fell ass-backwards into a lucrative account and still managed to fuck it up through neglect. Sales people who never bothered to visit the customer, continuing to soak the customer on pricing when the cost of the commodity was brought down.   At some point, the customer figured out they could buy direct from a manufacturer.


----------



## JoeB131

beagle9 said:


> Oh is that right ?? So you are in favor of reverse discrimination in order to hopefully see "white" folks suffer for what their ancestor's or relative's did eh ??? Matters not that people today had nothing to do with any of it, but only that you get to see a white person suffer eh ???? You're dismissed.



Uh, if you are a failure despite all the advantages of being white in this country, then that's on you, not anyone else.  

As I said, let's get rid of all the nepotism, hiring of buddies, racist HR Managers, etc.  

That has nothing to do with the point (try to keep on point) that Conservatives have been cancelling people they didn't like for years....  now liberals are cancelling (not really, big corporations are) white people saying dumb racist things.


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> Except, of course, that it didn't.



Actually, I look at fanatical Christians as kind of fucked up in the head.  Needing to constantly grovel in front of an imaginary Sky Pixie.


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except, of course, that it didn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I look at fanatical Christians as kind of fucked up in the head.  Needing to constantly grovel in front of an imaginary Sky Pixie.
Click to expand...

I get it, you fear what you don't understand.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I work close to 80 hours a week.. sure it can.



I remember when I used to work that many hours.

Of course, I was an easily replaced cog in the machine back then, and had to work that much so I could put extra cash in the bank.

These days, though, I don't put near that much time in, and it's because I worked so much in the past.

So, hey, maybe there's hope for you yet!



> I wouldn't know what black athletes are doing, they weren't screaming Jesus in everyone's face like Tebow's mediocre ass was doing.



Here's another challenge for you to completely fail at: Show me a single instance on the field when he was throwing Jesus in _anyone's_ face...



> Actually, they ended up paying him a lot of money, incurred the anger of all the MAGAts, and revenues are kind of down... this is what is brilliant management by you?



They kept him off the field and out of work. No one would hire him, and he failed to show that there was some conspiracy against him.

Yeah, they gave him some money, but how much? How much money did they pay him? They probably ended up paying him far less than the $20,000,000 per season he was demanding to play in the AAF and the XFL. The average salary for a quarterback in the XFL was  $250,000 per season, while that same $250,000 was spread out over three seasons in the AAF.

The NFL set up a workout for him in Atlanta, and most of the NFL's 32 teams were going to be there. A half hour before it was scheduled to begin Kaepernick walked on the whole thing, because he didn't like the fact that it wouldn't be open to the media, which shouldn't have mattered at all.

His failure to appear at that workout, which is something the NFL almost never does, is what guaranteed that Kaepernick will never play another down in the NFL...



> Again, hard to keep them together when the whole national company goes under because Nose Candy kept making bad decisions.



not that good management would have saved this company, they were probably doomed regardless.

Kind of hard to have a business when all your customers disappear.[/quote]

I notice you always blame others.

I've found that to be a common trait among substandard employees...



Canon Shooter said:


> Were the newbies responsible for that customer? If not, firing them is stupid and makes no sense, because you've done nothing to address the problem. You fire the people who were responsible for losing that customer, regardless of their seniority.





> Okay, that would have been the managers, who knew damned well that the contract was coming up and they needed to get it renewed.   None of those people got fired.   Even after we got fired, the managers all kept acting like nothing was wrong and they were going to come back on their knees begging us to take their business.  They didn't.



You got fired?

See, being a successful business owner, one thing I know is that good employees don't get fired. Shitty employees get fired. Thank you for clarifying that you were not a good employee.

Certainly explains why you're a fan of unions, though. You don't want to bust your ass to keep your job. You want to be in a union shop so you can keep your job despite the fact that you're lazy.

It's all becoming so much clearer now...



> I don't know, I wasn't a manager at THAT company.  I think they should have taken film of our managers and put them in business schools under "Don't do THAT!"  They fell ass-backwards into a lucrative account and still managed to fuck it up through neglect. Sales people who never bothered to visit the customer, continuing to soak the customer on pricing when the cost of the commodity was brought down.   At some point, the customer figured out they could buy direct from a manufacturer.



Sounds like a company which needed to have a wholesale shit-canning of personnel and start over.

In the early years of my smaller company, one of my employees saw something which, in his opinion, would wind up hurting the company in the long run. I looked at the suggestions he was making and decided to implement changes based on them. The person was a little older than me, but far more experienced in this particular field.

He was a good employee back then, and he's the Vice President of that company today.

You say that you saw all of these problems in your company, yet it's pretty clear you did nothing to try to fix anything. You're a bad employee...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> As I said, let's get rid of all the nepotism, hiring of buddies, racist HR Managers, etc.



I have friends and relatives who work in both my companies. They're part of the reason the companies are successful. Friends and relatives are known quantities. I know which ones wil be good workers and which ones won't...


----------



## JoeB131

hadit said:


> I get it, you fear what you don't understand.



I understand religion perfectly well. 
People are scared of dying. 
So if someone offers them a heaven of puppies and sunshine where they get to meet their beloved dead relatives again, they are all for it.  
And if you threaten them with fire and brimstone, they call right into line.  

Now, don't get me wrong, if all that keeps you sky pixie worshippers from being even worse than you already are, by all means, keep doing that.


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...



I've never followed football that deeply but even I know that personal demonstrations of faith are and have been a common occurrence among those so inclined in pro sports, either wishing for luck in the next play or in thanks for the last one.  Baseball too.  Hell even as a child I remember Tony Taylor would always make the sign of the Cross when he came up to bat, and many still do. He's just a random example, there would be way too many to actually count.  Nobody thought less of them. So if you could, y'know, somehow link us to "the shit-stained left" --- which is apparently some kind of corporation or something  holding this press conference or whatever the fuck it was, that'd be great.


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> JackOfNoTrades said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cry me a river.
> 
> The fact remains that, by and large, the left (not just "left wing idealists") took great exception to Tebow's quiet display of faith.
> 
> I hope Kaepernick never plays another down as an NFL quarterback and, the way it's looking, he's not going to. I absolutely support his right to do what he wants to; if he wants to kneel in protest, so be it. I don't have to like it.
> 
> But, as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions. The fact is that a lot of football fans gave up on the game because of this kneeling nonsense, and it's hurt the bottom lines of NFL teams. Well, they're not there to bring about social change. They're businesses, and they're there to make money. If Kaepernick's antics result in him not being able to find a job, because those antics will negatively impact the bottom line of an NFL team, well, he needs to be man enough to accept that.
> 
> Whining that he can't get a job is pathetic...
Click to expand...


So basically you're absolving yourself of the burden of penalizing Kaepernick's opinions ---- as long as somebody else takes it on FOR you.  Way to hide behind a rock.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I have friends and relatives who work in both my companies. They're part of the reason the companies are successful. Friends and relatives are known quantities. I know which ones wil be good workers and which ones won't...



I've seen the other end of it..  sons of managers who get passes on so many awful mistakes, drinking buddies who had no business ever being hired.  The lady who was able to terrorize employees across the company because she was fucking the regional manager. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I remember when I used to work that many hours.
> 
> Of course, I was an easily replaced cog in the machine back then, and had to work that much so I could put extra cash in the bank.



So today you are a tool, and that's much better. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, being a successful business owner, one thing I know is that good employees don't get fired. Shitty employees get fired. Thank you for clarifying that you were not a good employee.



What are you smoking?  Shitty employees get retained, good employees get fired... if they aren't smart enough to quit.   

Not that anyone believes you are a successful business owner.  You probably have some shitty little company that follows around bigger companies begging for business.  I deal with your sort all the time.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Sounds like a company which needed to have a wholesale shit-canning of personnel and start over.
> 
> You say that you saw all of these problems in your company, yet it's pretty clear you did nothing to try to fix anything. You're a bad employee...



That wasn't my job.  My job was to review customer demands and place orders for product based on those demands.   That job I did exceptionally well, as we never had a line down at the customer, nor did we have excessive inventory we ended up having to write off. (Which in that industry, is an accomplishment, it required very precise planning. They changed packaging designs several times a year and it was important to maintain PIPO and FIFO). I achieved substantial savings, which they didn't pass on to the customer, and the customer knew it.   

It was not my job to make sure that sales people showed up at the customer and maintained those critical customer relationships, which is what these managers failed to do.  They figured that the three year contract they signed, built new facilities to service, etc.  was going to go on forever and ever and ever.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I notice you always blame others.
> 
> I've found that to be a common trait among substandard employees...



I've notice substandard managers never accept any responsibility when the organization fails.  

Again- Industry at that time, Pet Supply Distribution.  Old model- Manufacturers sell to distributors, who consolidate shipments and send them to retailers.   That was fine, until the chain stores came along and undersold the retailers.  So in the Chicago Market, they went from 9 distributors in 1992 to only two by 1997.  Not enough mom and pop shops to sustain them.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> So basically you're absolving yourself of the burden of penalizing Kaepernick's opinions ---- as long as somebody else takes it on FOR you.  Way to hide behind a rock.



Um, exactly how does one penalize an opinion?

Now, if you actually meant to say penalizing Kaepernick for his opinions, I've never been real shy about sharing my thoughts about him or his actions so, no, I'm not hiding behind anything. I believe he has earned every single bad thing that happens to him...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> The NFL set up a workout for him in Atlanta, and most of the NFL's 32 teams were going to be there. A half hour before it was scheduled to begin Kaepernick walked on the whole thing, because he didn't like the fact that it wouldn't be open to the media, which shouldn't have mattered at all.
> 
> His failure to appear at that workout, which is something the NFL almost never does, is what guaranteed that Kaepernick will never play another down in the NFL...



Why should the man have had to debase himself with a try-out?  

Yeah, heaven forbid the media be there, and he performed well enough to where a lot of the teams could hardly justify NOT hiring him, given the mediocre talent we had. 

I mean, seriously.  The Bears have Trubinsky, a guy who is a far worse player than Kap.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Um, exactly how does one penalize an opinion?
> 
> Now, if you actually meant to say penalizing Kaepernick for his opinions, I've never been real shy about sharing my thoughts about him or his actions so, no, I'm not hiding behind anything. I believe he has earned every single bad thing that happens to him...



Interesting, why?  

Because he was protesting the murder of black people by the police?  

Uh, that's a bad thing. That sort of shit should not be happening in this country.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I've seen the other end of it..  sons of managers who get passes on so many awful mistakes, drinking buddies who had no business ever being hired.  The lady who was able to terrorize employees across the company because she was fucking the regional manager.



Interesting.

You proclaim that my workplace is toxic, yet you've got a regional manager who terrorizes employees. What did you do to try to stop her, and how does a regional manager terrorize people "across the company"?



> So today you are a tool, and that's much better.



No, today I'm a well-respected businessman and a well-loved employer.

Pity you're sorry lyin' ass will never know how good that feels...



> What are you smoking?  Shitty employees get retained, good employees get fired... if they aren't smart enough to quit.



I've never, ever fired a good employee.

I've fired peons like you, though...



> Not that anyone believes you are a successful business owner.



Honestly, it doesn't matter to me what people here choose to believe about my business. See, you're the needy one in that you constantly seek validation. I don't...



> You probably have some shitty little company that follows around bigger companies begging for business.



Begging is, I'm quite sure, your stock in trade.

I don't know what that's like...



> I deal with your sort all the time.



If you dealt with "my sort" all the time, it would be a one time shot. See, "my sort" doesn't work with liars. We don't work with dishonest people.

You have admitted to being both...



> That wasn't my job.  My job was to review customer demands and place orders for product based on those demands.   That job I did exceptionally well, as we never had a line down at the customer, nor did we have excessive inventory we ended up having to write off. (Which in that industry, is an accomplishment, it required very precise planning. They changed packaging designs several times a year and it was important to maintain PIPO and FIFO). I achieved substantial savings, which they didn't pass on to the customer, and the customer knew it.
> 
> It was not my job to make sure that sales people showed up at the customer and maintained those critical customer relationships, which is what these managers failed to do.  They figured that the three year contract they signed, built new facilities to service, etc.  was going to go on forever and ever and ever.



You really are a "pass the buck" kinda' guy.

Every single employee I have knows that they can freely com,e forward when they see something they think is amiss in an area which isn't within their purview. It's like those signs you see at the airport: "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING"...


----------



## Pogo

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!



In the case of the Dixie Chicks (Natalie Maines) they were (a) performing in London when she quipped that they were ashamed as Texans that the POTUS was from their state, (b) in the process of introducing a song called "Travelin' Soldier", which made the topic pertinent, and (c) performing just after the largest worldwide protest this planet has ever seen against the imminent invasion of Iraq, an event which was well covered around the world everywhere except the so-called "liburrul media" of the US (and China).  London had been of course heavily involved in that protest, an estimated two million in that city alone.

So basically the tongue-clicking social hall monitors of the music world were censoring them for expressing an opinion to a third party, in the third party's country, about who (else besides them) represented their own state. 

"Manufactured outrage", like manufactured consent.  Just as Kaepernick was quietly sitting out the national anthem making no waves wasn't noticed until some gadfly photographer snapped his picture to make "an issue" out of a private moment, some other gadfly went running back across the Atlantic to tattle.  Like the kid in fourth grade who raises his hand and says "Miss Grundy, Joey and Tony are making fun of you".  Because ve vill not tolerate das freedom von speech.  Ve vill hunt you down even across das ocean.

The band are still active by the way, they've shortened their name to "The Chicks".


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Why should the man have had to debase himself with a try-out?



Maybe because the 49'ers had a shit record, in 2016, Kaepernick's final year in the league. They finished last in thei9r division. They didn't win their second game until Christmas of that year...



> Yeah, heaven forbid the media be there, and he performed well enough to where a lot of the teams could hardly justify NOT hiring him, given the mediocre talent we had.



The terms were worked out and agreed to prior to the event. Backing out 30 minutes beforehand painted Kaepernick as someone who would put his best interests before the best interests of the team. He's not a team player, you see...



> I mean, seriously.  The Bears have Trubinsky, a guy who is a far worse player than Kap.



You know what I think is really funny?

As much as you're whining about how shitty a quarterback Trubinsky is and how he still has a job, you're completely clueless as to whose roster he's on.

You're dismissed...


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So basically you're absolving yourself of the burden of penalizing Kaepernick's opinions ---- as long as somebody else takes it on FOR you.  Way to hide behind a rock.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, exactly how does one penalize an opinion?
> 
> Now, if you actually meant to say penalizing Kaepernick for his opinions, I've never been real shy about sharing my thoughts about him or his actions so, no, I'm not hiding behind anything. I believe he has earned every single bad thing that happens to him...
Click to expand...


I just said that.  You're trying to hide behind the rock of "it wasn't me who fired him" while cheerleading those who do, and trying to sell this bullshit about, as you yourself said in the comment you CUT OUT:  " as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions".  You want to have it both ways --- you hope he never plays again, as some sort of weird penance for having an opinion, yet you want to wash your hands of that sentiment by having somebody else do it.  You want it both ways.  Oh and everything after that quote where you purport to speak for "what fans want", is self-ass-generated bullshit, so that has no basis.  Now you're trying to blame mythological fans as well.  Blame everybody but Numero Uno.

How do you penalize an opinion?  Whelp, you write posts like you just did, you snap pictures of a quiet personal moment and point at it shreiking (still waiting for that link to "the shit-stained left" by the way), you corral your radio stations to drop the band from the playlist, you kick Linda Ronstadt out of the hotel that was booked, things like that.  Of course all of those entities --- the radio stations, the hotels, the press --- have way more power than you do, don't they.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> I just said that.  You're trying to hide behind the rock of "it wasn't me who fired him" while cheerleading those who do, and trying to sell this bullshit about, as you yourself said in the comment you CUT OUT:  " as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions".  You want to have it both ways --- you hope he never plays again, as some sort of weird penance for having an opinion, yet you want to wash your hands of that sentiment by having somebody else do it.  You want it both ways.  Oh and everything after that quote where you purport to speak for "what fans want", is self-ass-generated bullshit, so that has no basis.  Now you're trying to blame mythological fans as well.  Blame everybody but Numero Uno.



Perhaps I should state the obvious: If I were in a position to fire him, I would've...



> you snap pictures of a quiet personal moment and point at it shreiking



Oh, so you're talking about this picture:


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Interesting.
> 
> You proclaim that my workplace is toxic, yet you've got a regional manager who terrorizes employees. What did you do to try to stop her, and how does a regional manager terrorize people "across the company"?



Oh, she got people fired for her mistakes...  that's how terrorizing she was.  I had a single run in with her, where she had this great new inventory system she invested in, and it failed miserably the first time it was tried.  She tried to put the blame on me before the whole system was quietly scrapped and never spoken of again. 

I don't work for that company... it's the one where i eventually got downsized after I busted up my knee. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Every single employee I have knows that they can freely com,e forward when they see something they think is amiss in an area which isn't within their purview. It's like those signs you see at the airport: "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING"...



Unless you fire them for having conversations you don't like, or charge them with a crime because you didn't clearly define what they could put on their expense report.  

Yeah, frankly, you don't sound like the kind of boss I could honestly have a discussion with.  You sound like the kind of boss people hide problems from because you make them a lot worse.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You know what I think is really funny?
> 
> As much as you're whining about how shitty a quarterback Trubinsky is and how he still has a job, you're completely clueless as to whose roster he's on.
> 
> You're dismissed...



I know he was on the bears and he was awful.  We'd have been better off with Kap.  

We finally traded him?  Thank God.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I've never, ever fired a good employee.
> 
> I've fired peons like you, though...



Again, you couldn't afford me, and I know how to avoid toxic bosses like you. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The terms were worked out and agreed to prior to the event. Backing out 30 minutes beforehand painted Kaepernick as someone who would put his best interests before the best interests of the team. He's not a team player, you see...



No, he just wasn't going to put up with their bullshit.  Good on him.  The NFL doesn't come off looking good on this at all.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I don't work for that company... it's the one where i eventually got downsized fired...



Fixed that for ya'...



> Unless you fire them for having conversations you don't like, or charge them with a crime because you didn't clearly define what they could put on their expense report.



Talkin' out your ass again.

I've covered the whole thing about religious and political discussions at work. I have few rules in my workplace, and the fact that you might not like them is meaningless to me.

As for the expense report, the person in question knew quite well what was permissible and what wasn't. He simply claimed an expense for one thing, say dinner or an airline ticket, for one of his clients, but was actually buying those for someone who _wasn't_ his client.

It's fascinating to me that you can be so monumentally fucking stupid as to not see the problem there...



> Yeah, frankly, you don't sound like the kind of boss I could honestly have a discussion with.  You sound like the kind of boss people hide problems from because you make them a lot worse.



You've admitted to being a liar.

You've admitted to conducting yourself, in a business climate, dishonestly. No reason to believe that doesn't carry over into your personal life.

You couldn't honestly have a discussion with anyone...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what I think is really funny?
> 
> As much as you're whining about how shitty a quarterback Trubinsky is and how he still has a job, you're completely clueless as to whose roster he's on.
> 
> You're dismissed...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he was on the bears and he was awful.  We'd have been better off with Kap.
> 
> We finally traded him?  Thank God.
Click to expand...


Just admit that you're stupid and we can move on.

Your arguments were baseless.

And the 49'ers had a record of 2-14 in 2016, thanks to Kaepernick...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Again, you couldn't afford me, and I know how to avoid toxic bosses like you.



My secretary makes more than you, dipshit...



> No, he just wasn't going to put up with their bullshit.  Good on him.  The NFL doesn't come off looking good on this at all.



They'd have come off looking far worse had Kaepernick been signed. 

Bottom line: he agreed to the terms of the workout, and then he reneged. Why would anyone want to hire such a person?


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just said that.  You're trying to hide behind the rock of "it wasn't me who fired him" while cheerleading those who do, and trying to sell this bullshit about, as you yourself said in the comment you CUT OUT:  " as much as I don't have to like it, so does he need to live with the ramifications of his actions".  You want to have it both ways --- you hope he never plays again, as some sort of weird penance for having an opinion, yet you want to wash your hands of that sentiment by having somebody else do it.  You want it both ways.  Oh and everything after that quote where you purport to speak for "what fans want", is self-ass-generated bullshit, so that has no basis.  Now you're trying to blame mythological fans as well.  Blame everybody but Numero Uno.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps I should state the obvious: If I were in a position to fire him, I would've...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you snap pictures of a quiet personal moment and point at it shreiking
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you're talking about this picture:
Click to expand...


Actually I was referring to this one....




Needless to say, I didn't put that arrow there --- it's in the original gadfly's picture who went out of his way to make an "issue" out of Kaepernick.  A photographer who, by his own fake outrage standards, should have been standing at rapt adoring fetish attention and not snapping pictures, speaking of people having it both ways....

.... however this does remind us, we're STILL waiting for that link to the official statement by"the shit-stained left", whatever that is.


----------



## Canon Shooter

What do you find offensive about Tebow's actions that you do not also find offensive about Kaepernick's?


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> What do you find offensive about Tebow's actions that you do not also find offensive about Kaepernick's?



"You"?

Who might "you" be?  
Ever hear of the quote function?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you find offensive about Tebow's actions that you do not also find offensive about Kaepernick's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You"?
> 
> Who might "you" be?
> Ever hear of the quote function?
Click to expand...


Just a general question to those, like you, who apparently have no issue with what Kaepernick, but take issue with what Tebow did. If you were smarter you'd have known that.

So, permit me to spoon-feed it to you: Pogo, what do you find offensive about Tebow kneeling, and do you find it equally offensive when Kaepernick kneels?


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you find offensive about Tebow's actions that you do not also find offensive about Kaepernick's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You"?
> 
> Who might "you" be?
> Ever hear of the quote function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a general question to those, like you, who apparently have no issue with what Kaepernick, but take issue with what Tebow did. If you were smarter you'd have known that.
> 
> So, permit me to spoon-feed it to you: Pogo, what do you find offensive about Tebow kneeling, and do you find it equally offensive when Kaepernick kneels?
Click to expand...


See, that's why you can't use the word "YOU" and call it a "general question".  If you cite a "YOU" then that requires a previous position that "YOU" (whoever "you" specifically is) took.  "YOU" is absolutely direct.  That's why most languages (and English used to) have a way around it so that it can be expressed indirectly.  So when you say "why do YOU", it must first be established that whoever "you" is took that position that's now in question.

As for me personally, since I've now been specifically named, I've never expressed any such opinion about Tim Tebow at all, so the question for me is inoperative.  Matter of fact I specifically pointed out that such displays are, and have been for as long as I can remember, commonplace in sports.  You'll recall it was the same post where I asked for a link to the  press conference of the "shit-stained left", which never appeared.

So I don't find either one of these guys "offensive".  What I do find offensive is people who can't (read: won't) read.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> See, that's why you can't use the word "YOU" and call it a "general question".  If you cite a "YOU" then that requires a previous position that "YOU" (whoever "you" specifically is) took.  "YOU" is absolutely direct.  That's why most languages (and English used to) have a way around it so that it can be expressed indirectly.  So when you say "why do YOU", it must first be established that whoever "you" is took that position that's now in question.



My apoloigies for assuming you'd be smart enough to figure out the intended audience of the question.

Please believe me when I say I'll never give you that much credit again...



> So I don't find either one of these guys "offensive".



So, each is acceptable? Kaepernick kneeling for social justice and Tebow kneeling in prayer?


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> See, that's why you can't use the word "YOU" and call it a "general question".  If you cite a "YOU" then that requires a previous position that "YOU" (whoever "you" specifically is) took.  "YOU" is absolutely direct.  That's why most languages (and English used to) have a way around it so that it can be expressed indirectly.  So when you say "why do YOU", it must first be established that whoever "you" is took that position that's now in question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apoloigies for assuming you'd be smart enough to figure out the intended audience of the question.
> 
> Please believe me when I say I'll never give you that much credit again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I don't find either one of these guys "offensive".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, each is acceptable? Kaepernick kneeling for social justice and Tebow kneeling in prayer?
Click to expand...


Sure, doesn't matter to me.  Why the fuck would it?  As I said in 672 it never mattered to me -- or anyone  else I knew  --- that Tony Taylor made the sign of the Cross when he came up to bat.  It's just one more ritual that player does.  Sports players are creatures of habit.

Your apology is misdirected.  What you need to be apologizing for is putting words in my mouth that were never there.  Particularly after I already took the opposite position.  Now work on that and I'll consider it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> Your apology is misdirected.



My apology was exactly as intended...

Your acceptance of it is actually pretty meaningless to me...


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your apology is misdirected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apology was exactly as intended...
> 
> Your acceptance of it is actually pretty meaningless to me...
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, you have two apologies waiting their turn.  One for ascribing positions to me that I never took (prove me wrong and quote it), and another for failing to read when it was all laid out there in the first place.

I'll check back for those apologies in a decade.

Genuflecting/praying in a sports game?  Who cares.  Being nakedly dishonest, THAT's offensive.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your apology is misdirected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apology was exactly as intended...
> 
> Your acceptance of it is actually pretty meaningless to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, you have two apologies waiting their turn.  One for ascribing positions to me that I never took (prove me wrong and quote it), and another for failing to read when it was all laid out there in the first place.
Click to expand...


Hold you breath, dipshit.

You were given an apology.

You will not be given another.

So fuck off...


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your apology is misdirected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My apology was exactly as intended...
> 
> Your acceptance of it is actually pretty meaningless to me...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to be clear, you have two apologies waiting their turn.  One for ascribing positions to me that I never took (prove me wrong and quote it), and another for failing to read when it was all laid out there in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hold you breath, dipshit.
> 
> You were given an apology.
> 
> You will not be given another.
> 
> So fuck off...
Click to expand...


Yep.  I knew you didn't have the stones.
Have any idea how boring it is being right _every_ time?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Pogo said:


> Yep.  I knew you didn't have the stones.



Meh. If you had the slightest bit of meaning to me, I might...



> Have any idea how boring it is being right _every_ time?



I sure do...


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> hadit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you fear what you don't understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand religion perfectly well.
> People are scared of dying.
> So if someone offers them a heaven of puppies and sunshine where they get to meet their beloved dead relatives again, they are all for it.
> And if you threaten them with fire and brimstone, they call right into line.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong, if all that keeps you sky pixie worshippers from being even worse than you already are, by all means, keep doing that.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand it at all, and you equally clearly fear it.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I've covered the whole thing about religious and political discussions at work. I have few rules in my workplace, and the fact that you might not like them is meaningless to me.



yes, you've spent a lot of time justifying your petty tyranny, we get that.   I hope you honestly tell your prospective employees this so the ones who aren't highly evolved masochists run away screaming in a serpentine pattern. 



Canon Shooter said:


> As for the expense report, the person in question knew quite well what was permissible and what wasn't. He simply claimed an expense for one thing, say dinner or an airline ticket, for one of his clients, but was actually buying those for someone who _wasn't_ his client.



So he was confused as to who his client was... again, sounds like pretty piss poor leadership that people don't know their lanes..  Or a bad manager covering his ass when something went south.  

I'll go with that second option.  



Canon Shooter said:


> It's fascinating to me that you can be so monumentally fucking stupid as to not see the problem there...



I see a huge problem.  The thing is we are now on Version #8 of this story.  He was allowed to buy plane tickets, but then he bought a plane ticket for someone who wasn't his customer for no apparent reason, even though this was your biggest customer and you already had the business.   

Ummm yeah...  Some day, we might get the truth out of this ever shifting narrative.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You've admitted to being a liar.
> 
> You've admitted to conducting yourself, in a business climate, dishonestly. No reason to believe that doesn't carry over into your personal life.



I've admitted to being a realist.  Real world.  Vendors lie to customers.  Customers lie to vendors. Managers lie to employees.  I've never told a lie to a customer unless directed to, such as not telling a vendor that we are pulling business from them until AFTER I've gotten set up with a new vendor.   That's dishonest, but it's also pragmatic.  I'd probably be in a lot more trouble if I told the vendor the truth...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Your arguments were baseless.
> 
> And the 49'ers had a record of 2-14 in 2016, thanks to Kaepernick...



I think there was a whole rest of the team there... but never mind.   

Come on, you don't care about the team, you are just all upset that he dared point out that we live in a country where the police murder black children.  

yes, when you put in your tagline "Be Like Monkeys", you kind of out yourself as a racist.


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course to someone of your ilk women are inferior. F••• you and your bigoted male supremacy narrative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, she was inferior for the following reason.
> 
> She had no experience in the field.  At that point, I had over 20 years experience in logistics, procurement and inventory management, including a stint in the US Army.
> 
> Point is, you go home with the person who brought you to the dance.   His staff kept him afloat for years, the growth he enjoyed was because we put in so many hours.  But his go-to was to get rid of the experienced people and keep the people he just hired on the cheap.   And as he said, "This is why I'm glad I don't have to deal with a union".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when are you moving out of your home to let in the new deserving black transgender undocumented occupants?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, probably later this year, because they are disbanding my condo association and turning it into rentals.  It will probably get all turned into Section 8 housing, so I'm clearing the hell out.
Click to expand...

I don’t want to hear your male supremacist delusions.

You really should take your savings and buy a nice home for some deserving transgender POC. Perhaps you could volunteer to clean toilets for the Section 8 housing while you apologize for your white privilege?


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh is that right ?? So you are in favor of reverse discrimination in order to hopefully see "white" folks suffer for what their ancestor's or relative's did eh ??? Matters not that people today had nothing to do with any of it, but only that you get to see a white person suffer eh ???? You're dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, if you are a failure despite all the advantages of being white in this country, then that's on you, not anyone else.
> 
> As I said, let's get rid of all the nepotism, hiring of buddies, racist HR Managers, etc.
> 
> That has nothing to do with the point (try to keep on point) that Conservatives have been cancelling people they didn't like for years....  now liberals are cancelling (not really, big corporations are) white people saying dumb racist things.
Click to expand...

Great deflection liberal lefty.


----------



## beagle9

Pogo said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you find offensive about Tebow's actions that you do not also find offensive about Kaepernick's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "You"?
> 
> Who might "you" be?
> Ever hear of the quote function?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just a general question to those, like you, who apparently have no issue with what Kaepernick, but take issue with what Tebow did. If you were smarter you'd have known that.
> 
> So, permit me to spoon-feed it to you: Pogo, what do you find offensive about Tebow kneeling, and do you find it equally offensive when Kaepernick kneels?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See, that's why you can't use the word "YOU" and call it a "general question".  If you cite a "YOU" then that requires a previous position that "YOU" (whoever "you" specifically is) took.  "YOU" is absolutely direct.  That's why most languages (and English used to) have a way around it so that it can be expressed indirectly.  So when you say "why do YOU", it must first be established that whoever "you" is took that position that's now in question.
> 
> As for me personally, since I've now been specifically named, I've never expressed any such opinion about Tim Tebow at all, so the question for me is inoperative.  Matter of fact I specifically pointed out that such displays are, and have been for as long as I can remember, commonplace in sports.  You'll recall it was the same post where I asked for a link to the  press conference of the "shit-stained left", which never appeared.
> 
> So I don't find either one of these guys "offensive".  What I do find offensive is people who can't (read: won't) read.
Click to expand...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> So he was confused as to who his client was... again, sounds like pretty piss poor leadership that people don't know their lanes..  Or a bad manager covering his ass when something went south.
> 
> I'll go with that second option.



He knew all too well who his clients were and who they weren't. He tried to get one over on management and failed...



> I see a huge problem.  The thing is we are now on Version #8 of this story.  He was allowed to buy plane tickets, but then he bought a plane ticket for someone who wasn't his customer for no apparent reason, even though this was your biggest customer and you already had the business.
> 
> Ummm yeah...  Some day, we might get the truth out of this ever shifting narrative.



Um, no.

He spent money, saying it was on things which it wasn't, and he got caught. I don't know why you think it was with my biggest customer, because it wasn't.

Or is that just you being a lying scumbag again?



> I've admitted to being a realist.  Real world.



No,. you've said you were dishonest and that you like to colleagues.

You're such a fucking scumbag...



> Vendors lie to customers.  Customers lie to vendors. Managers lie to employees.  I've never told a lie to a customer unless directed to, such as not telling a vendor that we are pulling business from them until AFTER I've gotten set up with a new vendor.   That's dishonest, but it's also pragmatic.  I'd probably be in a lot more trouble if I told the vendor the truth...



What a scumbag.

You're a lying little fuck and you want to be critical of me?

You've no station to be critical of me, scumbag. You're nothing but a lying fuck...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I think there was a whole rest of the team there... but never mind.



The fact of the matter is that he was a failed quarterback. A record of 2-14? Anyone who _wouldn't_ look at the quarterback is an idiot...



> Come on, you don't care about the team



I've never expressed any concern at all for the team, so your comment is stupid...



> you are just all upset that he dared point out that we live in a country where the police murder black children.



George Floyd was a child? Breonna Taylor was a child??

Who knew??



> yes, when you put in your tagline "Be Like Monkeys", you kind of out yourself as a racist.



If they weren't acting like monkeys, it might be racist.

But the fact of the matter is that it's not racist. It's accurate...


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


Yes and No JoeB131
It is one thing to react and treat Gina Carano the way you want based on something she actually said.

It is another thing to promote your own claims in the media declaring her statements "anti semitic" and then reacting to that opinion stated by other people by targeting her.

With Kaepernick, yes he has the right to express his own opinion and receive the consequences.
In his case, his freedom to protest or express opposition is SEPARATE from
1. Using paid company time to make political statements on public TV while working under contract to represent that company or team
2. Misrepresenting the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner as targeting Black slaves when the real context around the verses applied to both Black and White men forced to fight for the British under forced impressment of sailors. Again, you can have and express your own opinion on what the contested lyrics applied to, but spreading misrpresentation to incite more conflict is going to meet with objections and consequences.


----------



## JoeB131

Thunderbird said:


> I don’t want to hear your male supremacist delusions.
> 
> You really should take your savings and buy a nice home for some deserving transgender POC. Perhaps you could volunteer to clean toilets for the Section 8 housing while you apologize for your white privilege?



Why would I need to do that.   Just eliminate racism and they'll be fine.  



beagle9 said:


> Great deflection liberal lefty.



No deflection at all.... you'd be a white trash loser even without affirmative action.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He knew all too well who his clients were and who they weren't. He tried to get one over on management and failed...



Yeah, again, sounds like bad management to me.  I can't imagine why he'd do that if there was no benefit for him. He wasn't going to get the commissions for new sales.  I mean, unless he was getting laid or something, I can't see it.  I'm sure there's more to this story, but those parts make you look bad. 




Canon Shooter said:


> Um, no.
> 
> He spent money, saying it was on things which it wasn't, and he got caught. I don't know why you think it was with my biggest customer, because it wasn't.
> 
> Or is that just you being a lying scumbag again?



You said that this guy damaged your relationship with an important customer, and you had to repair that relationship....   Why would you care about that part of it if it wasn't a big customer?   Again, lots to this story, shifting versions, we aren't getting the whole story. 

This is either poor direction or poor supervision, with some poor schlub being made a scapegoat when it all went south.  



Canon Shooter said:


> George Floyd was a child? Breonna Taylor was a child??
> 
> Who knew??



LaQuan McDonald was a child.  Tamir Rice was a child.  When Kap started protesting, those were the people the cops had murdered.   They hadn't gotten around to murdering Floyd and Taylor, yet.  



Canon Shooter said:


> If they weren't acting like monkeys, it might be racist.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that it's not racist. It's accurate...



Okay, monkeys don't engage in protests when another monkey is killed.  They don't demand justice or reform.  So your argument is- RACIST.   

Again- the right wing (and probably you personally, judging by the Molon Labe comments) made martyrs out of David Koresh (child molester, cultist, gun runner) and Randy Weaver (Nazi) when police used excessive force on them, but you have no problem when people who are actually innocent get murdered.  

I'd ask how many black employees you have, but you'll probably lie about that, too.  



Canon Shooter said:


> No,. you've said you were dishonest and that you like to colleagues.



Said nothing of the sort, but English comprehension isn't your strong point. 

So yes or no, when your planning to change vendors, do you outright tell the vendor they are going to be fired before you've secured alternate sourcing?


----------



## JoeB131

Since you are being relatively concise for a change, I'll respond. 



emilynghiem said:


> Yes and No @JoeB131
> It is one thing to react and treat Gina Carano the way you want based on something she actually said.
> 
> It is another thing to promote your own claims in the media declaring her statements "anti semitic" and then reacting to that opinion stated by other people by targeting her.



What she said was downright demeaning to the victims of the holocaust.  Sorry, man, being banned from Twitter is not like having all your posessions taken and then getting sent to the gas chamber.  



emilynghiem said:


> With Kaepernick, yes he has the right to express his own opinion and receive the consequences.
> In his case, his freedom to protest or express opposition is SEPARATE from
> 1. Using paid company time to make political statements on public TV while working under contract to represent that company or team



Except he wasn't being paid to stand for the National Anthem (A kind of meaningless gesture we should probably just stop. He was being paid to play football, and he played football.  

Again, you and Canon Shooter and the rest of the white privilege crowd can sit their calmly about it.  Nobody is going to pull you over for a DWB (Driving While Black) and then panic and shoot you, which happens in this country.  




emilynghiem said:


> 2. Misrepresenting the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner as targeting Black slaves when the real context around the verses applied to both Black and White men forced to fight for the British under forced impressment of sailors. Again, you can have and express your own opinion on what the contested lyrics applied to, but spreading misrpresentation to incite more conflict is going to meet with objections and consequences.



I haven't seen anything where Kaepernick was complained about the lyrics.  

If you want to actually talk about the War of 1812, the US was in the wrong there.  We were trading with Napoleon and tried to take Canada from the British while they were distracted by stopping Napoleon's attempts at world conquest.  Not to mention that Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa and maliciously prosecuted an abolitionist.  

As for the lyrics themselves.  They glorify war.  So there's that.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, again, sounds like bad management to me.  I can't imagine why he'd do that if there was no benefit for him. He wasn't going to get the commissions for new sales.  I mean, unless he was getting laid or something, I can't see it.  I'm sure there's more to this story, but those parts make you look bad.



I'll give you this much, you certainly have a knack for ignorantly jabbering on about things you know nothing about.

Had he gotten away with what he was doing, there certainly would've been a benefit to him. Your continued display of unfettered ignorance is fascinating...



> You said that this guy damaged your relationship with an important customer, and you had to repair that relationship....   Why would you care about that part of it if it wasn't a big customer?   Again, lots to this story, shifting versions, we aren't getting the whole story.



You referred to the customer as my "most important". He wasn't, and isn't. In fact, I never said he was a customer at all. He is, however, a valued colleague in the industry and one with whom I've enjoyed a great professional relationship...



> LaQuan McDonald was a child.  Tamir Rice was a child.  When Kap started protesting, those were the people the cops had murdered.



Tamir Rice wasn't murdered. The police officer showed up and saw a young black male pulling a gun from his waistband. From a distance, it looked like a real gun. The police officer was found to have reacted appropriately...



> Okay, monkeys don't engage in protests when another monkey is killed.  They don't demand justice or reform.  So your argument is- RACIST.



Um, okay, so it's racist...



> Again- the right wing (and probably you personally, judging by the Molon Labe comments) made martyrs out of David Koresh (child molester, cultist, gun runner) and Randy Weaver (Nazi) when police used excessive force on them, but you have no problem when people who are actually innocent get murdered.



Once again, it's funny to watch you try to come across like you know anything.

I had, and have, no problem with Koresh being killed. And while Weaver wasn't a Nazi, he _was _a white separatist. Unlike gun running and molesting children, that's not illegal...



> I'd ask how many black employees you have, but you'll probably lie about that, too.



And that's why expecting a decent conversation out of you is silly. You're so fucking stupid that you vow to dismiss information you've not yet been given. That's funny, because you're the one who is the self-admitted liar...



> Said nothing of the sort, but English comprehension isn't your strong point.



Liar...



> So yes or no, when your planning to change vendors, do you outright tell the vendor they are going to be fired before you've secured alternate sourcing?



You're so goddamn stupid. It's no wonder the company you worked for went tits up. It's never the fault of just one person, and you come across as the type of guy who could be a big help in destroying a company.

I'm not afraid of difficult conversations, and I don't sugar-coat anything. If I'm thinking about changing vendors, there's going to be a reason. Whoever I'm with at the time needs to know what it is about their company that's making me look elsewhere. Remember, a current vendor isn't going to want to lose an account. I'll always give a vendor a chance to keep my business, especially if I've been with them for a while.

And, seeing as you're about as superficial as they come, you should know the decision doesn't always come down to money. The vendor reps I have now are people who'll answer their phone at three in the morning if there's an issue. I could pay less, but I would also get a lower standard of service...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Again, you and Canon Shooter and the rest of the white privilege crowd can sit their calmly about it.  Nobody is going to pull you over for a DWB (Driving While Black) and then panic and shoot you, which happens in this country.



Hey, sucks to be black, huh?

I laugh anytime someone tells me I'm "privileged" because I'm white. Maybe if negroes didn't act like animals they'd be treated better...


----------



## emilynghiem

JoeB131 said:


> Since you are being relatively concise for a change, I'll respond.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and No @JoeB131
> It is one thing to react and treat Gina Carano the way you want based on something she actually said.
> 
> It is another thing to promote your own claims in the media declaring her statements "anti semitic" and then reacting to that opinion stated by other people by targeting her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What she said was downright demeaning to the victims of the holocaust.  Sorry, man, being banned from Twitter is not like having all your posessions taken and then getting sent to the gas chamber.
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> With Kaepernick, yes he has the right to express his own opinion and receive the consequences.
> In his case, his freedom to protest or express opposition is SEPARATE from
> 1. Using paid company time to make political statements on public TV while working under contract to represent that company or team
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except he wasn't being paid to stand for the National Anthem (A kind of meaningless gesture we should probably just stop. He was being paid to play football, and he played football.
> 
> Again, you and Canon Shooter and the rest of the white privilege crowd can sit their calmly about it.  Nobody is going to pull you over for a DWB (Driving While Black) and then panic and shoot you, which happens in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Misrepresenting the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner as targeting Black slaves when the real context around the verses applied to both Black and White men forced to fight for the British under forced impressment of sailors. Again, you can have and express your own opinion on what the contested lyrics applied to, but spreading misrpresentation to incite more conflict is going to meet with objections and consequences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't seen anything where Kaepernick was complained about the lyrics.
> 
> If you want to actually talk about the War of 1812, the US was in the wrong there.  We were trading with Napoleon and tried to take Canada from the British while they were distracted by stopping Napoleon's attempts at world conquest.  Not to mention that Francis Scott Key was a slave owner, wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa and maliciously prosecuted an abolitionist.
> 
> As for the lyrics themselves.  They glorify war.  So there's that.
Click to expand...

Dear JoeB131 
1. I have invested over 60,000 of my own in credit card payments to help several nonprofits in historic Black districts trying to buy and save property but getting abused, destroyed and defrauded by corporate and political discrimination at taxpayer expense. What have you done to help stop genocide against Blacks by their own Democrat politicians besides preaching to others safely through electronic media while your taxes and party donations keep paying for corrupt Democrat abuses of Black voters destroying their communities?

The solution is LAND ownership and SELF government so these communities are liberated not subjugated and dependent on govt.

What makes you think I haven't shared part of the cost of reparations? 

When my neighbor and community


----------



## airplanemechanic

JoeB131 said:


> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343



You lied right there.  They didn't "express their opinion that our war in Iraq was a bad idea."  The leader of that band went overseas WHILE OUR MEN AND WOMEN WERE DYING IN AFGHANISTAN and said they weren't proud to be Americans anymore. She later apologized for her statement, but then later retracted it. So they are now the nothing chicks.

THATS WHAT SHE SAID.

Now, reply with an apology or I'll call you the fucking liar that you are.


----------



## Canon Shooter

airplanemechanic said:


> Now, reply with an apology or I'll call you the fucking liar that you are.



That won't matter to Pinhead Joe. He's a self-admitted liar, boasting about how he lies in his everyday business dealings. There's not a single reason to think he doesn't do it outside the business world, as well...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I'll give you this much, you certainly have a knack for ignorantly jabbering on about things you know nothing about.
> 
> Had he gotten away with what he was doing, there certainly would've been a benefit to him. Your continued display of unfettered ignorance is fascinating...



Um, yeah, okay... Frankly, I'm not seeing how...  The whole story the way you've told it makes not a lick of sense. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Hey, sucks to be black, huh?
> 
> I laugh anytime someone tells me I'm "privileged" because I'm white. Maybe if negroes didn't act like animals they'd be treated better...



Maybe if white racists didn't act like such shitheads, they wouldn't retaliate..  

The fact you are more upset about broken windows than lost lives tells you a lot about your "value system" or lack thereof.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I had, and have, no problem with Koresh being killed. And while Weaver wasn't a Nazi, he _was _a white separatist. Unlike gun running and molesting children, that's not illegal...



Sorry, man, Weaver was a Nazi... and he murdered a federal agent, and that is illegal. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You're so goddamn stupid. It's no wonder the company you worked for went tits up. It's never the fault of just one person, and you come across as the type of guy who could be a big help in destroying a company.



Nope, that was all on Nose Candy... If anything, I probably gave it more life than it deserved.   



Canon Shooter said:


> And, seeing as you're about as superficial as they come, you should know the decision doesn't always come down to money. The vendor reps I have now are people who'll answer their phone at three in the morning if there's an issue. I could pay less, but I would also get a lower standard of service...



Depends on the industry... I've been in industries where money was the ONLY factor.  But you dodged the question.  Do you tell a vendor you are going to fire them before you've gotten a new vendor lined up?  Yes or no?  It was a simple question.


----------



## JoeB131

airplanemechanic said:


> You lied right there. They didn't "express their opinion that our war in Iraq was a bad idea." The leader of that band went overseas WHILE OUR MEN AND WOMEN WERE DYING IN AFGHANISTAN and said they weren't proud to be Americans anymore. She later apologized for her statement, but then later retracted it. So they are now the nothing chicks.
> 
> THATS WHAT SHE SAID.
> 
> Now, reply with an apology or I'll call you the fucking liar that you are.



Okay, I am sorry you are such a stupid fuck that you aren't man enough to admit that Bush's War in Iraq (not Afghanistan) was a crime against humanity and the Dixie Chicks were perfectly right in criticizing it.   

But it wasn't like anyone you cared about was going to come home in a box from there.


----------



## JoeB131

emilynghiem said:


> 1. I have invested over 60,000 of my own in credit card payments to help several nonprofits in historic Black districts trying to buy and save property but getting abused, destroyed and defrauded by corporate and political discrimination at taxpayer expense. What have you done to help stop genocide against Blacks by their own Democrat politicians besides preaching to others safely through electronic media while your taxes and party donations keep paying for corrupt Democrat abuses of Black voters destroying their communities?



Okay, you just went full retard.  Never go full retard.


----------



## Synthaholic

U


Desperado said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bt what exactly did she say?
Click to expand...

Use your Google.


----------



## Synthaholic

Canon Shooter said:


> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...


Was Tebow kept from playing? No.

Holy shit you're dumb.


----------



## Synthaholic

Thoth001 said:


> You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.


You have to be very ignorant to believe that you know more than the scientists and the medical community.


----------



## Synthaholic

petro said:


> and the Peanut farmer


Republicans hate working Americans..


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


Carano didn't post anything racist or homophobic. You guys turned it into that, but her tweets were not any of that. 

As far as kapernick and Carano being fired, hey, its all said and done, and like you all have said, and the right as said it too, a company has the right to employ anyone, or fire anyone, for whatever reason. 

Its all cancel culture and both sides are doing it. Might as well get used to it, its the new normal.


----------



## Synthaholic

Darkwind said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with.  It cannot get more unAmerican.
Click to expand...

Yet it was conservatives who cancelled Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks, an Colin Kaepernick.

Haven't you been paying attention? Did you read the OP or just stumble in here drunk?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> um, yeah, okay... Frankly, I'm not seeing how...  The whole story the way you've told it makes not a lick of sense.



You don't have all the information, dipshit. But that didn't let that stop you from stuidly pretending that you're some business savant who knows everything about someone _else's _business.

See, an intelligent person would've asked "What did he stand to gain?", whereas you simply declared that there was no benefit to him, as if to say that, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.

You've got a rather misguided sense of self worth, Joey...



> Maybe if white racists didn't act like such shitheads, they wouldn't retaliate.



Countless whites (who aren't racists) had their livelihoods destroyed during the negro uprising. And why? Because the negroes were angry? FUck them. They should've been shot dead in the streets...



> The fact you are more upset about broken windows than lost lives tells you a lot about your "value system" or lack thereof.



My "value system" tells me that it's wrong to destroy something that isn't yours just because you're angry, that if you do, you should fully expect a violent response which displays little to no regard for your well-being...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Sorry, man, Weaver was a Nazi...



No, he wasn't...



> and he murdered a federal agent, and that is illegal.



Okay, what's your point?



> Nope, that was all on Nose Candy... If anything, I probably gave it more life than it deserved.



So you helped prolong th misery?

A good employee would've seen the writing on the wall and acted. You saw the writing on the wall and abetted...



Canon Shooter said:


> Depends on the industry... I've been in industries where money was the ONLY factor.  But you dodged the question.  Do you tell a vendor you are going to fire them before you've gotten a new vendor lined up?  Yes or no?  It was a simple question.



I answered your question, dummy...


----------



## ThisIsMe

Jets said:


> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.


Hmm...its supposed to, otherwise, what is the point of having free speech? If you will be punished for your speech, then it really isn't "free" is it?


----------



## Canon Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Was Tebow kept from playing? No.



Such a statement suggests that you believe the NFL had some responsibility to ensure that Kaepernick stayed employed.

The only person who guaranteed the he wouldn't play was Kaepernick. His actions ensured that. When he failed to show up for the workout the NFL had set up for him, might as well have just announced his retirement...


----------



## Canon Shooter

ThisIsMe said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...its supposed to, otherwise, what is the point of having free speech? If you will be punished for your speech, then it really isn't "free" is it?
Click to expand...


Having the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you.

No one is telling you that you can't call him that; you always retain that right. You just need to be aware that there could be repercussions...


----------



## Synthaholic

Canon Shooter said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Tebow kept from playing? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a statement suggests that you believe the NFL had some responsibility to ensure that Kaepernick stayed employed.
Click to expand...

No, such a statement suggests that the NFL was responsible for ensuring that Kaepernick stayed unemployed.


----------



## Darkwind

Synthaholic said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> The biggest example of right wing cancel culture were the red scares and Joe McCarthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Not anymore.
> 
> Today's cancel culture, led by the likes of the OP, serves to prove that you people are 100% anti-American.
> 
> It is 100% against our values that we destroy people for speaking things we disagree with.  It cannot get more unAmerican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yet it was conservatives who cancelled Jane Fonda, the Dixie Chicks, an Colin Kaepernick.
> 
> Haven't you been paying attention? Did you read the OP or just stumble in here drunk?
Click to expand...

liar.  Jane Fonda, The Dixie Chicks all continued to work, even though the former was a traitor, and the later were just stupid bitches.  They were not stopped from making music.

Colin Kaepernick has not been stopped from working because of canceled culture.  He just fucking sucks at his trade.


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t want to hear your male supremacist delusions.
> 
> You really should take your savings and buy a nice home for some deserving transgender POC. Perhaps you could volunteer to clean toilets for the Section 8 housing while you apologize for your white privilege?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need to do that.   Just eliminate racism and they'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great deflection liberal lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deflection at all.... you'd be a white trash loser even without affirmative action.
Click to expand...

So smart you think that you are, but I think that you are so transparently stupid, and yet full of wicked wisdom in order to undermine American's with your hatred and wickedness on display.. That's the reality of the situation..... Better read up on the meaning of having wicked wisdom as opposed to having Godly wisdom, and maybe it would make you think hmmmmmm, but as wickedly egotistical as you are, I don't think that it would penetrate that hollow skull because the outer layer has become way to thick.


----------



## JoeB131

So, so, needy  



Canon Shooter said:


> You don't have all the information, dipshit. But that didn't let that stop you from stuidly pretending that you're some business savant who knows everything about someone _else's _business.
> 
> See, an intelligent person would've asked "What did he stand to gain?", whereas you simply declared that there was no benefit to him, as if to say that, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.



Naw, you have told so many versions of this story, you haven't really made any sense at all... and honestly, it really sounds like you made this poor schlub the scapegoat for your bad management.  



Canon Shooter said:


> So you helped prolong th misery?
> 
> A good employee would've seen the writing on the wall and acted. You saw the writing on the wall and abetted...



Actually, I looked out for my team and our customers, many of whom we built good relationships with.  The problem here was that Nose Candy didn't build the company (his parents did) and really didn't understand the business  

In retrospect, I should have been sending out resumes a year before the end came...  but if anything, I was too emotionally invested...  a mistake I never repeated after that.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Tebow kept from playing? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a statement suggests that you believe the NFL had some responsibility to ensure that Kaepernick stayed employed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, such a statement suggests that the NFL was responsible for ensuring that Kaepernick stayed unemployed.
Click to expand...


Kaepernick didn't have the skills that NFL teams needed. His last season in the NFL the 49'ers were 2-14. The only conclusion NFL teams could make is that he didn't have what it took any more. Furthermore, when he had the chance to show them whether or not he still had it, he walked away. I think only seven teams were not in attendance, and he reneged.

He sealed his own fate...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, you have told so many versions of this story, you haven't really made any sense at all... and honestly, it really sounds like you made this poor schlub the scapegoat for your bad management.



Wow, you really hate being shown how fucked up your argument is. See, without all of the information, you can't reach an intelligent conclusion. It's impossible. That's why I haven't given you all of the information. I wanted to see if you would solicit it or stupidly act as though you're all knowing.

I would've bet my last nickel it would be the latter, and it was...



> Actually, I looked out for my team and our customers, many of whom we built good relationships with.  The problem here was that Nose Candy didn't build the company (his parents did) and really didn't understand the business



And it's equally clear that there was no one employed there who had the knowledge or the talent to help him. I knew you were a liar, but I didn't know you were a talentless liar...



> In retrospect, I should have been sending out resumes a year before the end came...  but if anything, I was too emotionally invested...  a mistake I never repeated after that.



Awwww, you got all emotional?

And you claim to be a good businessman? Well, I guess if you lack in intelligence you make up for in emotion.

Did you cry when the turned the lights off for the last time?


----------



## Thunderbird

JoeB131 said:


> Thunderbird said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don’t want to hear your male supremacist delusions.
> 
> You really should take your savings and buy a nice home for some deserving transgender POC. Perhaps you could volunteer to clean toilets for the Section 8 housing while you apologize for your white privilege?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I need to do that.   Just eliminate racism and they'll be fine.
> 
> 
> 
> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great deflection liberal lefty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deflection at all.... you'd be a white trash loser even without affirmative action.
Click to expand...

You need to pay for your admitted white privilege. If you don’t compensate POC you are a racist.


----------



## Thoth001

Synthaholic said:


> U
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those are all good points but I do wonder what did Gina Carano say that you label as racist, conspiratorial and transphobic? What even is transphobic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrational fear of transsexual Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transphobic, anti-mask, and Holocaust tweets that led to Gina Carano getting fired from Disney's The Mandalorian
> 
> 
> Former MMA star and actress Gina Carano continues to trend worldwide after being fired unceremoniously from Disney's The Mandalorian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sportskeeda.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bt what exactly did she say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Use your Google.
Click to expand...


Informed people don't use Google anymore. What are you smoking?


----------



## Thoth001

Synthaholic said:


> Thoth001 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be very ignorant to think a health person will make you sick. That is a fraud so they could force the lock downs and people to wear these face diapers.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to be very ignorant to believe that you know more than the scientists and the medical community.
Click to expand...


Science has been kidnapped by Scientism that is absolutely driven by corporate bottom lines and agendas. 

Much of the medical community don't have time to research any of these things. And many that do know what is actually going on, can't speak up or they will lose their licenses and get fired. Just ask Dr. Simone Gold.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Kaepernick didn't have the skills that NFL teams needed. His last season in the NFL the 49'ers were 2-14. The only conclusion NFL teams could make is that he didn't have what it took any more. Furthermore, when he had the chance to show them whether or not he still had it, he walked away. I think only seven teams were not in attendance, and he reneged.
> 
> He sealed his own fate...



Uh-huh.  The teams insisted on no media, so in case he did show he still had it, they couldn't very well balk at not hiring him.  

Come on... get real, the man was cancelled for taking a stand against police brutality... until that became popular and the NFL didn't dare stop it.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Wow, you really hate being shown how fucked up your argument is. See, without all of the information, you can't reach an intelligent conclusion. It's impossible. That's why I haven't given you all of the information. I wanted to see if you would solicit it or stupidly act as though you're all knowing.



Uh, huh.  Actually, you've presented a narrative that makes little or no sense, and if you were in the right, you'd have had all your facts lined up.  



Canon Shooter said:


> And it's equally clear that there was no one employed there who had the knowledge or the talent to help him. I knew you were a liar, but I didn't know you were a talentless liar...



Kind of hard to use "knowledge" when dealing with people who don't listen.  We told Nose Candy for years what he had to fix, but instead he let problems keep getting worse.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Awwww, you got all emotional?
> 
> And you claim to be a good businessman? Well, I guess if you lack in intelligence you make up for in emotion.
> 
> Did you cry when the turned the lights off for the last time?



Darn straight I was upset.  Some of us put lots of hours in there, had been with the company for years.... But when you give more of a shit than the owners and managers, it's time to leave.


----------



## ThisIsMe

Canon Shooter said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...its supposed to, otherwise, what is the point of having free speech? If you will be punished for your speech, then it really isn't "free" is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you.
> 
> No one is telling you that you can't call him that; you always retain that right. You just need to be aware that there could be repercussions...
Click to expand...

True, because that would be my boss, and in a company, they have rules about that sort of thing. 

In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech. 

I've already said that what happened to Carano and Kapernick was the right of the their employers. I don't agree with them, but it is their right. Cancel culture is wrong, no matter which side does it.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Uh-huh.  The teams insisted on no media, so in case he did show he still had it, they couldn't very well balk at not hiring him.



Bitch, please. Michael Vick found a job, surely Kaepernick would've. The fact is that he waited until the last minute to drop out of it. He's unemployed because of his own actions...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, huh.  Actually, you've presented a narrative that makes little or no sense, and if you were in the right, you'd have had all your facts lined up.



Actually, the only narrative that matters is that an employee was misappropriating funds. Period. That's all you need to know. Your accusations that he "made a mistake" are laughable. If that's all it was he wouldn't have plead guilty to avoid jail time. He wouldn't have paid restitution and his name wouldn't be kryptonite in the industry. He made over $100K a year while he worked for me and drove a really sweet Corvette. He now works at Auto Zone for $14 an hour and drives a 1985 Chrysler Laser.

I chuckle, just a little, when I think of that.

You don't have all the facts for no other reason than you're nothing but some blowhard lying loser on the internet trying to pretend as though he knows everything about everything...



Canon Shooter said:


> Kind of hard to use "knowledge" when dealing with people who don't listen.  We told Nose Candy for years what he had to fix, but instead he let problems keep getting worse.



Oh, I've had employees who believed they would know what was best for my business. As I always solicit input from my people, I looked at his suggestions and had a good laugh. I'd probably be in the poorhouse now had I followed them...



> Darn straight I was upset.  Some of us put lots of hours in there, had been with the company for years.... But when you give more of a shit than the owners and managers, it's time to leave.



Did you need a tissue?


----------



## Canon Shooter

ThisIsMe said:


> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.



Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you should be able to avoid repercussions from what you say about your boss while not on the company dime?


----------



## Synthaholic

Canon Shooter said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Tebow kept from playing? No.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such a statement suggests that you believe the NFL had some responsibility to ensure that Kaepernick stayed employed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, such a statement suggests that the NFL was responsible for ensuring that Kaepernick stayed unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kaepernick didn't have the skills that NFL teams needed. His last season in the NFL the 49'ers were 2-14. The only conclusion NFL teams could make is that he didn't have what it took any more. Furthermore, when he had the chance to show them whether or not he still had it, he walked away. I think only seven teams were not in attendance, and he reneged.
> 
> He sealed his own fate...
Click to expand...

You're a dishonest piece of shit aren't you? I should just block you.
10 QBs were worse.
7 QBs were as good.
15 QBs were better.



			https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/sports/kaepernick-tracker/


----------



## beagle9

ThisIsMe said:


> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...its supposed to, otherwise, what is the point of having free speech? If you will be punished for your speech, then it really isn't "free" is it?
Click to expand...

Good point, but I guess it depends on the thought of what supposed free speech can be used. There are limits, but only if crossing certain lines. Speech can get into the illegal relm's, and this is where our laws take over. I still like your point though..


----------



## ThisIsMe

Canon Shooter said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you should be able to avoid repercussions from what you say about your boss while not on the company dime?
Click to expand...

No, I said that employers have rules about how you should treat other employees, and that applies even when away from work. 

What I mean is, you should be able to speak your mind in public places, such as forums and social media, without fear of reprisal. The fact that we do have consequence means the whole concept of free speech is actually null. In truth, we don't actually have free speech, since, as you pointed out, and as we have seen in recent news, your words do have consequence. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. 

I guess it is true, free speech only applies to government regulating your ability to speak, in the public sphere, people have made sure you can't speak your mind. 

So, I guess what I'm saying is, outside of government, free speech doesn't actually exist.


----------



## ThisIsMe

beagle9 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jets said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn’t complicated.
> 
> Freedom of speech does not shield one from repercussions there after.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm...its supposed to, otherwise, what is the point of having free speech? If you will be punished for your speech, then it really isn't "free" is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good point, but I guess it depends on the thought of what supposed free speech can be used. There are limits, but only if crossing certain lines. Speech can get into the illegal relm's, and this is where our laws take over. I still like your point though..
Click to expand...

Well, the truth is, cannon shooter is right, we don't actually have free speech. Even thought the government shouldn't be able to censor and punish you for your words, the public sure can. He is right, you have to mind your words, or suffer consequences. If you take to social media and say something, and your employer gets wind of it, you can be fired. Or if someone you do business with, they can cancel your business together. 

Like I said before, cancel culture is here, and its vicious, and both sides do it, and get ready, because its here to stay. 

Man, George Orwell was right.....


----------



## Canon Shooter

Synthaholic said:


> You're a dishonest piece of shit aren't you? I should just block you.



Oh, don't tease me...


----------



## Canon Shooter

ThisIsMe said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you should be able to avoid repercussions from what you say about your boss while not on the company dime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I said that employers have rules about how you should treat other employees, and that applies even when away from work.
> 
> What I mean is, you should be able to speak your mind in public places, such as forums and social media, without fear of reprisal. The fact that we do have consequence means the whole concept of free speech is actually null. In truth, we don't actually have free speech, since, as you pointed out, and as we have seen in recent news, your words do have consequence. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
> 
> I guess it is true, free speech only applies to government regulating your ability to speak, in the public sphere, people have made sure you can't speak your mind.
> 
> So, I guess what I'm saying is, outside of government, free speech doesn't actually exist.
Click to expand...


You always have the right to say what you want to say (the crowded theater thing being the exception).

No one is telling you you can;t call your boss a cocksucker. You are free to do that. But to expect to be able to do that and be absolved of any responsibility for having said it is silly. There's nothing about the concept of free speech which means you can't suffer repercussions for saying something. If you know your boss will fire you for calling his a cocksucker, and you call him that and he finds out and fires you, well, you freely made the choice to say it. _That's_ what's meant by freedom of speech.

Not that you shouldn't be held to account for your words...


----------



## beagle9

Canon Shooter said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just so I'm clear, are you saying that you should be able to avoid repercussions from what you say about your boss while not on the company dime?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I said that employers have rules about how you should treat other employees, and that applies even when away from work.
> 
> What I mean is, you should be able to speak your mind in public places, such as forums and social media, without fear of reprisal. The fact that we do have consequence means the whole concept of free speech is actually null. In truth, we don't actually have free speech, since, as you pointed out, and as we have seen in recent news, your words do have consequence. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.
> 
> I guess it is true, free speech only applies to government regulating your ability to speak, in the public sphere, people have made sure you can't speak your mind.
> 
> So, I guess what I'm saying is, outside of government, free speech doesn't actually exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You always have the right to say what you want to say (the crowded theater thing being the exception).
> 
> No one is telling you you can;t call your boss a cocksucker. You are free to do that. But to expect to be able to do that and be absolved of any responsibility for having said it is silly. There's nothing about the concept of free speech which means you can't suffer repercussions for saying something. If you know your boss will fire you for calling his a cocksucker, and you call him that and he finds out and fires you, well, you freely made the choice to say it. _That's_ what's meant by freedom of speech.
> 
> Not that you shouldn't be held to account for your words...
Click to expand...

Agree..... Another example is "someone calls your mama a (#*"@$), and you retaliate immediately. Well speech has consequences at that point for sure.

Might end up in jail for it, but ohhh well. LOL


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> With Kaepernick, yes he has the right to express his own opinion and receive the consequences.
> In his case, his freedom to protest or express opposition is SEPARATE from
> 1. Using paid company time to make political statements on public TV while working under contract to represent that company or team
> 2. Misrepresenting the lyrics of the Star Spangled Banner as targeting Black slaves when the real context around the verses applied to both Black and White men forced to fight for the British under forced impressment of sailors. Again, you can have and express your own opinion on what the contested lyrics applied to, but spreading misrpresentation to incite more conflict is going to meet with objections and consequences.



Number 1: the national anthem before a football game is (a) *NOT* "company time" as the game he's paid to play doesn't begin until the kickoff, and (b) is *NOT* on any kind of TV, public or commercial, because the broadcast begins with the kickoff --- _AFTER_ that political theater stunt has already happened.

In fact the only reason this became a "thing" at all was that some photographer, who by his own tongue-clicking standard was supposed to be standing in rapt adoring fetish-prayer, instead snapped a picture of Kaepernick from behind, sitting quietly on the bench making no waves at all.  THAT is who started this bullshit, not Kaepernick.  See post 644 and the twenty kabillion skillion times we've done this same point in the past which was apparently talking to the FUCKING WALL.

By the way, care to explain to the class how a football player sitting quietly on the bench during the anthem is somehow outrage-worthy, while a photographer peeping around to see what kind of yellow journalism story he can make up ALSO during the anthem, is not?

Number 2:  Where did Kaepernick "misrepresent the lyrics of the SSB"?


----------



## Pogo

Canon Shooter said:


> Having the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. I



How true.  Such as here.

We continue to sit and wait for that link to "the shit-stained left".  But we continue to not expect anything.
Ramifications.  And responsibilities.


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> True, because that would be my boss, and in a company, they have rules about that sort of thing.
> 
> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.
> 
> I've already said that what happened to Carano and Kapernick was the right of the their employers. I don't agree with them, but it is their right. Cancel culture is wrong, no matter which side does it.



Except there is no "Cancel Culture", there is only consequence culture.   Carano and Kapernick were fired because their employers realized they were toxic to their fanbase.  

Particularly the NFL, who has kept on wife beaters, drug users, and people caught dog fighting... But man, don't engage in an empty ceremony of standing when a song is played... and you're through.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Bitch, please. Michael Vick found a job, surely Kaepernick would've. The fact is that he waited until the last minute to drop out of it. He's unemployed because of his own actions...



You are kind of making my point for me.  Mike Vick actually committed a crime and went to jail.  The NFL forgave him.  Kap insulted America's racism, which was unforgivable.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, the only narrative that matters is that an employee was misappropriating funds. Period. That's all you need to know. Your accusations that he "made a mistake" are laughable. If that's all it was he wouldn't have plead guilty to avoid jail time. He wouldn't have paid restitution and his name wouldn't be kryptonite in the industry. He made over $100K a year while he worked for me and drove a really sweet Corvette. He now works at Auto Zone for $14 an hour and drives a 1985 Chrysler Laser.



Again, sounds like bad management on your part that he could... or thought he could.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I chuckle, just a little, when I think of that.



Of course you do. Because you are an awful person.  Me, I'd never take any joy in someone else's misfortune. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You don't have all the facts for no other reason than you're nothing but some blowhard lying loser on the internet trying to pretend as though he knows everything about everything...



Again, given your narrative keeps changing on this story, I have to go by what you are saying.  You fucked up as a manager and scapegoated some poor schlub who thought he was trying to do something good.  Me, I would have maybe been happy with firing him.  That you abused the criminal justice system and ruined his career makes you sound like a vindictive twit. 




Canon Shooter said:


> Oh, I've had employees who believed they would know what was best for my business. As I always solicit input from my people, I looked at his suggestions and had a good laugh. I'd probably be in the poorhouse now had I followed them...



But you are on your little dungheep company, looking at the big boys, buying plane tickets for buyers hoping they'll throw business your way.  Whoops. You gave someone a plane ticket without authorization?  I'll trump up charges against you.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Did you need a tissue?



Nope. We need


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, because that would be my boss, and in a company, they have rules about that sort of thing.
> 
> In the public arena though, you shouldn't be able to punish people for their speech.
> 
> I've already said that what happened to Carano and Kapernick was the right of the their employers. I don't agree with them, but it is their right. Cancel culture is wrong, no matter which side does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except there is no "Cancel Culture", there is only consequence culture.   Carano and Kapernick were fired because their employers realized they were toxic to their fanbase.
> 
> Particularly the NFL, who has kept on wife beaters, drug users, and people caught dog fighting... But man, don't engage in an empty ceremony of standing when a song is played... and you're through.
Click to expand...

Well, cancel culture does exist, and consequence culture does too. 

Both can be part of the same scenario, and both can be separate.

These are the differences, to me:

Consequemce culture: when someone does or says something egregious and embarrassing to a company and the company decides its not good for business, and decided to let them go. 

Cancel culture: when someone does or says something that is interpreted by one group to be offensive and that group mounts a campaign against the company they represent and pressures them to take action.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Again, sounds like bad management on your part that he could... or thought he could.



You keep saying that, but you remain ignorant of all the facts.

Making assumptions, as you do, only proves how stupid you are...



> Of course you do. Because you are an awful person.  Me, I'd never take any joy in someone else's misfortune.



"Misfortune"? The guy was essentially stealing from my company. If it wasn't illegal I'd have thrown him out a third floor window. Fuck him. He's earned every bad thing that comes his way...



> Again, given your narrative keeps changing on this story, I have to go by what you are saying.  You fucked up as a manager and scapegoated some poor schlub who thought he was trying to do something good.  Me, I would have maybe been happy with firing him.  That you abused the criminal justice system and ruined his career makes you sound like a vindictive twit.



If someone steals thousands of dollars from your company, what would _you _do? Give him a hug?

And where did I abuse the criminal justice system?

Vindictive? Yeah. Fuck yeah, I am, and this stupid son of a bitch learned that the hard way. You wanna' fuck me over? Well, I fuck back...



> But you are on your little dungheep company, looking at the big boys, buying plane tickets for buyers hoping they'll throw business your way.  Whoops. You gave someone a plane ticket without authorization?  I'll trump up charges against you.



The district attorney made the recommendation of the charges. I actually don't have the power to do that, dummy.

And my "dungheep" company made me a shit-ton of money last year, while you beg people to let you write their resume for $139 a pop...



> Nope. We need



You must be back on the bottle again. Looks like you passed out there...[/QUOTE]


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bitch, please. Michael Vick found a job, surely Kaepernick would've. The fact is that he waited until the last minute to drop out of it. He's unemployed because of his own actions...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are kind of making my point for me.  Mike Vick actually committed a crime and went to jail.  The NFL forgave him.  Kap insulted America's racism, which was unforgivable.
Click to expand...


No, Michael Vick got a job because he was actually still a good quarterback.

The 49'ers went 2-14 in Kaepernick's final season...


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Well, cancel culture does exist, and consequence culture does too.
> 
> Both can be part of the same scenario, and both can be separate.
> 
> These are the differences, to me:
> 
> Consequemce culture: when someone does or says something egregious and embarrassing to a company and the company decides its not good for business, and decided to let them go.
> 
> Cancel culture: when someone does or says something that is interpreted by one group to be offensive and that group mounts a campaign against the company they represent and pressures them to take action.



Okay... good point.   

So by your logic, Kaepernack was definitely a victim of Cancel Culture.  Perhaps Carano as well.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You keep saying that, but you remain ignorant of all the facts.
> 
> Making assumptions, as you do, only proves how stupid you are...



Well, when you present me some 'Facts"., let me know.  Frankly, you've presented a narrative that really doesn't make a lot of sense.  I mean, what was his plan, exactly, he'd go to a customer and try to sell them something by buying them presents, even though he wasn't the designated rep.  Probably more to this story you are leaving out because it makes you look bad. 



Canon Shooter said:


> "Misfortune"? The guy was essentially stealing from my company. If it wasn't illegal I'd have thrown him out a third floor window. Fuck him. He's earned every bad thing that comes his way...



He wasn't essentially stealing. He was using a resource you gave him in the wrong way.  Probably because you didn't make it clear what his responsibilities were.  



Canon Shooter said:


> If someone steals thousands of dollars from your company, what would _you _do? Give him a hug?
> 
> And where did I abuse the criminal justice system?



Well, to start with, it's actually there to punish criminals.  Now, if he was using these funds to buy things for himself, um, yeah... totally with you, that would be theft.  He was buying things trying to generate sales for your company.  Sounds like kind of a dumb plan...  but hey, this sort of petty bribery might be common in your industry.  I've worked in industries where bribes flew aplenty, I've worked in industries where you couldn't let a vendor buy you lunch.  

But since you are leaving out big chunks of this story, and you basically have kind of shown yourself to be an awful person overall, I'm probably going to go with, "You scapegoated this guy out of spite." 



Canon Shooter said:


> Vindictive? Yeah. Fuck yeah, I am



Glad we've established that.  So what does that get you?  I guess it makes all the other wage-slaves scared... which if you are a malignant Narcissist, makes sense.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, cancel culture does exist, and consequence culture does too.
> 
> Both can be part of the same scenario, and both can be separate.
> 
> These are the differences, to me:
> 
> Consequemce culture: when someone does or says something egregious and embarrassing to a company and the company decides its not good for business, and decided to let them go.
> 
> Cancel culture: when someone does or says something that is interpreted by one group to be offensive and that group mounts a campaign against the company they represent and pressures them to take action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay... good point.
> 
> So by your logic, Kaepernack was definitely a victim of Cancel Culture.  Perhaps Carano as well.
Click to expand...

Well, was kapernick fired because of a pressure campaign against his employers by a group of people who decided they didn't like what he did? If so, then yes, it was canceled culture. 

I think Carano was canceled. They say Disney was looking for a reason to fire her anyway, but that doesn't make sense because it appears Disney was looking to give her her own series up until that point. You wouldnt do that if you were looking for a way to fire her.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Well, to start with, it's actually there to punish criminals.  Now, if he was using these funds to buy things for himself, um, yeah... totally with you, that would be theft.



That doesn't answer my question. What would you do to someone who was stealing thousands of dollars from your company?



> He was buying things trying to generate sales for your company.



No, fuckwad, he wasn't.

You're a fucking idiot. I'd put you on "ignore" but then I wouldn't be able to see what intellectually bankrupt bullshit you post next...


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Well, was kapernick fired because of a pressure campaign against his employers by a group of people who decided they didn't like what he did? If so, then yes, it was canceled culture.
> 
> I think Carano was canceled. They say Disney was looking for a reason to fire her anyway, but that doesn't make sense because it appears Disney was looking to give her her own series up until that point. You wouldnt do that if you were looking for a way to fire her.



I suspect that what happened there was they did have big plans to build a new series around her character, but then she kept saying really stupid shit.  Then the problem became her comments being a bigger deal than the show itself... so she had to go.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> That doesn't answer my question. What would you do to someone who was stealing thousands of dollars from your company?



If it was actual stealing, I'd fire them.  
If it was a misunderstanding, because of poor direction, I might review what went wrong there and fix it so it doesn't happen again.  

What I wouldn't do is file criminal charges, or ruin the man's career because I get off on making other people suffer, like you apparently do. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, fuckwad, he wasn't.
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. I'd put you on "ignore" but then I wouldn't be able to see what intellectually bankrupt bullshit you post next...



So he was buying stuff for someone at your customer... for fun?  Was the buyer over there really hot and he was trying to get into her panties?   Did he think the VP over there looked peckish....   You see, what you haven't told anyone was WHY he did what he did, which tells me that you are leaving THAT part of the story out because it doesn't make you look very good.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, was kapernick fired because of a pressure campaign against his employers by a group of people who decided they didn't like what he did? If so, then yes, it was canceled culture.
> 
> I think Carano was canceled. They say Disney was looking for a reason to fire her anyway, but that doesn't make sense because it appears Disney was looking to give her her own series up until that point. You wouldnt do that if you were looking for a way to fire her.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suspect that what happened there was they did have big plans to build a new series around her character, but then she kept saying really stupid shit.  Then the problem became her comments being a bigger deal than the show itself... so she had to go.
Click to expand...

Well, I never did follow the whole timeline. I didn't even know who Carano was until I started watching the mandalorian. My initial impression was there was no action against Carano until the left started posting on Twitter, THEN Disney fired her, and came out and said "well, we were looking for a way to fire her anyway".

First, "looking for a way" to fire someone, and then firing them because of the demands of the crowd can still mean they fired her because of the crowds demands. It may be that Disney wasn't actually going to use her tweets as a way to remove her, even if they were looking for a way, but when the crowd demanded it, Disney just used that as an excuse. 

Kind of like how coca cola has been silent about the Georgia law until the threat of a boycot from the left started making waves, then coca cola came out and made a statement. They may have preferred to stay out of it, but were forced into making a statement to ward off a potential boycot. 

Same with Disney, they may not have actually been bothered by her tweets, but when the left started making waves, her tweets suddenly became the focal point.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> If it was actual stealing, I'd fire them.
> If it was a misunderstanding, because of poor direction, I might review what went wrong there and fix it so it doesn't happen again.



It was actual stealing, so I fired him.

There was no "misunderstanding"...



> What I wouldn't do is file criminal charges, or ruin the man's career because I get off on making other people suffer, like you apparently do.



Not interested in making him suffer. I was completely interested in holding him accountable...



> So he was buying stuff for someone at your customer... for fun?  Was the buyer over there really hot and he was trying to get into her panties?   Did he think the VP over there looked peckish....   You see, what you haven't told anyone was WHY he did what he did, which tells me that you are leaving THAT part of the story out because it doesn't make you look very good.



No, the details are unimportant because nothing; nothing could make what he did excusable. The details, like you, don't matter...


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Well, I never did follow the whole timeline. I didn't even know who Carano was until I started watching the mandalorian. My initial impression was there was no action against Carano until the left started posting on Twitter, THEN Disney fired her, and came out and said "well, we were looking for a way to fire her anyway".
> 
> First, "looking for a way" to fire someone, and then firing them because of the demands of the crowd can still mean they fired her because of the crowds demands. It may be that Disney wasn't actually going to use her tweets as a way to remove her, even if they were looking for a way, but when the crowd demanded it, Disney just used that as an excuse.



I don't know if they were looking for an excuse to fire her.  They probably didn't need an excuse, she wasn't the star of the show. They could have just written her out or got another actress to play the character.  I think it was exactly the opposite, they were looking to build this new series around her character, but then she started saying stupid shit on Twitter.   The kind of shit that brings controversy when you are trying to make a fun space adventure for the whole family.  

Star Wars was a 4 Billion Dollar investment for Disney, which probably means there are a lot of eyes on it to make sure nothing has gone wrong, and a lot of stuff has gone wrong with it. (LIke the entire Sequel Trilogy, which is hated by a lot of fans.)  the last thing they need is a third-tier character actress bringing them more grief. 



ThisIsMe said:


> Kind of like how coca cola has been silent about the Georgia law until the threat of a boycot from the left started making waves, then coca cola came out and made a statement. They may have preferred to stay out of it, but were forced into making a statement to ward off a potential boycot.



Um, yeah.  Not even the same thing.  This is holding a company responsible for it's actions.  You can't enjoy operating in Georgia and then say you are okay with the states outright attempt to reinstitute Jim Crow.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> No, the details are unimportant because nothing; nothing could make what he did excusable. The details, like you, don't matter...



If the details didn't matter, you'd share them... the point is, you are leaving whole bunches of this story out, changing your narrative to paint yourself as the good guy... frankly, it makes me a little suspicious.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I never did follow the whole timeline. I didn't even know who Carano was until I started watching the mandalorian. My initial impression was there was no action against Carano until the left started posting on Twitter, THEN Disney fired her, and came out and said "well, we were looking for a way to fire her anyway".
> 
> First, "looking for a way" to fire someone, and then firing them because of the demands of the crowd can still mean they fired her because of the crowds demands. It may be that Disney wasn't actually going to use her tweets as a way to remove her, even if they were looking for a way, but when the crowd demanded it, Disney just used that as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if they were looking for an excuse to fire her.  They probably didn't need an excuse, she wasn't the star of the show. They could have just written her out or got another actress to play the character.  I think it was exactly the opposite, they were looking to build this new series around her character, but then she started saying stupid shit on Twitter.   The kind of shit that brings controversy when you are trying to make a fun space adventure for the whole family.
> 
> Star Wars was a 4 Billion Dollar investment for Disney, which probably means there are a lot of eyes on it to make sure nothing has gone wrong, and a lot of stuff has gone wrong with it. (LIke the entire Sequel Trilogy, which is hated by a lot of fans.)  the last thing they need is a third-tier character actress bringing them more grief.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like how coca cola has been silent about the Georgia law until the threat of a boycot from the left started making waves, then coca cola came out and made a statement. They may have preferred to stay out of it, but were forced into making a statement to ward off a potential boycot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  Not even the same thing.  This is holding a company responsible for it's actions.  You can't enjoy operating in Georgia and then say you are okay with the states outright attempt to reinstitute Jim Crow.
Click to expand...




> This is holding a company responsible for it's actions. You can't enjoy operating in Georgia and then say you are okay with the states outright attempt to reinstitute Jim Crow.



Holding coke responsible for what actions? Also, sure you can operate in Georgia and be silent. Because coke didn't make a statement isn't an endorsement of the law, some people just prefer to not get involved. There is no legal or moral obligation for anyone to make a statement about anything. 

For a business, some would prefer to just stay out of it because if you do make a statement, you risk potentially upsetting some of your customers, while remaining silent, they hope they can just keep their head down and not upset anyone. 

This is where cancel culture comes in. Coke probably was just minding their own business and wasn't prepared to say anything, and the left decided to force them into action by threatening a boycot. This in turn will put pressure on politicians to make changes to the law, because they don't want to upset a major company like that, one that brings in so much revenue to the state. Same with American airlines hub.


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Holding coke responsible for what actions? Also, sure you can operate in Georgia and be silent. Because coke didn't make a statement isn't an endorsement of the law, some people just prefer to not get involved. There is no legal or moral obligation for anyone to make a statement about anything.



History is full of moral tragedies because someone "didn't take a stand".  








ThisIsMe said:


> This is where cancel culture comes in. Coke probably was just minding their own business and wasn't prepared to say anything, and the left decided to force them into action by threatening a boycot. This in turn will put pressure on politicians to make changes to the law, because they don't want to upset a major company like that, one that brings in so much revenue to the state. Same with American airlines hub.



Awesome. I don't see a problem with this.  The real problem is that big business has been underwriting the GOP and their attacks on the working class for years...   So maybe we need to hold them responsible when their dog gets off the leash.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Holding coke responsible for what actions? Also, sure you can operate in Georgia and be silent. Because coke didn't make a statement isn't an endorsement of the law, some people just prefer to not get involved. There is no legal or moral obligation for anyone to make a statement about anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is full of moral tragedies because someone "didn't take a stand".
> 
> View attachment 475363
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is where cancel culture comes in. Coke probably was just minding their own business and wasn't prepared to say anything, and the left decided to force them into action by threatening a boycot. This in turn will put pressure on politicians to make changes to the law, because they don't want to upset a major company like that, one that brings in so much revenue to the state. Same with American airlines hub.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awesome. I don't see a problem with this.  The real problem is that big business has been underwriting the GOP and their attacks on the working class for years...   So maybe we need to hold them responsible when their dog gets off the leash.
Click to expand...




> History is full of moral tragedies because someone "didn't take a stand".
> 
> View attachment 475363



Are you suggesting that people should be able to force another person, or company, into taking a stand? How is that moral? I think people should be able to decide for themselves what and where they want to make their voices heard, or not heard. I mean, sure, there is nothing illegal about the left organizing against a company, but do you think that's how businesses want to operate? Always under the gun from the political whims of the crowd? 



> Awesome. I don't see a problem with this. The real problem is that big business has been underwriting the GOP and their attacks on the working class for years... So maybe we need to hold them responsible when their dog gets off the leash.



I agree, NO business should influence politics, but you are suggesting you don't have a problem with coke putting pressure on politicians? Does this mean you also don't have a problem with the NRA putting pressure on politicians?


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Are you suggesting that people should be able to force another person, or company, into taking a stand? How is that moral? I think people should be able to decide for themselves what and where they want to make their voices heard, or not heard. I mean, sure, there is nothing illegal about the left organizing against a company, but do you think that's how businesses want to operate? Always under the gun from the political whims of the crowd?



Naw, they are perfectly able to be craven cowards and have no one buy their products.   The problem here is that they are complicite in Georgia's violation of political and civil rights by NOT saying something. 



ThisIsMe said:


> I agree, NO business should influence politics, but you are suggesting you don't have a problem with coke putting pressure on politicians? Does this mean you also don't have a problem with the NRA putting pressure on politicians?



I have a problem with the NRA's existence.  

It's an issue of being good corporate citizens.  the Georgia voting law is a travesty designed to keep people of color from voting.   You can't be neutral on an issue like that.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you suggesting that people should be able to force another person, or company, into taking a stand? How is that moral? I think people should be able to decide for themselves what and where they want to make their voices heard, or not heard. I mean, sure, there is nothing illegal about the left organizing against a company, but do you think that's how businesses want to operate? Always under the gun from the political whims of the crowd?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, they are perfectly able to be craven cowards and have no one buy their products.   The problem here is that they are complicite in Georgia's violation of political and civil rights by NOT saying something.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, NO business should influence politics, but you are suggesting you don't have a problem with coke putting pressure on politicians? Does this mean you also don't have a problem with the NRA putting pressure on politicians?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a problem with the NRA's existence.
> 
> It's an issue of being good corporate citizens.  the Georgia voting law is a travesty designed to keep people of color from voting.   You can't be neutral on an issue like that.
Click to expand...




> Naw, they are perfectly able to be craven cowards and have no one buy their products. The problem here is that they are complicite in Georgia's violation of political and civil rights by NOT saying something.



No, they are not complicit. Like I said, nobody is morally obligated to do or say anything. The left, however, doesn't see it that way. You guys are a "if your not with us, you're against us" type of mentality. "If we don't like what you're doing, we're going to drag you into our agenda, whether you like it or not" 

How about just let a business be a business and if they want to stay out of it, they just stay out of it. 



> I have a problem with the NRA's existence.
> 
> It's an issue of being good corporate citizens. the Georgia voting law is a travesty designed to keep people of color from voting. You can't be neutral on an issue like that.



How do you know they are neutral? One can take a side without being public about it. Why do you guys insist that people publicly make their side known?

By the way, isn't there a term for someone who tries to influence a politician via threat of force? Forcing coke to threaten economic hardship to Georgia and the politicians of that state, and the people of that state...thats akin to treason right? Using threats to enact change in politics? I'm pretty sure thats wrong...


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> No, they are not complicit. Like I said, nobody is morally obligated to do or say anything. The left, however, doesn't see it that way. You guys are a "if your not with us, you're against us" type of mentality. "If we don't like what you're doing, we're going to drag you into our agenda, whether you like it or not"
> 
> How about just let a business be a business and if they want to stay out of it, they just stay out of it.



People have stayed out of it for much too long, that's the problem.  

The problem is that if Coke wants to enjoy the benefits of America, they need to stand up for America.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they are not complicit. Like I said, nobody is morally obligated to do or say anything. The left, however, doesn't see it that way. You guys are a "if your not with us, you're against us" type of mentality. "If we don't like what you're doing, we're going to drag you into our agenda, whether you like it or not"
> 
> How about just let a business be a business and if they want to stay out of it, they just stay out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People have stayed out of it for much too long, that's the problem.
> 
> The problem is that if Coke wants to enjoy the benefits of America, they need to stand up for America.
Click to expand...

Again, "if you don't succumb to our desires, we're going to cancel you" 

Does this mean if ordinary people don't stand in your corner, you're going to punish them too?

I wasn't aware that political activism was required to be a citizen.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the details are unimportant because nothing; nothing could make what he did excusable. The details, like you, don't matter...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the details didn't matter, you'd share them... the point is, you are leaving whole bunches of this story out, changing your narrative to paint yourself as the good guy... frankly, it makes me a little suspicious.
Click to expand...


The color of my shirt doesn't matter, and you're not whining about that.

The pertinent points have been posted.

You're obviously someone who is a weak leader. You're obviously afraid to hold someone accountable.

You're a wannabe', but you never will.

And, for the record, I'm on the front end of a six week road trip across the country and back, so my replies will be sporadic (if at all). See, that's what being successful can afford you: the opportunity to step back and enjoy life. Maybe one day you'll get to enjoy that...


----------



## 22lcidw

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I never did follow the whole timeline. I didn't even know who Carano was until I started watching the mandalorian. My initial impression was there was no action against Carano until the left started posting on Twitter, THEN Disney fired her, and came out and said "well, we were looking for a way to fire her anyway".
> 
> First, "looking for a way" to fire someone, and then firing them because of the demands of the crowd can still mean they fired her because of the crowds demands. It may be that Disney wasn't actually going to use her tweets as a way to remove her, even if they were looking for a way, but when the crowd demanded it, Disney just used that as an excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if they were looking for an excuse to fire her.  They probably didn't need an excuse, she wasn't the star of the show. They could have just written her out or got another actress to play the character.  I think it was exactly the opposite, they were looking to build this new series around her character, but then she started saying stupid shit on Twitter.   The kind of shit that brings controversy when you are trying to make a fun space adventure for the whole family.
> 
> Star Wars was a 4 Billion Dollar investment for Disney, which probably means there are a lot of eyes on it to make sure nothing has gone wrong, and a lot of stuff has gone wrong with it. (LIke the entire Sequel Trilogy, which is hated by a lot of fans.)  the last thing they need is a third-tier character actress bringing them more grief.
> 
> 
> 
> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like how coca cola has been silent about the Georgia law until the threat of a boycot from the left started making waves, then coca cola came out and made a statement. They may have preferred to stay out of it, but were forced into making a statement to ward off a potential boycot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, yeah.  Not even the same thing.  This is holding a company responsible for it's actions.  You can't enjoy operating in Georgia and then say you are okay with the states outright attempt to reinstitute Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

I only saw a few episodes toward the end visiting one my children. When she was on the screen it was hard not to notice her.


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Again, "if you don't succumb to our desires, we're going to cancel you"
> 
> Does this mean if ordinary people don't stand in your corner, you're going to punish them too?
> 
> I wasn't aware that political activism was required to be a citizen.



Businesses aren't ordinary citizens.  Next lame argument. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The pertinent points have been posted.
> 
> You're obviously someone who is a weak leader. You're obviously afraid to hold someone accountable.



Yeah, but you keep hiding the most pertinant one of all- Why did he do it?  which tells me that you really don't want to say why he did it, because it makes your leadership look bad.   Either you didn't set clear expectations, or he thought he would be rewarded if his scheme worked.  

That you've been dancing around this issue for two weeks now, tells me a lot.  

Now, I've never had anyone under my supervision ever try anything like that... because they KNEW what my expectations were.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you


Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, "if you don't succumb to our desires, we're going to cancel you"
> 
> Does this mean if ordinary people don't stand in your corner, you're going to punish them too?
> 
> I wasn't aware that political activism was required to be a citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses aren't ordinary citizens.  Next lame argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pertinent points have been posted.
> 
> You're obviously someone who is a weak leader. You're obviously afraid to hold someone accountable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you keep hiding the most pertinant one of all- Why did he do it?  which tells me that you really don't want to say why he did it, because it makes your leadership look bad.   Either you didn't set clear expectations, or he thought he would be rewarded if his scheme worked.
> 
> That you've been dancing around this issue for two weeks now, tells me a lot.
> 
> Now, I've never had anyone under my supervision ever try anything like that... because they KNEW what my expectations were.
Click to expand...

No, but you are trying to force corporations into action, how long before you start demanding that other people take action?


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> No, but you are trying to force corporations into action, how long before you start demanding that other people take action?



Not soon enough.  Maybe we should force people to take action. 

Let's be clear what Georgia did here.  Stacey Adams worked her butt off to get black folks to the polls, costing Republicans the Presidency and two senate seats. 

Now, if the Republicans were DECENT human beings, they would try to change their message to win over more votes.  

Naw, fuck that shit.  We're just going to make it harder for black people to vote.   Just like the good old days of poll taxes and literacy tests.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you are trying to force corporations into action, how long before you start demanding that other people take action?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not soon enough.  Maybe we should force people to take action.
> 
> Let's be clear what Georgia did here.  Stacey Adams worked her butt off to get black folks to the polls, costing Republicans the Presidency and two senate seats.
> 
> Now, if the Republicans were DECENT human beings, they would try to change their message to win over more votes.
> 
> Naw, fuck that shit.  We're just going to make it harder for black people to vote.   Just like the good old days of poll taxes and literacy tests.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, let's just force everyone to do what you want them to. Freedom? Nope, does not apply.

Regardless of what Georgia did or didn't do, its not up to the left to force anything on anyone. That's the point I'm getting across. I can see, however, that you disagree, I wish it weren't so. Freedom means I don't have to do what you want me to. Freedom means I get to be free from your political ideology and your activism. It also means corporations are free from political activism.


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> Regardless of what Georgia did or didn't do, its not up to the left to force anything on anyone. That's the point I'm getting across. I can see, however, that you disagree, I wish it weren't so. Freedom means I don't have to do what you want me to. Freedom means I get to be free from your political ideology and your activism. It also means corporations are free from political activism.



Freedom means you can do what you want, but you also have to deal with the consequences.  

For instance, you can legally make products out of puppies, but people won't want to buy your puppy products.






You can set up your factory in Jim Crow 2.0 state, but people might think that's a good reason to pick


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, but you keep hiding the most pertinant one of all- Why did he do it?  which tells me that you really don't want to say why he did it, because it makes your leadership look bad.
> 
> See, here's where one can tell how big a shitbag you are. By continuing to insist that the reason is pertinent, you make it clear that you obviously believe that a set of circumstances might exist which would make his crime okay. It doesn't. Under no circumstances could it be considered okay. This is why you'd be a shitty supervisor.
> 
> Remember, he admitted to knowingly doing it. He plead guilty to avoid jail time. This wasn't him stealing office supplies...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you didn't set clear expectations, or *he thought he would be rewarded if his scheme worked*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a regular Sherlock Fuckin' Holmes, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you've been dancing around this issue for two weeks now, tells me a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It should tell you that the reason doesn't matter, because it doesn't.
> 
> What set of circumstances would mitigate the severity of stealing several thousand dollars from your employer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I've never had anyone under my supervision ever try anything like that... because they KNEW what my expectations were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You probably have had someone try it, and they likely succeeded, for the simple fact that you lack any trait which suggests you would be an astute manager...
Click to expand...


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
Click to expand...


Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. So what? The manager can't just say 'you are fired' and make the worker go home the same day.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you keep hiding the most pertinant one of all- Why did he do it?  which tells me that you really don't want to say why he did it, because it makes your leadership look bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See, here's where one can tell how big a shitbag you are. By continuing to insist that the reason is pertinent, you make it clear that you obviously believe that a set of circumstances might exist which would make his crime okay. It doesn't. Under no circumstances could it be considered okay. This is why you'd be a shitty supervisor.
> 
> Remember, he admitted to knowingly doing it. He plead guilty to avoid jail time. This wasn't him stealing office supplies...
Click to expand...


Wow, I made you so mad, you screwed up the quote feature.  

Okay, let's take the second part first.   All that tells me is that your employers lawyer convinced him that pleading guilty to no jail time would be the path of least resistance, compared to spending years in court.  It doesn't tell me why he did it.  

The more you avoid the issue, the more you expose that you are hiding the part of the story that make you look like a real piece of shit. 




Canon Shooter said:


> What set of circumstances would mitigate the severity of stealing several thousand dollars from your employer?



Except he didn't steal it.  You left access to that money in his control and clearly didn't give clear direction on what wasn't acceptable. It's like leaving your wide screen on the front porch and then bitching someone walked off with it. 



Canon Shooter said:


> ou probably have had someone try it, and they likely succeeded, for the simple fact that you lack any trait which suggests you would be an astute manager...



Except your the guy who had a sales rep blow a bunch of money in a non-productive way that damaged a relationship with a customer.  Honestly, I've never seen anything like that in some 30 years of working in the private sector.  But I work for professional organizations, not some little dunghill where the boss is concerned about what people talk about in the lunchroom.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. So what? The manager can't just say 'you are fired' and make the worker go home the same day.
Click to expand...


Certain managers in my companies have the power to do exactly that...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, let's take the second part first.   All that tells me is that your employers lawyer convinced him that pleading guilty to no jail time would be the path of least resistance, compared to spending years in court.  It doesn't tell me why he did it.



No, his lawyer told him to plead guilty to a lesser charge because, if the case was pursued, he was going to lose a lot more than he did...



> The more you avoid the issue, the more you expose that you are hiding the part of the story that make you look like a real piece of shit.



I try to care about your opinion of me, but I really can't.

Again, it's clear you believe there could be a set of circumstances where stealing from an employer is acceptable behavior.

Sir, the piece of shit here is you...



> Except he didn't steal it.



Yes, he did.



> You left access to that money in his control and clearly didn't give clear direction on what wasn't acceptable. It's like leaving your wide screen on the front porch and then bitching someone walked off with it.



What an absolutely idiotic comparison.

Then again, nothing more can be expected from an idiot...



Canon Shooter said:


> Except your the guy who had a sales rep blow a bunch of money in a non-productive way that damaged a relationship with a customer.  Honestly, I've never seen anything like that in some 30 years of working in the private sector.



You've never worked ion such an environment. You have to beg people to let you write them mediocre resumes so THEY can get real jobs...



> But I work for professional organizations, not some little dunghill where the boss is concerned about what people talk about in the lunchroom.



Yeah, a $25 million annual budget is certainly the sign of a "dunghill" company.

You're such a stupid little ignorant fuck.

You're just pissed because you've ealized that you're not important enough to have details...


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Georgia did or didn't do, its not up to the left to force anything on anyone. That's the point I'm getting across. I can see, however, that you disagree, I wish it weren't so. Freedom means I don't have to do what you want me to. Freedom means I get to be free from your political ideology and your activism. It also means corporations are free from political activism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom means you can do what you want, but you also have to deal with the consequences.
> 
> For instance, you can legally make products out of puppies, but people won't want to buy your puppy products.
> 
> View attachment 476078
> 
> You can set up your factory in Jim Crow 2.0 state, but people might think that's a good reason to pick
> 
> 
> View attachment 476079
Click to expand...

The only consequence here is the one you are forcing on Georgia, and its businesses. What gives the left the right to unilaterally decide what is right and what is wrong, and be able to use threat of force to make them comply. 

Just because you think what they did was wrong doesn't mean you are right. Many people don't see what Georgia did was wrong. You have a difference of opinion, yet you feel that your view is the only one that matters, and so you are going to punish everyone, until you get your way.


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. So what? The manager can't just say 'you are fired' and make the worker go home the same day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certain managers in my companies have the power to do exactly that...
Click to expand...

Okay, and that is why your state needs a law which will be protecting a hired workers.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> No, his lawyer told him to plead guilty to a lesser charge because, if the case was pursued, he was going to lose a lot more than he did...



Why did you let him off on the "lesser charge" if what he did was so horrible?  Oh, that's right. The part of the story you aren't telling us.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I try to care about your opinion of me, but I really can't.
> 
> Again, it's clear you believe there could be a set of circumstances where stealing from an employer is acceptable behavior.



Yeah, guy, you've spent two fucking weeks trying to impress me that you are so fucking awesome, that's how little you care.. .Because you are sooooo Needy.  

Since you won't tell us what the circumstances were, we can tell we are only getting half the story. 



Canon Shooter said:


> What an absolutely idiotic comparison.
> 
> Then again, nothing more can be expected from an idiot...



Not at all... you gave him a company credit card.  You told him to go buy shit for customers.   because you won't give the key details, it kind of sound like your negligence. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You've never worked ion such an environment. You have to beg people to let you write them mediocre resumes so THEY can get real jobs...



I don't have to beg anyone... and I have also worked in Purchasing, procurement and logistics for the last 30 years, on top of my time in the Army doing supply.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, a $25 million annual budget is certainly the sign of a "dunghill" company.



I've worked for billion dollar, multi-national corporations... um, yeah, you're a dunghill.  The one thing I've found. The Smaller the company, the less professional it is.


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> The only consequence here is the one you are forcing on Georgia, and its businesses. What gives the left the right to unilaterally decide what is right and what is wrong, and be able to use threat of force to make them comply.



It's called, being an American.  Georgia is violating the civil rights of its citizens- AGAIN.  

They want to act like a third world country, let's give the fuckers a third world economy.


----------



## ThisIsMe

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only consequence here is the one you are forcing on Georgia, and its businesses. What gives the left the right to unilaterally decide what is right and what is wrong, and be able to use threat of force to make them comply.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's called, being an American.  Georgia is violating the civil rights of its citizens- AGAIN.
> 
> They want to act like a third world country, let's give the fuckers a third world economy.
Click to expand...

1) yours is a matter of opinion, one influenced by left wing media. There are many who disagree with your characterization of the bill. Some say it doesn't do any of the things the left claims it does.  So, who's right?  The left?  Where do they get the right to say that their version of "the truth" is the correct version?  

2) so, because the senate voted on a bill you don't like, you prefer to punish the citizens of the state?


----------



## JoeB131

ThisIsMe said:


> 1) yours is a matter of opinion, one influenced by left wing media. There are many who disagree with your characterization of the bill. Some say it doesn't do any of the things the left claims it does. So, who's right? The left? Where do they get the right to say that their version of "the truth" is the correct version?
> 
> 2) so, because the senate voted on a bill you don't like, you prefer to punish the citizens of the state?



Yup.  Then they'll vote in a senate that will respect democracy.  

The same people who brought you Jim Crow, Literacy Tests and Poll Taxes bring you this shit.


----------



## Canon Shooter

ESay said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. So what? The manager can't just say 'you are fired' and make the worker go home the same day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certain managers in my companies have the power to do exactly that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and that is why your state needs a law which will be protecting a hired workers.
Click to expand...


So, you're saying that I, and those I delegate to, should not have the right to terminate someone in our company?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Why did you let him off on the "lesser charge" if what he did was so horrible?  Oh, that's right. The part of the story you aren't telling us.



He ruined his life. I wouldn't have ruined it much more and, frankly, I was over it and ready to move on. A trial would've eaten up a good chunk of my time. I've got better things for me and my people to do than sit in a fucking courtroom...



> Yeah, guy, you've spent two fucking weeks trying to impress me that you are so fucking awesome, that's how little you care.. .Because you are sooooo Needy.
> 
> Since you won't tell us what the circumstances were, we can tell we are only getting half the story.



You have all of the pertinent information. You're just too fucking dense to realize it.

What, in your opinion, would justify stealing thousands of dollars from an employer?



> Not at all... you gave him a company credit card.  You told him to go buy shit for customers.   because you won't give the key details, it kind of sound like your negligence.



I bet you're the guy who blames a rape victim because she dressed provacatively.

He had a wide latitude to buy things for his customers. I had no problem with that.

The people he was buying things for were not his customers. I had an enormous problem with _that_.



> I don't have to beg anyone... and I have also worked in Purchasing, procurement and logistics for the last 30 years, on top of my time in the Army doing supply.



You beg. You know it...



> I've worked for billion dollar, multi-national corporations...



Given that you're a self admitted liar, there's not a single reason to believe that you have.

Besides, anyone who would go from working for a multi-national corporation to begging people to let you write their resumes is a loser at life...



> The one thing I've found. The Smaller the company, the less professional it is.



I've never compared myself with multi-national corporations, simply because I'm not one. For you to do it only serves to show how desperate you are to "win" this discussion. I could sit here and give you the name of every single person who works for me, whether it's my CFO or the guy who cleans the bathrooms.

There's not a CEO alive, of any multi-national corporation, who can do that.

If and when my company becomes so big it would be "multi-national", I'm out. I'll sell to the highest bidder and retire (again). I'm not interested in that. I've done well for myself and I've done well by my employees. I don't "need" more that what I have, and to force more into the company would be to its detriment.

Instead, I'll live a life of leisure while sorry sots like you write a couple of resumes a week so you're able to buy yourself some ramen and maybe a hooker from time to time.

So, do yourself a favor: stop trying to making me feel bad for firing someone (clearly you wouldn't have the balls to do it) or to make it out as though my employees are afraid of me or that I'm a weak manager. None of those are true, and are nothing but figments of your apparently overactive imagination. You don't like me not only because I'm successful, but because I possess the requisite work ethic to become successful, while you don't. That's why you like unions. You can be a lazy fuck and, unless you fucking kill someone, you can keep your job...


----------



## ESay

Canon Shooter said:


> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ESay said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the right to say something doesn't absolve you of the ramifications for saying it. If that were true, you could walk up to your boss and call him a cocksucker and expect nothing to happen to you
> 
> 
> 
> Depends on what you mean as a 'boss'. If it is an owner of the business you are working for, then you may be right. If it is a hired manager who fails to fulfill his duties properly, then why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, because it's still insubordination, for starters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it is. So what? The manager can't just say 'you are fired' and make the worker go home the same day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certain managers in my companies have the power to do exactly that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, and that is why your state needs a law which will be protecting a hired workers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're saying that I, and those I delegate to, should not have the right to terminate someone in our company?
Click to expand...

Well, you have this right, but we returned to our conversation about whether the boss can fire a worker if they (the boss) are in a bad mood. 

In the country where I live, my boss cant fire me for saying something unpleasant to him. Well, okay, he can do that but this will require some efforts and certainly will last longer than a day or a week. And in this case I have the right to defend myself as a hired worker and even fight back using the examples if mismanagement of his part. He is a hired worker in the same way as I am.


----------



## bendog

JoeB131 said:


> ThisIsMe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless of what Georgia did or didn't do, its not up to the left to force anything on anyone. That's the point I'm getting across. I can see, however, that you disagree, I wish it weren't so. Freedom means I don't have to do what you want me to. Freedom means I get to be free from your political ideology and your activism. It also means corporations are free from political activism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freedom means you can do what you want, but you also have to deal with the consequences.
> 
> For instance, you can legally make products out of puppies, but people won't want to buy your puppy products.
> 
> View attachment 476078
> 
> You can set up your factory in Jim Crow 2.0 state, but people might think that's a good reason to pick
> 
> 
> View attachment 476079
Click to expand...

I notice the clever use of colors on the pepsi can.  In fact, I can see the ad now: an elderly, apparently poor, black woman standing in a seemingly endless voting line in HOT RELENTLESS SUN with no shade to be seen ..... when SUDDENLY a group of incredibly attractive young people of a multitude of ethnic descents APPEAR as if by MAGIC, and start handing out FREE ICE COLD cans of PEPSI


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He ruined his life. I wouldn't have ruined it much more and, frankly, I was over it and ready to move on. A trial would've eaten up a good chunk of my time. I've got better things for me and my people to do than sit in a fucking courtroom...



Yet you were the one who insisted on pressing criminal charges over something where you could have simply arranged a repayment plan or wrote the expense off. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You have all of the pertinent information. You're just too fucking dense to realize it.
> 
> What, in your opinion, would justify stealing thousands of dollars from an employer?



When the employer gave him a credit card and told him to do it.  You keep leaving out the "Why" of what he did.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I bet you're the guy who blames a rape victim because she dressed provacatively.
> 
> He had a wide latitude to buy things for his customers. I had no problem with that.
> 
> The people he was buying things for were not his customers. I had an enormous problem with _that_.



Yet they were someone you were doing business with.... so you haven't really explained WHY he went to a customer that was another sales reps....  probably because the answer makes you look bad.  

Now, this is something I have seen too much.  A manager who gives a direction, and when it turns to shit, finding a scapegoat.  It's why I took up the habit of making sure I got everything that was even a little hinky in writing. (I actually did this when I was in the Army, when an officer directed us to do something that was in complete violation of the appropriate regulation.  when it all blew up, my ass was covered. ) 



Canon Shooter said:


> Besides, anyone who would go from working for a multi-national corporation to begging people to let you write their resumes is a loser at life...



Well, first, I never stopped working for MNCs.  The resume writing is more of a sideline. Secondly, the main reason I do it. (I don't really have to beg anyone, they come to me, often from referrals) is because I actually enjoy it.  So it kind of started out as a hobby and kind of took on a life of its own and gives me a very comfortable living.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I've never compared myself with multi-national corporations, simply because I'm not one. For you to do it only serves to show how desperate you are to "win" this discussion. I could sit here and give you the name of every single person who works for me, whether it's my CFO or the guy who cleans the bathrooms.



Or you can just say the name of the company, then I can look it up and have a good laugh at your expense. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Instead, I'll live a life of leisure while sorry sots like you write a couple of resumes a week so you're able to buy yourself some ramen and maybe a hooker from time to time.



Actually, I eat very well, thanks.  I am living debt free for the first time in decades. (Compared to 12 years ago, when I got stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills after Cigna and my former employer cured me of Republican stupidity) and have squirrelled away enough to enjoy a nice retirement.  I'm about to sell my house for a good profit over what I paid for it. (Again, given that Bush wrecked the housing market 12 years ago, this is an accomplishment.) 

And I did it without fucking anyone over, like you seem to be so proud of. 



Canon Shooter said:


> So, do yourself a favor: stop trying to making me feel bad for firing someone (clearly you wouldn't have the balls to do it) or to make it out as though my employees are afraid of me or that I'm a weak manager. None of those are true, and are nothing but figments of your apparently overactive imagination. You don't like me not only because I'm successful, but because I possess the requisite work ethic to become successful, while you don't. That's why you like unions. You can be a lazy fuck and, unless you fucking kill someone, you can keep your job...



Okay, guy, I don't expect you to feel bad. You'd need a fucking conscience to do that. 

Clearly, you are a weak manager because you give unclear instructions and you need to constantly remind people you are in charge by terrorizing them.  A good leader leads by example and expertise, not by fear and terror and micromanaging. 

I like unions because they protect the rights of workers and gave us a middle class. 

Hint.  We have something called "Labor Day" celebrating the accomplishments of unions. 
We don't have something called, "Insecure boss's day" where the Office Bully tries for three weeks to convince a total stranger that's he's really, really not a bad boss, after bragging about snooping on his employees, firing them for conversations he doesn't like and ruining one person's life for bad direction.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yet you were the one who insisted on pressing criminal charges over something where you could have simply arranged a repayment plan or wrote the expense off.



He stole from me. I'm not interested in writing that off or letting him get into a "repayment plan". How absolutely fucking stupid of you to even suggest that. He paid my company back, and it hurt him to do it.

Inasmuch as my employees enjoy great reward when the excel, so do they suffer dire consequences when they do what this shitbag did. The fact that you find little fault with him, and much more so with me as the employer, tells mne all I need to know about what sort of shtbag employee you are...



> When the employer gave him a credit card and told him to do it.  You keep leaving out the "Why" of what he did.



He felt he would benefit him. He put his well being above that of the company he worked for, at the company's expense...



> Yet they were someone you were doing business with.... so you haven't really explained WHY he went to a customer that was another sales reps....  probably because the answer makes you look bad.



Not at all. I've explained why he did it. You just want to gory details, but you're not going to get them. You're not going to get them not because they make me look bad (they don't), but because you've proven, over and over, that you'll twist anything I say into whatever fits whatever narrative you wish to promote.

If you weren't such a piece of shit, and conducted yourself like an adult, you'd have had all the details by now...



> Now, this is something I have seen too much.  A manager who gives a direction, and when it turns to shit, finding a scapegoat.



Is that what you call an employee who steals from his company? A scapegoat?

Well, that's okay with me, then...



> It's why I took up the habit of making sure I got everything that was even a little hinky in writing. (I actually did this when I was in the Army, when an officer directed us to do something that was in complete violation of the appropriate regulation.  when it all blew up, my ass was covered. )



The employee knew the paramters under which he could use his company credit card. He knew them, and he knowingly used it outside those parameters. Why is it so fucking difficult for you to understand that?



> Well, first, I never stopped working for MNCs.  The resume writing is more of a sideline. Secondly, the main reason I do it. (I don't really have to beg anyone, they come to me, often from referrals) is because I actually enjoy it.  So it kind of started out as a hobby and kind of took on a life of its own and gives me a very comfortable living.



You "don't really have to beg"? That tells me you beg, at least a little bit.

And "comfortable"? I'm on the front end of a six week vacation right now. I've got trustworthy people taking the helm of both my companies while I'm gone. You see being able to take the family to Safari Land as being "comfortable". That's not comfortable. That's pedestrian...



> Or you can just say the name of the company, then I can look it up and have a good laugh at your expense.



Again, you might've already had that name had you not conducted yourself as a complete and utter fucking douchebag...



> Actually, I eat very well, thanks.  I am living debt free for the first time in decades. (Compared to 12 years ago, when I got stuck with tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills after Cigna and my former employer cured me of Republican stupidity) and have squirrelled away enough to enjoy a nice retirement.  I'm about to sell my house for a good profit over what I paid for it. (Again, given that Bush wrecked the housing market 12 years ago, this is an accomplishment.)



Yeah, you blame everyone else for your problems. What a piece of shit. Nothing's ever your fault.

And those who claim to "squirrell away" enough for a nice retirement normally don't have enough for a nice retirement at all.

As for real estate, I just sold my late aunt's townhouse in New York; about an hour north of Manhattan. I accepted an offer that was $24,000 over the listing price. Why? Because Bill Di Blasio, a democrat piece of shit like you, has turned New York City into a place no one wants to live. People are moving out in droves.

Oh, and the townhouse needed $40-50K in renovations...



> And I did it without fucking anyone over, like you seem to be so proud of.



Who did I fuck over?

I didn't fuck over anyone...



> Okay, guy, I don't expect you to feel bad. You'd need a fucking conscience to do that.



Yeah, giving a kid money for a car, when he was in dire straits... yeah, I've got no conscience.

Fuck you, maggot...



> Clearly, you are a weak manager because you give unclear instructions and you need to constantly remind people you are in charge by terrorizing them.  A good leader leads by example and expertise, not by fear and terror and micromanaging.



You see holding employees to a standard of conduct as micromanaging. Well, you and I will never agree on this point...



> I like unions because they protect the rights of workers and gave us a middle class.



No, you like unions because you're not a strong enough employee to hold on to a job on your own. You like unions because, left to your own devices, you've be shit-canned ina New York minute. Far more telling than me not wanting a union shop is the fact that my employees don't want it. They're treated better by me, and taken care of better by me, than they would be by a union, and they know it...



> Hint.  We have something called "Labor Day" celebrating the accomplishments of unions.



So what?



> We don't have something called, "Insecure boss's day" where the Office Bully tries for three weeks to convince a total stranger that's he's really, really not a bad boss, after bragging about snooping on his employees, firing them for conversations he doesn't like and ruining one person's life for bad direction.



You'll be a failure at life. I grieve for you on that.

But know this: I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That would require me respecting you, which I don't, and giving a fuck about your opinion, which I also don't. I think you're nothing more than a great big piece of human feces with an internet connection.

You try to take issue with me and how I run my companies, yet I'll remind you that YOU are the one who said you lie in the course of conducting business. YOU are the one who said you conduct yourself dishonestly in a business environment. Those admissions (totally unsolicited, by the way), speak volumes about you as an employee but, even more important, it speaks volumes about you as a person.

Your taking issue with anything I've done or said is absolutely laughable. Bring me someone respectable to take issue with me and I'll listen. But a fucking liar like you? The world is better off without bags of shit like you in it...


----------



## JoeB131

He's SOOOOOOOO Needy!!!! 



Canon Shooter said:


> He stole from me. I'm not interested in writing that off or letting him get into a "repayment plan". How absolutely fucking stupid of you to even suggest that. He paid my company back, and it hurt him to do it.
> 
> Inasmuch as my employees enjoy great reward when the excel, so do they suffer dire consequences when they do what this shitbag did. The fact that you find little fault with him, and much more so with me as the employer, tells mne all I need to know about what sort of shtbag employee you are...



Uh, huh... Except you keep leaving out key details that make you look bad... so it sounds like vindictiveness to me. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He felt he would benefit him. He put his well being above that of the company he worked for, at the company's expense...



How would it have benefited him? It would have only benefited him if he got the deal and IF you would have given him the account as an award.  Which tells me that you weren't giving terribly clear direction.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Not at all. I've explained why he did it. You just want to gory details, but you're not going to get them. You're not going to get them not because they make me look bad (they don't), but because you've proven, over and over, that you'll twist anything I say into whatever fits whatever narrative you wish to promote.
> 
> If you weren't such a piece of shit, and conducted yourself like an adult, you'd have had all the details by now...



Translation- You fired an employee due to your poor supervision, and then vindictively punished him to make yourself feel better.   



Canon Shooter said:


> Is that what you call an employee who steals from his company? A scapegoat?



Except you didn't demonstrate he "stole" anything.  He used his credit card for things you normally let people use credit cards for, just not for his customer.  



Canon Shooter said:


> The employee knew the paramters under which he could use his company credit card. He knew them, and he knowingly used it outside those parameters. Why is it so fucking difficult for you to understand that?



Mostly because you keep leaving out those key details of WHY he did it.  Probably because the Why makes you look bad.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You "don't really have to beg"? That tells me you beg, at least a little bit.



Um, no.  I never begged anyone who didn't want the service. Have even turned customers away when they asked for things that were outside of my wheelhouse.  (Like the lady who wanted me to write her college paper for her.) 



Canon Shooter said:


> And "comfortable"? I'm on the front end of a six week vacation right now. I've got trustworthy people taking the helm of both my companies while I'm gone. You see being able to take the family to Safari Land as being "comfortable". That's not comfortable. That's pedestrian...



Oooh "Safari Land"... that is so white trash.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, you might've already had that name had you not conducted yourself as a complete and utter fucking douchebag...



Um, yeah, okay.  I know you are embarrassed. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, you blame everyone else for your problems. What a piece of shit. Nothing's ever your fault.
> 
> And those who claim to "squirrell away" enough for a nice retirement normally don't have enough for a nice retirement at all.



Okay. you tell yourself that... Frankly, a person who was secure wouldn't be so invested in the misery of others. 




Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, giving a kid money for a car, when he was in dire straits... yeah, I've got no conscience.



Ohhh. a car.  What's your obsession with cars?  



Canon Shooter said:


> You see holding employees to a standard of conduct as micromanaging. Well, you and I will never agree on this point...



You are right. I would hold people to standards related to their work.  What they discuss in the lunchroom or what they are doing in their private lives... nothing to do with Work, Captain Needy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, you like unions because you're not a strong enough employee to hold on to a job on your own. You like unions because, left to your own devices, you've be shit-canned ina New York minute. Far more telling than me not wanting a union shop is the fact that my employees don't want it. They're treated better by me, and taken care of better by me, than they would be by a union, and they know it...



Uh, huh.  And if they express any contrary opinion, they'd be out of there in a new york minute. 

Now, I've never had to work in a union environment... but yeah, not being screwed over because of an injury would have been nice.  



Canon Shooter said:


> But know this: I'm not trying to convince you of anything. That would require me respecting you, which I don't, and giving a fuck about your opinion, which I also don't. I think you're nothing more than a great big piece of human feces with an internet connection.



Yet you've been at this trying to convince me for three weeks now.  When I stopped on that other thread, you found an unrelated thread I was on to keep having the argument.   That's how hard you are working.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You try to take issue with me and how I run my companies, yet I'll remind you that YOU are the one who said you lie in the course of conducting business. YOU are the one who said you conduct yourself dishonestly in a business environment. Those admissions (totally unsolicited, by the way), speak volumes about you as an employee but, even more important, it speaks volumes about you as a person.



Uh, yeah, guy, I live in the real world, where you don't give away your position when negotiating.  Capitalism is INHERENTLY dishonest.  The fact you've been lying about why you fired this poor sales guy for weeks now tells me how dishonest you are.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Your taking issue with anything I've done or said is absolutely laughable. Bring me someone respectable to take issue with me and I'll listen. But a fucking liar like you? The world is better off without bags of shit like you in it...



Funny, I think the world would be better off if we had less bad managers, crowing on their little dungheaps.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> He's SOOOOOOOO Needy!!!!



Says the shitbag who stalks me on other threads...



> Uh, huh... Except you keep leaving out key details that make you look bad... so it sounds like vindictiveness to me.



Which key details?

The only "key detail" you really need to know is that he stole from my company. Only someone who's a big enough shitbag to think that there could be a circumstance where that theft was justified would need more details.

You steal, you're fired and prosecuted. That's how the world works...



> How would it have benefited him?



It doesn't matter how. He stole from the company. The benefit he hoped to realize isn't really pertinent to whether or not he did it...



> It would have only benefited him if he got the deal and IF you would have given him the account as an award.  Which tells me that you weren't giving terribly clear direction.



Your ignorance of the entire situation makes you look stupid when you try to make it look like you have a clue what you're talking about...



> Translation- You fired an employee due to your poor supervision, and then vindictively punished him to make yourself feel better.



Actuallty, no. Translation: You're a shitbag...



> Except you didn't demonstrate he "stole" anything.  He used his credit card for things you normally let people use credit cards for, just not for his customer.



Correct.

And, because it wasn't his customer, that constituted stealing...



> Mostly because you keep leaving out those key details of WHY he did it.  Probably because the Why makes you look bad.



You've yet to explain why those details are necessary to understand that he was wrong to steal from the company...



> Um, no.  I never begged anyone who didn't want the service.



So, what that says is that, when you encountered someone who needed the service you provide, you begged them to let you do it so they wouldn't go somewhere else...



> Oooh "Safari Land"... that is so white trash.



Exactly my point. You're white trash...



> Um, yeah, okay.  I know you are embarrassed.



I've not a single thing to be embarrassed about.,..



> Okay. you tell yourself that... Frankly, a person who was secure wouldn't be so invested in the misery of others.



What do you call someone who spends umpteen pages trying to convince someone that they're a "bad boss who gives poor direction"?

Get over yourself, Nancy...



> Ohhh. a car.  What's your obsession with cars?



No obsession with them, but it's no surprise that you don't want to discuss how it completely turned this kid's attitude around, knowing that someone actually cared more about helping him keep his job as opposed to getting fired for being late all the time...



> You are right. I would hold people to standards related to their work.  What they discuss in the lunchroom or what they are doing in their private lives... nothing to do with Work, Captain Needy.



When someone gets hired, they know exactly what is and isn't permissible. If they flaunt those rules, that's detrimental.

See, your problem is you haven't a clue how to run a successful business. That's why you work for someone else. You always have and you always will...



> Uh, huh.  And if they express any contrary opinion, they'd be out of there in a new york minute.



Bullshit.

As with any workplace, there are certain rules or procedures that someone in the crew isn't going to like. My people are absolutely free to voice their opinions concerning those things. I don't care, and I certainly won't fire anyone for it...



> Now, I've never had to work in a union environment... but yeah, not being screwed over because of an injury would have been nice.



That's just evidence that you're a bad employee.

If one of my employees finds himself in a pinch, I, and my management team, will go out of our ways to help him. We do that because we value our employees.

I guess you weren't good enough to be valued as an employee...



> Yet you've been at this trying to convince me for three weeks now.  When I stopped on that other thread, you found an unrelated thread I was on to keep having the argument.   That's how hard you are working.



I don't have to work hard anymore. That's why you're jealous. I'm on a six week coast to coast road trip and you're eyeballin' Safari Land for the family vacay this year...



> Uh, yeah, guy, I live in the real world, where you don't give away your position when negotiating.  Capitalism is INHERENTLY dishonest.  The fact you've been lying about why you fired this poor sales guy for weeks now tells me how dishonest you are.



Don't try to mitigate how big a shitbag you are by pretending that you know anything about why I fired someone. You're a liar. Liars are often thieves, too. After all, the guy I shitcanned was lying about what he was doing...



> Funny, I think the world would be better off if we had less bad managers, crowing on their little dungheaps.



I think the world would be better if we had less of you and your fellow shitbag liars.

Your constant denigration, ignorant though it may be, of me and my business is so far rooted in jealousy you don't even realize it. You hate people who are successful, primarily because you know, more than anyone, that you don't have what it takes. You'll always be someone's employee. Being an employee is perfectly fine, unless you're always an employee because you don't have what it takes to be successful, you're a liar and dishonest in how you conduct your business.

And that would be you...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> The only "key detail" you really need to know is that he stole from my company. Only someone who's a big enough shitbag to think that there could be a circumstance where that theft was justified would need more details.
> 
> You steal, you're fired and prosecuted. That's how the world works...



Um, yeah, okay... man, the truth of it must not make you look good.  



Canon Shooter said:


> No obsession with them, but it's no surprise that you don't want to discuss how it completely turned this kid's attitude around, knowing that someone actually cared more about helping him keep his job as opposed to getting fired for being late all the time...



The fact that you keep thinking that you bought a beater for someone once somehow makes you a decent human being is telling.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Don't try to mitigate how big a shitbag you are by pretending that you know anything about why I fired someone. You're a liar. Liars are often thieves, too. After all, the guy I shitcanned was lying about what he was doing...



Did he?  Frankly, you keep hiding why he did it.  So honestly, it sounds like you went after this guy to cover your own ass.   



Canon Shooter said:


> Your constant denigration, ignorant though it may be, of me and my business is so far rooted in jealousy you don't even realize it. You hate people who are successful, primarily because you know, more than anyone, that you don't have what it takes. You'll always be someone's employee. Being an employee is perfectly fine, unless you're always an employee because you don't have what it takes to be successful, you're a liar and dishonest in how you conduct your business.



Guy, the thing is, in every post, you show yourself to be hateful of the people who work for you.  Hateful of black people.  Hateful of just about everyone.  Frankly, I would almost feel sad for you...if you weren't such an awful person to start with.  People don't love you, they fear you... this isn't a good thing.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, yeah, okay... man, the truth of it must not make you look good.



Tell you what: You tell me under what circumstances it would be okay to steal thousands of dollars from an employer, and make a convincing argument, and I'll give you all the details you want...



> The fact that you keep thinking that you bought a beater for someone once somehow makes you a decent human being is telling.



The fact that you think it's meaningless is telling, as well.

We had an employee who was constantly late for work, but he was a damn good worker once he got here. We didn't want to fire him, but we couldn't justify no doing that if he was constantly late. So, we figured out how we could help him improve his situation and let him keep his job. That's what good employers do. You wouldn't know that, though.

As for the car, more ignorance being belched up by you. We didn't buy him a car, you dumbfuck. We gave him money for him to put towards a car...



> Did he?  Frankly, you keep hiding why he did it.  So honestly, it sounds like you went after this guy to cover your own ass.



Stupid fuck, I don't have to cover my ass. I own the joint.

The DA's office had all the details, though, and they felt that prosecuting him was appropriate...



> Guy, the thing is, in every post, you show yourself to be hateful of the people who work for you.  Hateful of black people.  Hateful of just about everyone.  Frankly, I would almost feel sad for you...if you weren't such an awful person to start with.  People don't love you, they fear you... this isn't a good thing.



How have I shown that I hate the people who work for me?

Exactly how fucking stupid are you?

I've done no such thing. See, I don't have time for hate. Not even a little bit. It takes up too much time and energy and is counter-productive..


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Tell you what: You tell me under what circumstances it would be okay to steal thousands of dollars from an employer, and make a convincing argument, and I'll give you all the details you want...



I think you kind of have that wrong.... you have to convince me the thousands were stolen to start with... oh, never mind, Captain Needy.  I'm sure you're the hero of your own little drama. 



Canon Shooter said:


> We had an employee who was constantly late for work, but he was a damn good worker once he got here. We didn't want to fire him, but we couldn't justify no doing that if he was constantly late. So, we figured out how we could help him improve his situation and let him keep his job. That's what good employers do. You wouldn't know that, though.



I could think of half a dozen things.  One would be to see if anyone lives near him and could pick him up in the morning.   

I've had good employers... you wouldn't qualify. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The DA's office had all the details, though, and they felt that prosecuting him was appropriate...



Meh, they also felt that cutting a no jail time deal to get it out of their hair was appropriate.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I think you kind of have that wrong.... you have to convince me the thousands were stolen to start with...



Wow, you certainly have an overinflated sense of self-importance. I don't have to convince you of shit.

But, there it is. I gave you a chance to get the details you want, and you scoffed at it.

You blew the one chance you had...



> I could think of half a dozen things.  One would be to see if anyone lives near him and could pick him up in the morning.



Yeah, because he hadn't already tried that.

You're a fuckin' idiot...



> Meh, they also felt that cutting a no jail time deal to get it out of their hair was appropriate.



You act as though that's unusual. 

I also wasn't interested in wasting much more time on this piece of shit. He still paid a large fine. He still paid restitution. He's still a convicted felon.

That's good enough for me...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Wow, you certainly have an overinflated sense of self-importance. I don't have to convince you of shit.
> 
> But, there it is. I gave you a chance to get the details you want, and you scoffed at it.
> 
> You blew the one chance you had...



I'm not the one trying to vindicate prosecuting a guy over a few dinners charged on his credit card. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You act as though that's unusual.
> 
> I also wasn't interested in wasting much more time on this piece of shit. He still paid a large fine. He still paid restitution. He's still a convicted felon.



Yup, sounds like he had a shitty lawyer...  not that you were vindicated...

Look, man, you're a shitty person.  I hate to keep being the one to point that out to you, but you really are.


----------



## citygator

JackOfNoTrades said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh just stop with this bullshit comparison. He got picked on by the left wing idealists. But he wasn't blackballed by the NFL, he wasn't colluded against by NFL owners and unable to land a team, and he wasn't hung out to dry by the collective NFL players association. Eventually he was out of the league. Why? Not because of his religious beliefs or the fact that he kneeled in prayer. Because in the end, he wasn't a very good quarterback. Compare that to Kapernick who had way more upside than Tebow at the QB position and took his team to a Super Bowl. And he can't land a job because he takes a knee protesting the treatment of black men? C'mon.
Click to expand...

Tim Tebow was ostracized by the NFL but not for his beliefs. He was iced out for being unconventional.  Unique throwing motion, power, and will to win drove that guy... not a perfect throwing motion, quick decision making, and a 6’4’ height which is what they look for.  Plus his power is negated in the NFL where everyone is a beast.  I am biased and think he could have done well but it wasn’t his beliefs that ended his career.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you certainly have an overinflated sense of self-importance. I don't have to convince you of shit.
> 
> But, there it is. I gave you a chance to get the details you want, and you scoffed at it.
> 
> You blew the one chance you had...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one trying to vindicate prosecuting a guy over a few dinners charged on his credit card.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You act as though that's unusual.
> 
> I also wasn't interested in wasting much more time on this piece of shit. He still paid a large fine. He still paid restitution. He's still a convicted felon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, sounds like he had a shitty lawyer...  not that you were vindicated...
> 
> Look, man, you're a shitty person.  I hate to keep being the one to point that out to you, but you really are.
Click to expand...


Dinners, plane tickets, hotels, assorted "gifts".

Again, douchebag, you don't know the details.

And you know what? That's what tells me you're a shitty businessman. You've been whining about "details" for weeks now. When you finally had the opportunity to get them, you failed. You failed despite the fact that the chance to get what you wanted was handed to you on a silver platter.

Of course you'll whine and insist I never would've given them to you, but you're wrong. I would've. But you're a failure, so you get nothing, and now you've got only yourself to blame...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Dinners, plane tickets, hotels, assorted "gifts".
> 
> Again, douchebag, you don't know the details.



Because you don't share them... None of those sound extravagant, honestly.  The kind of crap that sales people write off all the time. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And you know what? That's what tells me you're a shitty businessman. You've been whining about "details" for weeks now. When you finally had the opportunity to get them, you failed. You failed despite the fact that the chance to get what you wanted was handed to you on a silver platter.



Naw, guy, the problem is, you are what we call in writing an "unreliable narrator".  You keep changing the details to make yourself look good.  

So here's the detail you keep leaving out. 

Why did he do it?  What was in it for him. He wasn't buying those things for himself, he bought them for a customer who he was trying to bribe to give YOU (not him) more business.  Which means he thought it would work and he thought you'd be pleased.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Because you don't share them...



First, and again, the details don't matter. There's simply not a set of circumstances that exists which would justify the stealing of thousands of dollars from an employer.

Second, you had the opportunity to get those details and you proved only to be a fuck up. This is why you're a failure. When opportunity presents itself, you need to grab it. You ran away from it like a pussy...



> None of those sound extravagant, honestly.



So? If it's not extravagant then it's not wrong?

You were apparently raised with a set of values which runs counter to those of decent people...



> The kind of crap that sales people write off all the time.



I don't know of a business owner, large or small, who turns a blind eye to theft. Only people like you do that, which is one of the reasons you'll never be successful...



> Naw, guy, the problem is, you are what we call in writing an "unreliable narrator".  You keep changing the details to make yourself look good.



I haven't changed anything. In fact, as we've gone through this conversation, I've added details...



> Why did he do it?  What was in it for him.



Well, if you weren't a fuck up, you'd have that information...



> He wasn't buying those things for himself...



True...



> he bought them for a customer who he was trying to bribe to give YOU (not him) more business.



Not true.

But, again, if you had simply explained how and when stealing thousands from an employer could ever be justified, you would have that information...



> Which means he thought it would work and he thought you'd be pleased.



Not even close. He thought he was slick and would get away with it without anyone finding out. I've got a pretty shit-hot accounting team, though, and they easily nailed him...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> First, and again, the details don't matter.



Then why do you keep hiding them?  


Canon Shooter said:


> Not even close. He thought he was slick and would get away with it without anyone finding out. I've got a pretty shit-hot accounting team, though, and they easily nailed him...



Again, that doesn't make any sense.  It wasn't like HE was going to get the commissions from the sales.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I haven't changed anything. In fact, as we've gone through this conversation, I've added details...



Contradictory ones, keep changing the story, etc.   



Canon Shooter said:


> But, again, if you had simply explained how and when stealing thousands from an employer could ever be justified, you would have that information...



It wasn't stealing if he was authorized. 

I mean, fuck, by that logic, if I accidently take a pen home from work, I'm stealing from the company.  Except the company provided me with the pen to start with and expected me to use that pen.  

You gave him a credit card.
You told him to spend money on customers to raise sales. 
Just not seeing this as "theft".


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Then why do you keep hiding them?



Because it makes you wet your diaper.

Seriously, you're losing your fuckin' mind over details which don't mitigate the severity of the crime...



> Again, that doesn't make any sense.  It wasn't like HE was going to get the commissions from the sales.



No, he certainly wasn't.

And you'd know why he did it if you'd have simply explained how stealing thousands from an employer could ever be justified. You didn't do that, of course, because you know you can't. You're just too big a pussy to admit that...



> Contradictory ones, keep changing the story, etc.



Okay, Lyin' Joe, tell me what I've presented which is contradictory to anything else I've said...



> It wasn't stealing if he was authorized.



Wow.

I thought I had an appreciation for just how big a dumbfuck you are.

You just upped the ante with _that_ one, though...



> I mean, fuck, by that logic, if I accidently take a pen home from work, I'm stealing from the company.



In theory, yeah...



> Except the company provided me with the pen to start with and expected me to use that pen.



Pens are considered consumables. I don't care what happens with them. The ones we have all have our company name and logo. Reps give them to customers, friends... whoever. I don't care about pens. They come out of the marketing budget at about .14¢ a piece. We have branded note pads, too...



> You gave him a credit card.



Correct...



> You told him to spend money on customers to raise sales.



Not _quite_ correct. Reps are to use their company cards to spend money on _their _customers to raise _their _sales...



> Just not seeing this as "theft".



See, I don't care what you see it as. You're just some internet pinhead, who's professional life reads like a cautionary tale, trying to insist that you know anything about me or my business. Conversely, what I know about you is that you're dishonest, you're a liar, and you fail to recognize an opportunity to get what you want...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Because it makes you wet your diaper.
> 
> Seriously, you're losing your fuckin' mind over details which don't mitigate the severity of the crime...



Oh, you see, I thought it was because you made this guy a scapegoat when some scheme backfired in your face. 

Actually, I'm fairly convinced of it now. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, I don't care what you see it as. You're just some internet pinhead, who's professional life reads like a cautionary tale, trying to insist that you know anything about me or my business. Conversely, what I know about you is that you're dishonest, you're a liar, and you fail to recognize an opportunity to get what you want...



I already have everything I want. .. I mean, I don't have world peace and Trump's head on a pike, but I wouldn't get those things regardless... 

So you were a shitty manager, who either couldn't see that an employee was going off the rails, or you scapegoated him for some scheme that went south.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, you see, I thought it was because you made this guy a scapegoat when some scheme backfired in your face.



Actually, nothing backfired on me. I had an employee who thought he could get one over on the company and he learned, in a rather dramatic fashion, just how wrong he was. If anything blew up in anyone's face, it was his little plot blowing up in his...





> I already have everything I want...



Yet you keep whining like a bitch about unimportant details...



> I mean, I don't have world peace and Trump's head on a pike, but I wouldn't get those things regardless...



My apologies. I had no idea you were a 12 year old...



> So you were a shitty manager, who either couldn't see that an employee was going off the rails, or you scapegoated him for some scheme that went south.



Actually, we did see that he was going off the rails. That's how he got caught...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, nothing backfired on me. I had an employee who thought he could get one over on the company and he learned, in a rather dramatic fashion, just how wrong he was. If anything blew up in anyone's face, it was his little plot blowing up in his...



The plot you still can't explain- or won't because the details make you look like the idiot. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, we did see that he was going off the rails. That's how he got caught...



Uh, good managers catch these things before they go off the rails, not after. 

Of course, good managers don't fire people for having discussion they don't like or snoop in people's personal lives.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> The plot you still can't explain- or won't because the details make you look like the idiot.



Did I or did I not give you a golden opportunity to get the details you wanted?

Yes. Yes,I did.

Due to the fact that you're a failed businessman and are unable to identify a golden opportunity, did you fail to fully exploit that opportunity?

Yes, Yes, you did.

It's time for you to stop whining about not having the details. I presented you a perfect opportunity to get them, but you were only able to prove that you're a fuck up...



> Uh, good managers catch these things before they go off the rails, not after.



And he did. My VP of Sales sensed something was amiss and went to our accounting department. Once they determined what he was doing, they came to me. We let out a little more rope just to make sure he could hang himself completely.

Oh, wait: You thought that I was the one who caught him? No, dummy. I have a team of professionals who work for me who have those responsibilities delegated to them, Besides, if I were reviewing each and every expense report filed by everyone in my company who submits expense reports, you'd accuse me of being a micro-manager...



> Of course, good managers don't fire people for having discussion they don't like or snoop in people's personal lives.



There are few rules for employees to follow here. if they break those rules, they know they have to suffer the consequences.

And if you think asking someone "How's it going?" is "snooping", you're more pathetic than I imagined...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> It's time for you to stop whining about not having the details. I presented you a perfect opportunity to get them, but you were only able to prove that you're a fuck up...



Guy, I realize that the details make you look bad...  but you are coming up with all sorts of convoluted reasons not to share them.  

Either this guy did exactly what you wanted him to and it backfired. 
Or you were such an awful manager that he was not clear on what you wanted. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And he did. My VP of Sales sensed something was amiss and went to our accounting department. Once they determined what he was doing, they came to me. We let out a little more rope just to make sure he could hang himself completely.



Wow?  Really?  You mean you didn't sit him down and have a talk with him first, maybe find out what was going on?  You just let him keep doing it?  



Canon Shooter said:


> Oh, wait: You thought that I was the one who caught him? No, dummy. I have a team of professionals who work for me who have those responsibilities delegated to them, Besides, if I were reviewing each and every expense report filed by everyone in my company who submits expense reports, you'd accuse me of being a micro-manager...



Well, um, yeah, you fire people for having unauthorized conversations and stick your nose in personal business.  Micromanagers are usually the most clueless managers, because they usually can't see the big picture. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And if you think asking someone "How's it going?" is "snooping", you're more pathetic than I imagined...



Except you previously said you do a lot more than that... like find out what's going on in their family lives and fire people for conversations about religion... that's kind of.. you k now, creepy.


----------



## beagle9

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you don't share them...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First, and again, the details don't matter. There's simply not a set of circumstances that exists which would justify the stealing of thousands of dollars from an employer.
> 
> Second, you had the opportunity to get those details and you proved only to be a fuck up. This is why you're a failure. When opportunity presents itself, you need to grab it. You ran away from it like a pussy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of those sound extravagant, honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? If it's not extravagant then it's not wrong?
> 
> You were apparently raised with a set of values which runs counter to those of decent people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The kind of crap that sales people write off all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know of a business owner, large or small, who turns a blind eye to theft. Only people like you do that, which is one of the reasons you'll never be successful...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, guy, the problem is, you are what we call in writing an "unreliable narrator".  You keep changing the details to make yourself look good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't changed anything. In fact, as we've gone through this conversation, I've added details...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did he do it?  What was in it for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if you weren't a fuck up, you'd have that information...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't buying those things for himself...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he bought them for a customer who he was trying to bribe to give YOU (not him) more business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.
> 
> But, again, if you had simply explained how and when stealing thousands from an employer could ever be justified, you would have that information...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which means he thought it would work and he thought you'd be pleased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not even close. He thought he was slick and would get away with it without anyone finding out. I've got a pretty shit-hot accounting team, though, and they easily nailed him...
Click to expand...

Hmmm, Joe talks like he might have been in the position of the guy you fired once, and maybe got away with it ???? He sure is doing alot of defending of the criminal (even attempting to water down his actions), and attempting to put himself in the shoes of the criminal in order to try and justify him. I wouldn't respond to his bullcrap again on the matter, because he's just baiting and then switching his bullcrap based on every response you give. He thinks he's setting you up, and making you look bad with every response given, but we know JoeB. It's a game for him, and he doesn't mind looking the raving lunatic even when he knows what the truth is. It's a game for him. Don't waste your valuable time.


----------



## JoeB131

beagle9 said:


> Hmmm, Joe talks like he might have been in the position of the guy you fired once, and maybe got away with it ???? He sure is doing alot of defending of the criminal (even attempting to water down his actions), and attempting to put himself in the shoes of the criminal in order to try and justify him. I wouldn't respond to his bullcrap again on the matter, because he's just baiting and then switching his bullcrap based on every response you give. He thinks he's setting you up, and making you look bad with every response given, but we know JoeB. It's a game for him, and he doesn't mind looking the raving lunatic even when he knows what the truth is. It's a game for him. Don't waste your valuable time.



Actually, he does look like a bad person, because by his own admission, he just admitted they set the guy up to charge him with a crime... 

You see, a good boss would call him into the office and get to the bottom and find out why he did what he did. 

I'm kind of suspecting CS never bothered to even find out what the whole story was...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, I realize that the details make you look bad...  but you are coming up with all sorts of convoluted reasons not to share them.



But they don't. If you weren't stupid and a business failure, you'd know them, because you'd have seized the opportunity that presented itself to you...



> Either this guy did exactly what you wanted him to and it backfired.
> Or you were such an awful manager that he was not clear on what you wanted.



You're an idiot. 

He was a relatively longtime employee. He knew what his gig was. He knew what he was doing was wrong when he was doing it.

He tried to take advantage of the system and he got caught...



> Wow?  Really?  You mean you didn't sit him down and have a talk with him first, maybe find out what was going on?  You just let him keep doing it?



We knew what was going on. We just wanted to make a stronger case against him. We even had the help of the people she was spending my company's money on. When he was finally confronted, he knew he was fucked. You could see the life drain out of him...



> Well, um, yeah, you fire people for having unauthorized conversations and stick your nose in personal business.  Micromanagers are usually the most clueless managers, because they usually can't see the big picture.



Considering my business started in a garage in Santee, California and now is worth close to $20 million, I'd say my view of "the big picture" is just fine. What's more, I've built my business honestly, without feeling the need to lie to people for my own benefit. Only scumbags like you do that...



> Except you previously said you do a lot more than that... like find out what's going on in their family lives and fire people for conversations about religion... that's kind of.. you k now, creepy.



You're a dishonest guy. It's pretty clear you're proud of that, too. You lie to better yourself. 

You're hardly in a position to lecture anyone on anything you take issue with.

You're a lying, dishonest scumbag, Joe. That's by your own admission, too. You're a failure, and you'll always be a failure, largely because of that.

I have people who've been with me less than a year who are better business people than you could ever hope to be...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, he does look like a bad person, because by his own admission, he just admitted they set the guy up to charge him with a crime...



The Hell I did, you lying fuck.

He was already well involved in committing his crime. We simply allowed him to wrap that noose around his neck a little tighter...



> You see, a good boss would call him into the office and get to the bottom and find out why he did what he did.



And what could possibly justify stealing thousands of dollars from an employer? You've been a true chickenshit when it comes to answering that. In fact, I even offered to give you all of the details (not that they matter) if you answered it, and you didn't.

The bottom line is that there's nothing which justifies it. Nothing...



> I'm kind of suspecting CS never bothered to even find out what the whole story was...



Yeah, I only spent all of that time with the District Attorney  because I didn't know the whole story.

Goddamn, Joey, how fucking stupid and ignorant are you really?


----------



## beagle9

JoeB131 said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, Joe talks like he might have been in the position of the guy you fired once, and maybe got away with it ???? He sure is doing alot of defending of the criminal (even attempting to water down his actions), and attempting to put himself in the shoes of the criminal in order to try and justify him. I wouldn't respond to his bullcrap again on the matter, because he's just baiting and then switching his bullcrap based on every response you give. He thinks he's setting you up, and making you look bad with every response given, but we know JoeB. It's a game for him, and he doesn't mind looking the raving lunatic even when he knows what the truth is. It's a game for him. Don't waste your valuable time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, he does look like a bad person, because by his own admission, he just admitted they set the guy up to charge him with a crime...
> 
> You see, a good boss would call him into the office and get to the bottom and find out why he did what he did.
> 
> I'm kind of suspecting CS never bothered to even find out what the whole story was...
Click to expand...

Well I know exactly what he's talking about, because I've been in corporate management, and we've also had to investigate fraud, and release those who were mis-appropriating funds, abusing their positions, committing mail fraud, embezzlement, and other such things. Your cotton candy look at life is not reality Joe.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> But they don't. If you weren't stupid and a business failure, you'd know them, because you'd have seized the opportunity that presented itself to you...



again, guy, I know you scapegoated this poor guy to cover your own ass, but hey, that's what bad bosses do when they get caught. 



Canon Shooter said:


> e was already well involved in committing his crime. We simply allowed him to wrap that noose around his neck a little tighter...



If you had him dead to rights, why would you let him do that?  You see the sensible thing to do would be to call him into the office, show him what you had, and ask for an explanation and if it wasn't satisfactory, then fire him. 



beagle9 said:


> Well I know exactly what he's talking about, because I've been in corporate management, and we've also had to investigate fraud, and release those who were mis-appropriating funds, abusing their positions, committing mail fraud, embezzlement, and other such things. Your cotton candy look at life is not reality Joe.



yeah, frankly, I've seen a lot of corporate people abuse positions, fire people for conduct they were engaging in themselves.  

For instance, I had a manager who fired a supervisor for having sex with one of her subordinates.  Later on, I found out he was banging a subordinate when they were both married.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> again, guy, I know you scapegoated this poor guy to cover your own ass, but hey, that's what bad bosses do when they get caught.



I have no need to "scapegoat anyone "guy". The guy was stealing from my company. Perhaps a complete business failure like you would condone that, though. And I don't have to "cover my ass". I own the joint. I have no one to answer to except myself.

Your problem is you're too big a pussy to confront someone who's stealing from you...



> If you had him dead to rights, why would you let him do that?



Because I wasn't interested in only firing him. I was interested in seeing him criminally charged. Someone wants to fuck with me and steal from me and my company? That's fine. 

I fuck back.

You seem to forget that the District Attorney was involved, as well. This wasn't me and my team flying by the seat of our pants. In the end, the guy was nailed. They guy's life lies in shambles now, and the only person he can thank for that is himself...



> You see the sensible thing to do would be to call him into the office, show him what you had, and ask for an explanation and if it wasn't satisfactory, then fire him.



Why waste that time? No explanation would be sufficient to insulate him from being fired. None. Beside, even you, despite numerous requests, have been nothing but a total failure at explaining how it could ever be okay.

Again, I wasn't interested in only firing him. I wanted him criminally prosecuted, and we had more than enough evidence to do that...



> yeah, frankly, I've seen a lot of corporate people abuse positions, fire people for conduct they were engaging in themselves.



I think it's cute how you accuse those of us who are more successful than you of abusing our power and finding scapegoats. Anyone who's got more than you, does more than you or is worth more than you is, in your view, bad.

I bet you cried like a child after the Amazon union vote in Bessemmer...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I have no need to "scapegoat anyone "guy". The guy was stealing from my company.



No, he was using a credit card you gave him.   



Canon Shooter said:


> Because I wasn't interested in only firing him. I was interested in seeing him criminally charged. Someone wants to fuck with me and steal from me and my company? That's fine.



Yes, you are a mean-spirited asshole. We got that.  You've completely convinced me you are an awful human being, you don't need to keep trying. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I think it's cute how you accuse those of us who are more successful than you of abusing our power and finding scapegoats. Anyone who's got more than you, does more than you or is worth more than you is, in your view, bad.



The problem is, I have no problem with people who are successful on their own...  it's the ones who step on the backs of others I have an issue with.  

I also think that if you fire someone for a conduct, you shouldn't engage in the conduct yourself.  




Canon Shooter said:


> I bet you cried like a child after the Amazon union vote in Bessemmer...



Naw, it's kind of the inbred stupidity I expect from people in Jesusland. (AKA the Red States).


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> No, he was using a credit card you gave him.



He was using it for unauthorized purchases.

Look, dipshit, you can try to spin this any way you want. The bottom line is that there was no question in _his _mind that he was doing something illegal. He knew it. He admitted it...



> Yes, you are a mean-spirited asshole. We got that.  You've completely convinced me you are an awful human being, you don't need to keep trying.



Oh, I absolutely can be, yeah.

You steal from me and my company? Fuck you. I'm going to make you rue the day you fooled yourself into believing that you were smarter than me. I will fucking ruin you, and that's exactly what happened to this piece of shit. He's destroyed his life., and I smile when I think of that. He stole from me. If he died tomorrow I wouldn't give a fuck. Thieves are scumbags and they deserve every shitty thing that comes their way...



> The problem is, I have no problem with people who are successful on their own...  it's the ones who step on the backs of others I have an issue with.



Your problem is that you don't believe the former exists. In your mind, anyone who owns and runs his own company is bad.

So fuck you, dweeb...



> I also think that if you fire someone for a conduct, you shouldn't engage in the conduct yourself.



That's the one thing you've said that I can agree with...



> Naw, it's kind of the inbred stupidity I expect from people in Jesusland. (AKA the Red States).



See, there's your problem. You're not emotionally strong enough to deal with the fact that people simply may not share your opinion. Maybe someone has a good reason for not wanting to be in a union. I was living in southern California when the United Food and Commercial Workers union went on strike in 2003. Grocery workers were out for over four months. The union did dick to help them. They told the workers "stay the course and be strong" while banks were foreclosing on people's homes. Why would someone who was, let's say, a school aged kid back then, want to be a union member _now _when he watched the union do _nothing _to help his parents keep their home?

Unions have outlived their usefulness. Maybe they were good for a while, but they're not necessary now...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He was using it for unauthorized purchases.
> 
> Look, dipshit, you can try to spin this any way you want. The bottom line is that there was no question in _his _mind that he was doing something illegal. He knew it. He admitted it...



No, he just copped a plea to avoid $400.00 an hour lawyer fees.  

Again, you gave him a card... sounds like pretty bad management to me.  I've never seen anything like that in my career, which tells me that you kind of suck as a manager. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You steal from me and my company? Fuck you. I'm going to make you rue the day you fooled yourself into believing that you were smarter than me. I will fucking ruin you, and that's exactly what happened to this piece of shit. He's destroyed his life., and I smile when I think of that. He stole from me. If he died tomorrow I wouldn't give a fuck. Thieves are scumbags and they deserve every shitty thing that comes their way...



Yes, yes, you are an awful person.  You see, I'd never rejoice in anyone's misery.  For an atheist, I'm probably a better Christian than you are. 

Ruining someone's life over some expenses you were going to write off anyway is kind of being awful... but no problem, you praise Jesus down in Jesus land, you are fine. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, there's your problem. You're not emotionally strong enough to deal with the fact that people simply may not share your opinion. Maybe someone has a good reason for not wanting to be in a union.



Naw, I'm going with the inbred thing... you see, funny thing about the South.... The same mentality that made people who didn't own slaves happily catch bullets for a few rich assholes who did is the same mentality that makes them vote against having better pay and more rights at work.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I was living in southern California when the United Food and Commercial Workers union went on strike in 2003. Grocery workers were out for over four months. The union did dick to help them. They told the workers "stay the course and be strong" while banks were foreclosing on people's homes. Why would someone who was, let's say, a school aged kid back then, want to be a union member _now _when he watched the union do _nothing _to help his parents keep their home?



Cool Story, Bro.   

So let's look at that. 





__





						Southern California supermarket strike of 2003–04 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





On February 26, 2004 union members voted 86% to ratify an agreement with a two-tier system. Both sides claimed victory:

The trade unions won the following conditions for current employees:


Affordable health care benefits for new and current workers with no weekly employee premiums in the first two years, and only nominal payments if needed, in the third year.
Employer contributions of nearly $190 million to rebuild the health plan reserves.
A combined pension fund for new hires and current employees .
A wage payment averaging about $500 in the first and third years of the contract (UFCW.org)".


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> No, he just copped a plea to avoid $400.00 an hour lawyer fees.



Well, that and an 18 month prison term.

Again, don't pretend that you're smart enough to intelligently opine on the case. Trust me, you're far too fucking stupid for that...



> Again, you gave him a card... sounds like pretty bad management to me.  I've never seen anything like that in my career, which tells me that you kind of suck as a manager.



I'm sure you haven't seen anything like that, simply because despite your claims to the contrary, there's simply no reason to believe you've ever spent any meaningful amount of time in anything which would be considered a "career".

He used that card, for a long time, exactly how it was intended. It was only when he started using it in an effort to benefit himself did it become a problem...



> Yes, yes, you are an awful person.  You see, I'd never rejoice in anyone's misery.  For an atheist, I'm probably a better Christian than you are.



Make no mistake: I'm a really great guy to work for.

Until I'm not.

If you steal from me, you'll find out exactly how absolutely horrific an influence I can become on your life.

As for your "Christian" comment, that just further proves how absolutely fucking ignorant and stupid you are. I'm not a Christian, dipshit...



> Ruining someone's life over some expenses you were going to write off anyway is kind of being awful... .



Really?

So, if someone breaks into your home, steals your shit and ransacks the house, you'd let that go, right? After all, you've got insurance, right? What would be the point of the perpetrator being prosecuted?

The guy stole from my company. There's no ambiguity there. He admits it.

Ergo, your opinion is meaningless...



> Naw, I'm going with the inbred thing... you see, funny thing about the South.... The same mentality that made people who didn't own slaves happily catch bullets for a few rich assholes who did is the same mentality that makes them vote against having better pay and more rights at work.



More ignorance from you. You're like a buffet of ignorance and stupidity.

I'm not a southerner. I might live here, but there's not a single native here who would ever consider me as being from the south...



> Cool Story, Bro.
> 
> So let's look at that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Southern California supermarket strike of 2003–04 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On February 26, 2004 union members voted 86% to ratify an agreement with a two-tier system. Both sides claimed victory:
> 
> The trade unions won the following conditions for current employees:
> 
> 
> Affordable health care benefits for new and current workers with no weekly employee premiums in the first two years, and only nominal payments if needed, in the third year.
> Employer contributions of nearly $190 million to rebuild the health plan reserves.
> A combined pension fund for new hires and current employees .
> A wage payment averaging about $500 in the first and third years of the contract (UFCW.org)".



Funny, I don't see anything in there where it states that the unions got back the homes that unionized workers lost because they couldn't pay their mortgages because they were on strike...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, that and an 18 month prison term.
> 
> Again, don't pretend that you're smart enough to intelligently opine on the case. Trust me, you're far too fucking stupid for that...



Wait, now you are claiming he got a prison term?   Again, sounds to me like he just had a bad lawyer who copped a plea because that was the path of least resistance.  

Since you keep withholding key facts, you know, the ones that make you look like an awful manager, because something like this would never happen to a GOOD manager or even an mediocre one, I go with what you have on your ever changing story. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He used that card, for a long time, exactly how it was intended. It was only when he started using it in an effort to benefit himself did it become a problem...



Except you've never explained how buying stuff for a customer was benefiting him, since he wasn't going to get the commissions.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I'm not a southerner. I might live here, but there's not a single native here who would ever consider me as being from the south...



I never said you were.  I said that Southerners are kind of inbred stupid. The kind that says, "Yup, Cleetus, we done der want to work harder for less money and no rights at work because them damn Yankees have unions!!! And black people might make as much as I do."   They were stupid 150 years ago, and they are stupid now. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Funny, I don't see anything in there where it states that the unions got back the homes that unionized workers lost because they couldn't pay their mortgages because they were on strike...



If you are so awful at money management you can't afford being unemployed for four months, that's kind of on you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Wait, now you are claiming he got a prison term?   Again, sounds to me like he just had a bad lawyer who copped a plea because that was the path of least resistance.



No dipshit.

Honest to God, Joey, it's fascinating how stupid you are.

He was facing 18 months in prison. His lawyer told him to accept the plea deal because he was actually a good lawyer, and was smart enough to know that his client would be convicted...



> Since you keep withholding key facts, you know, the ones that make you look like an awful manager, because something like this would never happen to a GOOD manager or even an mediocre one, I go with what you have on your ever changing story.



Not a single part of my story has changed.

And please, stop whining about the facts you don't have. You have only yourself to blame. I told you that I would share everything with you if you could explain how stealing from an employer was ever acceptable. You didn't do that (because you knew you couldn't) and, by choosing not to do it,. you chose to continue this discussion ignorant of the facts.

Do you have even the slightest idea how fucking stupid that makes you look?



> Except you've never explained how buying stuff for a customer was benefiting him, since he wasn't going to get the commissions.



I would've explained it if you weren't stupid and simply explained how stealing from an employer is okay...



> I never said you were.  I said that Southerners are kind of inbred stupid. The kind that says, "Yup, Cleetus, we done der want to work harder for less money and no rights at work because them damn Yankees have unions!!! And black people might make as much as I do."   They were stupid 150 years ago, and they are stupid now.



Here's your problem (well, one of many): You do not believe that anyone who owns and runs a company can be a good and fair employer. You want those who own and run a company to cow-tow to employees. You want employees to have power over the person who's ass is truly on the line.

That's idiotic...



> If you are so awful at money management you can't afford being unemployed for four months, that's kind of on you.



So now you're blaming the workers for losing their homes? You're a real piece of shit, you know that?

People were going to work everyday, earning a living, paying their bills and then they had nothing. They were no longer getting paid. Many lost their homes. Now, sure, one argument can be that you should have enough in an emergency fund to last you a couple of months. But the reality is that most people don't. 



> Living paycheck to paycheck is an unpleasant financial reality for many Americans. In fact, 59% of adults in the U.S. admit to living paycheck to paycheck, according to Charles Schwab's 2019 Modern Wealth Index Survey. Almost half (44%) have credit card debt and only 38% have an emergency fund.





> A surprising number of upper middle-income earners—those making six figures—are also scrambling to make ends meet, other research shows. A recent study by global advisory firm Willis Towers Watson found that 18% of employees making more than $100,000 annually live paycheck to paycheck.



Why Upper-Middle Earners Are Living Paycheck to Paycheck

So, let's go back to the grocery worker who, like most Americans, doesn't have an emergency fund and would have difficulty with an unexpected $400 expense. But, he's able to pay his mortgage and provide for his family. Then the union comes along and declares they're going on strike. The grocery worker in question gets behind on his mortgage, gets foreclosed and loses his home, and you don't blame the union?

Your sense of right and wrong is about as fucked up as I've ever seen. I had an employee steal from me, and you blame _me_ for him making that choice, instead of assigning any responsibility at all to the scumbag who stole from me. You blame a grocery worker who, like most Americans, has little in savings, for losing his home when the union he was probably strong armed in joining goes on strike.

Unions had a purpose once. That purpose no longer exists. Unions are now nothing more than stench-laden reminders of a past we no longer need...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> He was facing 18 months in prison. His lawyer told him to accept the plea deal because he was actually a good lawyer, and was smart enough to know that his client would be convicted...



Most people don't go to jail over petty embezzlement...  if that what was even going on here.  

Which, frankly, it sounds like it wasn't.   



Canon Shooter said:


> And please, stop whining about the facts you don't have.



Look, man, you know you keep changing your story and hiding the facts because they make you look bad. A person who was in the right could recite all the facts with no issues.  



Canon Shooter said:


> So, let's go back to the grocery worker who, like most Americans, doesn't have an emergency fund and would have difficulty with an unexpected $400 expense. But, he's able to pay his mortgage and provide for his family. Then the union comes along and declares they're going on strike. The grocery worker in question gets behind on his mortgage, gets foreclosed and loses his home, and you don't blame the union?



No, I blame the company for not settling.   

And the fact that most Americans would have a problem with a $400.00 expense is an indictment of capitalism. It's why millions of people voted for Bernie.   Personally, I think Bernie is an idiot, but man, people like you think it's okay to pay working people poverty wages and how dare they go on strike for better wages....  you'll probably make someone like him inevitable. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Your sense of right and wrong is about as fucked up as I've ever seen. I had an employee steal from me, and you blame _me_ for him making that choice, instead of assigning any responsibility at all to the scumbag who stole from me.



Except he didn't "steal" from you.  He used an expense account you gave him to try to win business from one of your customers.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You blame a grocery worker who, like most Americans, has little in savings, for losing his home when the union he was probably strong armed in joining goes on strike.



Except not a lot of grocery workers lost their homes, and most of them came out better.   I blame the fact that for the last 40 years, people like you have been intent on dismantling the middle class, which is why most people have so little in savings.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Unions had a purpose once. That purpose no longer exists. Unions are now nothing more than stench-laden reminders of a past we no longer need...



Unions have the same purpose now that they've always had... because Capitalists are too fucking greedy.  

You see, the thing was, in the oldy days, you had unions, the rich paid high taxes.... and we were all better off for it.   We had an honest to God middle class where people weren't living paycheck to paycheck, where people weren't driving Ubers because their day jobs don't pay enough, where most people weren't getting government assistance. 

Things can't go on like this.  This is what you guys on the right don't get. You think you can keep getting stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests by playing on the racial, religious and sexual fears, but that won't go on forever.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Most people don't go to jail over petty embezzlement...  if that what was even going on here.
> 
> Which, frankly, it sounds like it wasn't.



Hmmmm... some lying pinhead on the internet or the St Johns County District Attorney.

Lemme' ask you, dipshit: Whose opinion do you think might actually matter?



> Look, man, you know you keep changing your story and hiding the facts because they make you look bad. A person who was in the right could recite all the facts with no issues.



I've changed nothing, and you'd prove to be a failure, yet again, at showing how I have. If anything, I've added details.

And, again, as far as you not knowing those details, that's on you. I gave you a golden opportunity and you fucked it up...



> No, I blame the company for not settling.



That's such bullshit.

Before the union declared the strike, these folks were able to pay their bills. It was only after the strike was called that shit hit the fan. Some people lost everything, and it happened only AFTER the fucking UNION called the strike...



> And the fact that most Americans would have a problem with a $400.00 expense is an indictment of capitalism.



No it's not. It's an indictment of poor money management skills.

When I was 16 years old I had over $6,000 in my bank account. I had a myriad of jobs between my paper route at age 12 and working in a camera store at age 16. I learned about money management. I learned how to budget. I learned about investing and about making smart financial choices. Capitalism didn't keep me from having a spare $400 in the bank, it enabled it.

But taking care of yourself, and doing right by yourself, is a concept you'll never understand...



> people like you think it's okay to pay working people poverty wages and how dare they go on strike for better wages....  you'll probably make someone like him inevitable.



My people are among the best paid in my industry. People get performance bonuses and regular raises. They get great benefits. They get plenty of PTO. My people are happy.

And they didn't need a union...



Canon Shooter said:


> Except he didn't "steal" from you.  He used an expense account you gave him to try to win business from one of your customers.



He did steal from me, and he wasn't trying to win business.

Again, had you not been an idiot, you'd know the facts. But the fact of the matter is that you STILL can't being yourself to say that stealing from an employer is never acceptable.

So, I guess along with being a fucking liar, you're also a piece of shit thief should the opportunity present itself...



> Except not a lot of grocery workers lost their homes, and most of them came out better.



I see.

So it's okay that a few lost their homes?

You're such a fucking scumbag...



> I blame the fact that for the last 40 years, people like you have been intent on dismantling the middle class, which is why most people have so little in savings.



Well, while I appreciate you comparing me to the likes of Albertson's, Ralph's, Von's and other SoCal grocery chains, I'm simply not as big as they are.

The people who work for me do very well. I see to that. You just can't wrap your pointed little head around the fact that a business owner like me can actually care about the people he employs...



> Unions have the same purpose now that they've always had



You know, 300 years ago, a scythe had a specific purpose: to cut crops like wheat or grass. Today, April 16, 2021, the scythe has that exact same purpose.

No one actually needs a scythe today, though, simply because there are better, more efficient ways to do the job.

It's just like unions...



> You see, the thing was, in the oldy days, you had unions, the rich paid high taxes.... and we were all better off for it.



Who do you consider "rich"?

Would you support a flat tax? You pay 20% of your income and I pay 20% of mine?

Can't be any more fair than that, right?



> We had an honest to God middle class where people weren't living paycheck to paycheck, where people weren't driving Ubers because their day jobs don't pay enough, where most people weren't getting government assistance.



Did you even read the link I posted?



> Things can't go on like this.  This is what you guys on the right don't get. You think you can keep getting stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests by playing on the racial, religious and sexual fears, but that won't go on forever.



Not quite sure where you're going with your comment about playing on "racist religious and sexual fears". Likely, it's a sad attempt to further obfuscate the discussion in an attempt to move it away from the discussion you're currently failing miserably at...


----------



## dblack

I'd agree, with many here, that much of "cancel culture" is ridiculous. And is, itself, in need of some canceling. But I think it would be a really bad idea to try to interfere via regulation or state action.


----------



## Canon Shooter

dblack said:


> I'd agree, with many here, that much of "cancel culture" is ridiculous. And is, itself, in need of some canceling. But I think it would be a really bad idea to try to interfere via regulation or state action.



I'd agree with that. I would also add that if some has-been like Kaepernick isn't happy about being out of work, that he shouldn't be able to litigate his way into a job...


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 

The next debate you win will be your first.

Canon Shooter just embarrassed you and almost as bad as I usually do. You cannot even outdebate Mac1958 

You are very pathetic. Tell me again about the proficient students in math in Baltimore High Schools. LOL.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> The next debate you win will be your first.
> 
> @Canon Shooter just embarrassed you and almost as bad as I usually do. You cannot even outdebate @Mac1958
> 
> You are very pathetic. Tell me again about the proficient students in math in Baltimore High Schools. LOL.



Wow, what did I tell you about dealing in absolutes?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Not quite sure where you're going with your comment about playing on "racist religious and sexual fears". Likely, it's a sad attempt to further obfuscate the discussion in an attempt to move it away from the discussion you're currently failing miserably at...



Okay, try to make it as simple for you as I can. 

Most White People are not rich, they aren't bosses, they aren't business owners.   Their interests are not the interests of the rich.    So how do they get these working class whites to vote against their own economic interests? 

By playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears!  

I'll give you one great example.  2004, George W. Stupid was trailing John Kerry.  Probably because he lied us into the war and made kind of mess of the economy.   So how does he get the stupid white people to vote for him. Oh my God, there's a crisis. Gay marriage might become a thing.  We need to protect you from the awful gay marriage.  If we're re-elected, we'll push a constitutional amendment to make marriage one man and one woman.  

Except after he squeaked by a win, he totally forgot about it.  Nope, he went right back to doing things Rich people want to get done!  Eventually, the courts ruled that gay marriage was something that couldn't be outlawed anyway, and Bush appointees even voted for it. 

The Republicans have been pulling this shit since Tricky Dick.   And in that time, we've seen the White Middle class continue to decline, Republicans blame minorities, gays, etc.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Before the union declared the strike, these folks were able to pay their bills. It was only after the strike was called that shit hit the fan. Some people lost everything, and it happened only AFTER the fucking UNION called the strike...



Were they? Were they really?  Or were they just one medical crisis away from bankruptcy like most of us are? 

You keep citing these "some people", but 87% of union members voted for the contract that was eventually won. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He did steal from me, and he wasn't trying to win business.
> 
> Again, had you not been an idiot, you'd know the facts. But the fact of the matter is that you STILL can't being yourself to say that stealing from an employer is never acceptable.



If you didn't keep changing your story, you might have some credibility. Your story was that he was buying dinners and airline tickets for employees of one of your customers.  He wasn't stealing from you, he was spending money on a customer, which is something sales reps do.   Again, sounds like poor supervision and management to me.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next debate you win will be your first.
> 
> @Canon Shooter just embarrassed you and almost as bad as I usually do. You cannot even outdebate @Mac1958
> 
> You are very pathetic. Tell me again about the proficient students in math in Baltimore High Schools. LOL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did I tell you about dealing in absolutes?
Click to expand...

I showed it’s not an absolute and you stole my saying. Moron.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I showed it’s not an absolute and you stole my saying. Moron.



oh, okay....  you claimed that not a single kid in Baltimore knows how to do math.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed it’s not an absolute and you stole my saying. Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> oh, okay....  you claimed that not a single kid in Baltimore knows how to do math.
Click to expand...

I posted a link as such. You just don’t know how to click on links unless they are Disney princess movie links. Weirdo.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> I posted a link as such. You just don’t know how to click on links unless they are Disney princess movie links. Weirdo.



Uh, uh... you seem to be the one with the weird princess fetish, Big Nose.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link as such. You just don’t know how to click on links unless they are Disney princess movie links. Weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, uh... you seem to be the one with the weird princess fetish, Big Nose.
Click to expand...

You’re the one with the Disney subscription lol and you don’t have kids.


----------



## JoeB131

AzogtheDefiler said:


> You’re the one with the Disney subscription lol and you don’t have kids.



Attack on family reported.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re the one with the Disney subscription lol and you don’t have kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attack on family reported.
Click to expand...

How so? How do I attack something that doesn’t exist? Eh Princess? Here let me ask a mod or two.

Meister 
WillHaftawaite


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure where you're going with your comment about playing on "racist religious and sexual fears". Likely, it's a sad attempt to further obfuscate the discussion in an attempt to move it away from the discussion you're currently failing miserably at...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, try to make it as simple for you as I can.
> 
> Most White People are not rich, they aren't bosses, they aren't business owners.   Their interests are not the interests of the rich.    So how do they get these working class whites to vote against their own economic interests?
> 
> By playing on their religious, racial and sexual fears!
> 
> I'll give you one great example.  2004, George W. Stupid was trailing John Kerry.  Probably because he lied us into the war and made kind of mess of the economy.   So how does he get the stupid white people to vote for him. Oh my God, there's a crisis. Gay marriage might become a thing.  We need to protect you from the awful gay marriage.  If we're re-elected, we'll push a constitutional amendment to make marriage one man and one woman.
> 
> Except after he squeaked by a win, he totally forgot about it.  Nope, he went right back to doing things Rich people want to get done!  Eventually, the courts ruled that gay marriage was something that couldn't be outlawed anyway, and Bush appointees even voted for it.
> 
> The Republicans have been pulling this shit since Tricky Dick.   And in that time, we've seen the White Middle class continue to decline, Republicans blame minorities, gays, etc.
> 
> View attachment 480858
Click to expand...


Wow.

You fell out of the Idiot Tree and hit every fuckin' branch on the way down, didn't you?

Why do you believe that business owners are out to fuck their employees? It's clear that you absolutely despise capitalism, but the reality is that, without capitalism, no one would have a job, whether they're in a union or not.

Both of my companies are structured so that, when the company makes more money the employees make money. I've tried and tried, but I just don't see a downside to that.

Perhaps this is news to you, but hiring or firing someone on the basis of their religion or sexual orientation is illegal. It's simply not an issue at my company. Your pretending that it is only further proves how big of an idiot asshole you are.

Your arguments have become profoundly weak to the point that it's not just me trying to get you to realize that. You might wanna' think about that the next time you're gonna' belch up more of your nonsense...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Were they? Were they really?  Or were they just one medical crisis away from bankruptcy like most of us are?



Maybe they were and maybe they weren't.

But the stroke led to people losing their homes, and you applaud that.

What a fucking scumbag you are...



> You keep citing these "some people", but 87% of union members voted for the contract that was eventually won.



Of course they voted for it. They were getting tired of not working, not earning money and getting foreclosed on or evicted...



> If you didn't keep changing your story, you might have some credibility. Your story was that he was buying dinners and airline tickets for employees of one of your customers.



I've changed nothing. The more you whine about that the more stupid you look...



> He wasn't stealing from you, he was spending money on a customer, which is something sales reps do.



His credit card was not issued to him so he could spend money on anyone other than _his _accounts. Period. Having it set up that way erases any grey area. That concept seems to throw you a real curve ball, though. Then again, not being a professional in even the loosest sense of the word, you wouldn't know anything about that...



> Again, sounds like poor supervision and management to me.



And it sounds like grand theft and embezzlement to the St. Johns County District Attorney. Now, I've no doubt you'll stupidly claim to know more about the law than he does, but I'll go with his opinion, regardless...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Why do you believe that business owners are out to fuck their employees? It's clear that you absolutely despise capitalism, but the reality is that, without capitalism, no one would have a job, whether they're in a union or not.



30 years of watching employers fuck over their employees...  that's why i think that's what they are out to do.  

yes, I despise capitalism.  No, I don't think capitalism is needed to create jobs.  Consumer demand creates jobs. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Perhaps this is news to you, but hiring or firing someone on the basis of their religion or sexual orientation is illegal. It's simply not an issue at my company. Your pretending that it is only further proves how big of an idiot asshole you are.



Um, yeah, the thing is, THOSE protections are kind of meaningless if you have "at Will" employment.  You've said yourself you fire people for having religious discussions on work time.  I know a lady who was fired from her job right after the boss found out she was gay.   

This had nothing to do with the point I was making, about how Republicans use social issues to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests.  In fact, you kind of missed the point of that political discussion altogether.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Of course they voted for it. They were getting tired of not working, not earning money and getting foreclosed on or evicted...



They could have crossed the picket lines... or voted for a less stringent agreement.. they didn't. That was the point. 



Canon Shooter said:


> His credit card was not issued to him so he could spend money on anyone other than _his _accounts. Period. Having it set up that way erases any grey area. That concept seems to throw you a real curve ball, though. Then again, not being a professional in even the loosest sense of the word, you wouldn't know anything about that...



Which again, begs the question, WHY was he spending money on other people's accounts... you keep glossing over that area, which tells me I'm not getting the complete story.  What was the upside for him?  Did he think he was going to steal that account away from the person who had it? Or did someone leave him with the impression that was something he could try, and if successful he would be rewarded.   

And honestly, seeing thirty years of utterly sleazy corporate behavior, often getting worse the smaller the company is, I'm not taking anything at face value.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

JoeB131 said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link as such. You just don’t know how to click on links unless they are Disney princess movie links. Weirdo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, uh... you seem to be the one with the weird princess fetish, Big Nose.
Click to expand...

Are you going to watch this tonight with a bucket of popcorn, fatty?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> 30 years of watching employers fuck over their employees...  that's why i think that's what they are out to do.



Well, you're wrong and you're an idiot.

Helluva' combination.l..



> yes, I despise capitalism.  No, I don't think capitalism is needed to create jobs.  Consumer demand creates jobs.



Someone needs to be the one to step up and put up the money to kickstart the process of meeting that demand. Consumer demand means dick if the means to satisfy that demand is nonexistent...



> Um, yeah, the thing is, THOSE protections are kind of meaningless if you have "at Will" employment.  You've said yourself you fire people for having religious discussions on work time.  I know a lady who was fired from her job right after the boss found out she was gay.



Yes, two people were fired for having a political/religious discussion. What they believed had no bearing on their dismissal from my company....



> This had nothing to do with the point I was making, about how Republicans use social issues to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests.  In fact, you kind of missed the point of that political discussion altogether.



Well, I'm not a Republican, so anything said about that, with regards to people being on strike or losing their jobs of getting fired is pretty nonsensical...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> They could have crossed the picket lines... or voted for a less stringent agreement.. they didn't. That was the point.



Advocating for scabs now.

Interesting...



> Which again, begs the question, WHY was he spending money on other people's accounts... you keep glossing over that area, which tells me I'm not getting the complete story.  What was the upside for him?  Did he think he was going to steal that account away from the person who had it? Or did someone leave him with the impression that was something he could try, and if successful he would be rewarded.



Again, dummy, thank yourself for not having that information.

I'm getting a kick out of watching your mental flailings, trying to figure out what happened and why when, had you simply answered a simple fucking question, you'd have known it all.

All you had to do was explain how stealing from an employer is ever an acceptable thing to do.

But you know you can't answer that, because you know it never is.



> And honestly, seeing thirty years of utterly sleazy corporate behavior, often getting worse the smaller the company is, I'm not taking anything at face value.



You've been fucked over in the past. I understand that. And you know what? That actually makes me happy. Considering how you've conducted yourself here, and the assumptions you've stupidly made throughout this discussion, it really comes as no surprise that someone would want to treat you like shit. It tells me that someone treated you EXACTLY as you deserved to be treated.

After all, you earned it...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Someone needs to be the one to step up and put up the money to kickstart the process of meeting that demand. Consumer demand means dick if the means to satisfy that demand is nonexistent...



The government could do that just as well as private companies. In fact, the government already spends billions helping startups, as do the banks.  

So we could essentially have socialism and control of the means of production, no capitalists required.  I wouldn't recommend it.  

So to put it into perspective... think of Capitalism as a pitbull. 

People like you think it should be allowed to roam the neighborhood and if it mauls the local kiddies, it's their own damned fault. 

The Bernie bros think the pitbull should be taken out into the woods and shot. 

I'm kind of in the middle. I think it needs a leash, a muzzle and obedience school.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, I'm not a Republican, so anything said about that, with regards to people being on strike or losing their jobs of getting fired is pretty nonsensical...



You are slow, aren't you?  I mean, I don't now if I can dumb it down for you any more.  

There are a lot more workers than capitalists...  Therefore, if the ONLY thing we discussed during elections was economic issues, we'd be a lot closer to socialist Europe than we are.  The GOP gets working white people to vote against their own interests... by playing on their racism and sexual fears.  

Then they wonder why they have no rights at work.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> All you had to do was explain how stealing from an employer is ever an acceptable thing to do.
> 
> But you know you can't answer that, because you know it never is.



Well, you can't steal something you were GIVEN, it's not a matter of stealing. 

He didn't break into your office in the middle of the night and steal that credit card, YOU GAVE IT TO HIM.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> There are a lot more workers than capitalists...



So what?

Not everyone has the drive and pluck to go into business. They get to be the workers, and there's nothing wrong with that...



> Therefore, if the ONLY thing we discussed during elections was economic issues, we'd be a lot closer to socialist Europe than we are.  The GOP gets working white people to vote against their own interests... by playing on their racism and sexual fears.



This is not a political issue.

If you'll recall, I don't allow politics in my workplace, regardless of the affiliation, even if I agree with you 100%...



> Then they wonder why they have no rights at work.



What the fuck are you talking about?

My people have plenty of rights...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you had to do was explain how stealing from an employer is ever an acceptable thing to do.
> 
> But you know you can't answer that, because you know it never is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you can't steal something you were GIVEN, it's not a matter of stealing.
> 
> He didn't break into your office in the middle of the night and steal that credit card, YOU GAVE IT TO HIM.
Click to expand...


Yes, and then he used it in an unauthorized manner in an effort to benefit himself at my company's expense. My company was not going to benefit at all.

Although we did manage to get rid of the scumbag.

Again, dipshit, the DA _and his attorney_ saw it as a case he could not win. So anything _you _have to say about it is almost as meaningless as you are.

When is it okay to steal from an employer? The fact that YOU don't think it was stealing means nothing. There was a clear legal case for it being _exactly _that.

So, when is it okay to steal from an employer. Even if you don't believe this was a case of stealing, you should still be able to formulate an even mildly intelligent reply.

Or can't you?

When is it okay to steal from an employer?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> So what?
> 
> Not everyone has the drive and pluck to go into business. They get to be the workers, and there's nothing wrong with that...



Okay... but frankly, no reason why the workers should put up with abuse... We had a whole progressive movement over this point. 

That's why we have a LABOR DAY and not a CAPTIALIST DAY.  



Canon Shooter said:


> What the fuck are you talking about?
> 
> My people have plenty of rights...



Your people?  Uh, Massa Lincoln Freed the slaves...  I'm sure you didn't get the memo. 




Canon Shooter said:


> Again, dipshit, the DA _and his attorney_ saw it as a case he could not win. So anything _you _have to say about it is almost as meaningless as you are.



Naw, his attorney just took the path of least resistance...if your case was slam dunk, you'd share all the relevant details. 



Canon Shooter said:


> When is it okay to steal from an employer? The fact that YOU don't think it was stealing means nothing. There was a clear legal case for it being _exactly _that.
> 
> So, when is it okay to steal from an employer. Even if you don't believe this was a case of stealing, you should still be able to formulate an even mildly intelligent reply.



Don't know, doesn't sound like stealing to me... sounds like bad management.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Okay... but frankly, no reason why the workers should put up with abuse...



I absolutely agree.

I don't abuse my people.

What would a union secure for my employees that I cannot already give them?



> Your people?  Uh, Massa Lincoln Freed the slaves...  I'm sure you didn't get the memo.



You're a dickless little fuck. You knew exactly what I meant, you sniveling little shit...



> Naw, his attorney just took the path of least resistance...if your case was slam dunk, you'd share all the relevant details.



Well, in a way I guess it was the path of least resistance. Had we gone to trial, his client was told he could expect to hear about two weeks of testimony against him before being sentenced to prison for 18 months. Instead, he took a plea to avoid jail time...



> Don't know, doesn't sound like stealing to me... sounds like bad management.



God, you'[re fucking stupid. I said: "*Even if you don't believe this was a case of stealing*, you should still be able to formulate an even mildly intelligent reply."

And you've proven yet again, that you can't. You're just not smart enough...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You're a dickless little fuck. You knew exactly what I meant, you sniveling little shit...



yes, I do, unfortunately... the fact that you consider them "your people" and you can fire them at will says it all.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, in a way I guess it was the path of least resistance. Had we gone to trial, his client was told he could expect to hear about two weeks of testimony against him before being sentenced to prison for 18 months. Instead, he took a plea to avoid jail time...



Or he might have had a jury acquit him because they heard the evidence you are trying so hard to hide from me. 



Canon Shooter said:


> God, you'[re fucking stupid. I said: "*Even if you don't believe this was a case of stealing*, you should still be able to formulate an even mildly intelligent reply."
> 
> And you've proven yet again, that you can't. You're just not smart enough...



I think your a bit confused. 

You have to prove to me that it WAS actually stealing before I can render if the case was right or wrong.  

I don't have to come up with scenarios to prove it might be justified.  

The fact you are hiding key facts tells me that the whole story doesn't make you look good.  

Anyway, I have a party to get to, so you'll need to be needy with someone else for a few hours.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> yes, I do, unfortunately... the fact that you consider them "your people" and you can fire them at will says it all.



I could refer to them as "my employees" and I'd still be able to fire them at will.

But, see, I have little reason to do that. You just wet your diaper over the understanding that I _can_...



> Or he might have had a jury acquit him because they heard the evidence you are trying so hard to hide from me.



Nobody, including him, saw an acquittal as even a remote possibility. The evidence was simply far too strong, and he knew it.

And I'm not hiding anything. I gave you the opportunity to get all the information you wanted, and you fucked it up.

So fuck you...



> I think your a bit confused.
> 
> You have to prove to me that it WAS actually stealing before I can render if the case was right or wrong.



I don't have to prove shit, dumbass. You're some pinhead fuck on the internet. Your opinion and what you might "render" mean nothing.

Although it's funny that you think it does...



> I don't have to come up with scenarios to prove it might be justified.



That's right, you don't. The details here don't change the severity of the charges or the likelihood of a conviction had he elected to go to trial...



> The fact you are hiding key facts tells me that the whole story doesn't make you look good.



What facts have I hidden?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I could refer to them as "my employees" and I'd still be able to fire them at will.
> 
> But, see, I have little reason to do that. You just wet your diaper over the understanding that I _can_...



Naw, man, we've already established you are an awful person and probably a nightmare to work for. That you've found a few dozen masochists who enjoy it is kind of sad, but not unexpected. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Nobody, including him, saw an acquittal as even a remote possibility. The evidence was simply far too strong, and he knew it.



If it was such a slam dunk case, the prosecutor wouldn't have been willing to plead to no jail time.

But since you keep hiding the details....  we can draw our own conclusions.



Canon Shooter said:


> I don't have to prove shit, dumbass. You're some pinhead fuck on the internet. Your opinion and what you might "render" mean nothing.



But yet you've been stalking me on this thread for what, three weeks now?  That's how little it matters to you. You're a bully who got punched in the nose and you clearly don't like it.



Canon Shooter said:


> What facts have I hidden?



Why he did it.  Because frankly, your story makes no sense.  He spent money on a customer that wasn't his to do what, exactly?  Get more sales?  That would have been a good thing.   But it wouldn't have benefited him unless he got the commissions.

Now, as a buyer, I've been bribed with everything from dinners to sports tickets by vendors.  I usually don't take these things because it isn't ethical.  (I might do lunch with a vendor I already have an established relationship with to make sure everything I'm concerned with is on track.) 

But if a rep from a company I've never heard of before showed up buying me plane tickets, that would be...um... weird.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, we've already established you are an awful person and probably a nightmare to work for. That you've found a few dozen masochists who enjoy it is kind of sad, but not unexpected.



The only place that's been established is in that pointed little head of yours...



> If it was such a slam dunk case, the prosecutor wouldn't have been willing to plead to no jail time.



Oh, super, now bring your brilliant legal mind into the conversation.

Fuckin' perfect.

You really need to learn how the law works, because it's clear you're ignorant as fuck.

When someone takes a plea deal, he's admitting guilt. And, by accepting a plea deal, a trial is avoided. This has benefits for both sides. For the guilty party, it means his punishment is not as severe as if he'd been found guilty at a trial. It means he's not spending astronomical sums to defend himself. In this case, the shitbag knew that spending that money would be for naught. The evidence was that clear. Take the plea, save your money, get punished less. That's the deal.

For the victim of his crime it means not wasting time and money on attending a trial for which the result is all but a forgone conclusion...



> But since you keep hiding the details....  we can draw our own conclusions.



I honestly don't care what you do. You've already admitted that you're a liar and dishonest, so your opinion of me or this case isn't something I'll hold in too high regard...



> But yet you've been stalking me on this thread for what, three weeks now?



I've been responding to posts, you stupid fuck. If you see that as "stalking" then you're far more delicate than I'd imagined...



> That's how little it matters to you.



Oh, I enjoy helping people make themselves look stupid and, based on some comments others have made here, that's exactly what's happening...



> You're a bully who got punched in the nose and you clearly don't like it.



You hit like a pussy...



> Why he did it.



How is that relevant? How would that making stealing from my company okay?

You keep dodging the question, and it's making you look pathetic and weak. When is it ever okay to steal from an employer? Yes, yes, I know you'll belch up "This doesn't look like theft to me", but that doesn't matter. The simple answer to my simple question is "Never. It's never okay to steal from an employer." Decent people know that. But, as a person who admits to approaching business matter dishonestly, it's no surprise that you believe stealing from an employer is perfectly fine...



> Because frankly, your story makes no sense.  He spent money on a customer that wasn't his to do what, exactly?  Get more sales?  That would have been a good thing.   But it wouldn't have benefited him unless he got the commissions.



It doesn't matter. He stole from my company, and you believe that someone stealing from a company is okay. That tells us a great deal about just what level of scumbag you are...



> Now, as a buyer, I've been bribed with everything from dinners to sports tickets by vendors.  I usually don't take these things because it isn't ethical.



You "usually" don't take them. That means you take them. You know it's unethical yet you do it anyway. Then again, you have no morals whatsoever, so you being unethical makes sense...



> (I might do lunch with a vendor I already have an established relationship with to make sure everything I'm concerned with is on track.)



There's not a business in the world which considers lunch between colleagues to be a "bribe.

God, you're fucking stupid as fuck...



> But if a rep from a company I've never heard of before showed up buying me plane tickets, that would be...um... weird.



It would.

And that's not what happened...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> When someone takes a plea deal, he's admitting guilt. And, by accepting a plea deal, a trial is avoided. This has benefits for both sides. For the guilty party, it means his punishment is not as severe as if he'd been found guilty at a trial. It means he's not spending astronomical sums to defend himself. In this case, the shitbag knew that spending that money would be for naught. The evidence was that clear. Take the plea, save your money, get punished less. That's the deal.



Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals all the time, because of the injustices in our legal system.  

Clearly, the prosecutor wasn't as keen to ruin this man's life as you were.  



Canon Shooter said:


> There's not a business in the world which considers lunch between colleagues to be a "bribe.
> 
> God, you're fucking stupid as fuck...



Really? I've worked for companies that prohibited it.  



Canon Shooter said:


> It doesn't matter. He stole from my company, and you believe that someone stealing from a company is okay. That tells us a great deal about just what level of scumbag you are...



No, he misused the credit account you foolishly gave him... it's not the same thing.  

You haven't convinced me that expenditures that your company already makes is "stealing".


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals all the time, because of the injustices in our legal system.



Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals very rarely. The vast majority of people who accept them are people who have committed the crime for which they'll be prosecuted...



> Clearly, the prosecutor wasn't as keen to ruin this man's life as you were.



Of course he wasn't. Nobody stole anything from him.

Had I wanted to go forward with a trial, though, the DA's office would've gone after him with every ounce of enthusiasm they could muster...



> Really? I've worked for companies that prohibited it.



Well, I suppose some shitty little fly-by-night companies might do that, but successful business people understand them to be an integral part of the business relationship...



> No, he misused the credit account you foolishly gave him... it's not the same thing.



He did misuse it. And, by misusing it, he stole from me. He ruined his life, and he did it by doing something you believe to be acceptable...



> You haven't convinced me that expenditures that your company already makes is "stealing".



You believe that stealing from an employer; any employer is okay. Be it my business or any other business, an employee stealing from the people he works for is acceptable to you. I'm not asking about my case, I'm asking about any case where an employee steals, and you repeatedly dodge responding to the question.

Therefore, the only conclusion that can be reached is you support it and, in all probability, have done it yourself.

So, to recap:

1 - You're an admitted liar.
2 - You approach business matters dishonestly
3 - You're a thief

That about cover it?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals very rarely. The vast majority of people who accept them are people who have committed the crime for which they'll be prosecuted...



Okay, you tell yourself that.   

You tell yourself that we don't have a prison-Industrial complex.  I know you really need to believe that. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He did misuse it. And, by misusing it, he stole from me. He ruined his life, and he did it by doing something you believe to be acceptable...



Like I said, since you are lying about the details, I'll consider you an unreliable narrator. 

WHY DID HE DO IT?  

That's the question I would start with.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Be it my business or any other business, an employee stealing from the people he works for is acceptable to you. I'm not asking about my case, I'm asking about any case where an employee steals, and you repeatedly dodge responding to the question.



I'd have to know the FACTS of the case.  FACTS.  That's what I deal with. 

I don't know about "any" case, each case is different.  

For instance, I worked at a company where pilferage was rampant.  But given what they paid and the way they treated employees, I wasn't horrifically surprised. 



Canon Shooter said:


> So, to recap:
> 
> 1 - You're an admitted liar.
> 2 - You approach business matters dishonestly
> 3 - You're a thief



1_ no more than anyone else. (If anything, I'm probably too honest, in that I tell the truth when it doesn't benefit me.) 
2_ Capitalism is INHERENTLY dishonest.  
3_ Never took anything I wasn't owed in my life.  



Canon Shooter said:


> That about cover it?



Nope, I just don't have your fucked up point of view, that's all.  

When the poor steal, it's called Crime. 
When the rich steal, it's called Profits.  

When we give the Fat Cats on Wall street the same prisons and sentences we give some poor black guy who stole a pair of tube socks, then you can get back to me about "Morality".


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals very rarely. The vast majority of people who accept them are people who have committed the crime for which they'll be prosecuted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, you tell yourself that.
Click to expand...


So, you believe the vast majority of people who take plea bargains are innocent??



> You tell yourself that we don't have a prison-Industrial complex.  I know you really need to believe that.



That really has nothing to do with one of your fellow shitbags stealing from my company...



> Like I said, since you are lying about the details, I'll consider you an unreliable narrator.



Permit me to remind you: YOU'RE the liar here. You've admitted as much...



> WHY DID HE DO IT?
> 
> That's the question I would start with.



I don't understand why that even matters. If you go out and get drunk and then drive your car into an intersection, hitting a car and all of its occupants, _why _you got drunk doesn't matter...



> I'd have to know the FACTS of the case.  FACTS.  That's what I deal with.
> 
> I don't know about "any" case, each case is different.



You're such an idiot. Anyone who can't bring themselves to state that stealing from an employer, under any circumstances, is a complete scumbag...



> For instance, I worked at a company where pilferage was rampant.  But given what they paid and the way they treated employees, I wasn't horrifically surprised.



So, did the fact that the pay sucked and that they treated you like shit make the pilferage acceptable?



> 1_ no more than anyone else. (If anything, I'm probably too honest, in that I tell the truth when it doesn't benefit me.)
> 2_ Capitalism is INHERENTLY dishonest.
> 3_ Never took anything I wasn't owed in my life.



You've already shown yourself to be a thief, so you're a liar.

Which is something you seem awfully proud to be...



> Nope, I just don't have your fucked up point of view, that's all.



I know you don't.

See, my point of view is that stealing from an employer is never okay.

You, on the other hand, believe it's okay...



> When the poor steal, it's called Crime.
> When the rich steal, it's called Profits.



Businesses need to make profits, dipshit...



> When we give the Fat Cats on Wall street the same prisons and sentences we give some poor black guy who stole a pair of tube socks, then you can get back to me about "Morality".



Um, ever hear of Bernie Madoff? Kenneth Lay? Ivan Boeskey? Michael Milken?

No, you probably never have. You're nothing but a two-bit thief who thinks he knows anything about everything.

The truth is you're an ignorant and dishonest little punk who lies to get what he wants because his business talents are lacking.

You're nothing...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> So, you believe the vast majority of people who take plea bargains are innocent??



I think we have a Prison industrial complex that ruins the lives of millions of people so a few people can get rich.  I'd explain it to you in depth, but you still wouldn't understand.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Um, ever hear of Bernie Madoff? Kenneth Lay? Ivan Boeskey? Michael Milken?



I've heard of them.  They got minor prison sentence... Lay never spent a day in jail.  That you have to go back 40 years to find a total of four corporate crooks who actually went to a Club Fed tells me you've made my point. 



Canon Shooter said:


> You're such an idiot. Anyone who can't bring themselves to state that stealing from an employer, under any circumstances, is a complete scumbag...



Naw, some employers deserve to be cheated by their employees... and it happens all the time. Usually, I see bad employees, I see bad managers. Always.  

Of course, I've never seen anything as bad as what you preside over, so you must be a special kind of awful. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, my point of view is that stealing from an employer is never okay.



Well, you're entitled to a point of view.  I don't deal in absolutes.  



Canon Shooter said:


> The truth is you're an ignorant and dishonest little punk who lies to get what he wants because his business talents are lacking.



Guy, again, I've worked for multi-national, billion dollar organizations. 

You have a 25MM dungheep.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I think we have a Prison industrial complex that ruins the lives of millions of people so a few people can get rich.  I'd explain it to you in depth, but you still wouldn't understand.



Well, I think you're an asshole and a liar.

I'd explain that to you in depth, but you still wouldn't understand.

Law abiding citizens, by and large, don't have their lives ruined by the prison industrial complex. Scumbags like you get their lives ruined, and I don't give a fuck about scumbags...



> I've heard of them.  They got minor prison sentence... Lay never spent a day in jail.



Minor??

Lay died while awaiting sentencing, but he was facing 45 years in federal custody. That's hardly "minor" and, given the climate at the time, he probably would've gotten every last day of that 45 years. 

Bernie Madoff died in prison while serving a 150 year sentence at FCC Brutner. In what fucking universe is 150 years "minor"? The government shoved its dick up Milkin's ass and broke it off.

You need to stop. You're making yourself look like a bigger dipshit than I ever could...



> That you have to go back 40 years to find a total of four corporate crooks who actually went to a Club Fed tells me you've made my point.



I see, so you tell me I can't find an example of something, I find it, and then you say I'd have to go back 40 years to find others. You're a pissant little bitch. Move those goalposts, pussy...



> Naw, some employers deserve to be cheated by their employees... and it happens all the time. Usually, I see bad employees, I see bad managers. Always.



Yup, you're a thieving little fuck...



> Of course, I've never seen anything as bad as what you preside over, so you must be a special kind of awful.



You don't have a clue what I preside over, simply because you admire thieving, lying fucks. As a rule, I don't hire those pieces of shit. If one of them sneaks through, they're thoroughly fucked when they get caught. They deserve it...



> Well, you're entitled to a point of view.  I don't deal in absolutes.



You believe that theft from an employer is appropriate and acceptable.

You'd have to try really hard to be a bigger scumbag than ou are right now...



> Guy, again, I've worked for multi-national, billion dollar organizations.



No you haven't. Guys who work for multi-national, billion dollar organizations don't end up having to beg others to write resumes for them...



> You have a 25MM dungheep.



Well, my "dungheep" has been doing pretty goddamn well, especially since we shit-canned the scumbag who, like you, thought it was okay to steal from his employer.

He's since learned otherwise...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Law abiding citizens, by and large, don't have their lives ruined by the prison industrial complex. Scumbags like you get their lives ruined, and I don't give a fuck about scumbags...



Ah, "Law Abiding Citizens".... Um. Yeah.   Check your white privilege, buddy.   100 million Americans have a police record. (I don't, but many do.)  

Given you are the biggest scumbag I met, you really need to have more empathy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Minor??
> 
> Lay died while awaiting sentencing, but he was facing 45 years in federal custody. That's hardly "minor" and, given the climate at the time, he probably would've gotten every last day of that 45 years.



Except he didn't.   Now, looking at his co-conspirators, Jeff Skilling served 12 years and Fastow got 2.  (Fastow was probably the most guilty of the lot,, but he flipped on the other two.)  Lay, ironically, came out of retirement to try to fix the mess that Skilling and Fastow made.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You don't have a clue what I preside over, simply because you admire thieving, lying fucks. As a rule, I don't hire those pieces of shit. If one of them sneaks through, they're thoroughly fucked when they get caught. They deserve it...



Uh, yeah, guy, you've worked with one more "thief" than I have.  you interviewed him, hired him, supervised him for five years.   That really doesn't say a lot about you as a manager. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No you haven't. Guys who work for multi-national, billion dollar organizations don't end up having to beg others to write resumes for them...



Uh, yes, I have. 

I write resumes because I ENJOY it.   Gives me a little extra spending money and I get to help people. ( A concept that you probably couldn't get your brain around.  Enjoying helping people... how silly.) 



Canon Shooter said:


> You believe that theft from an employer is appropriate and acceptable.



I really don't.  I do understand why scumbag employers get ripped off, though.  Usually because they are bad managers.  Good managers don't get ripped off.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Ah, "Law Abiding Citizens".... Um. Yeah.   Check your white privilege, buddy.   100 million Americans have a police record. (I don't, but many do.)



And?

Unless you're prepared to show that 100 million innocent Americans have accepted plea deals, your point falls flat on its face...



> Except he didn't.



Because he fucking died, dumbass. 

Pretty much every legal expert alive in 2006 expected him to be awarded the maximum sentence...



> Now, looking at his co-conspirators, Jeff Skilling served 12 years and Fastow got 2.  (Fastow was probably the most guilty of the lot,, but he flipped on the other two.)  Lay, ironically, came out of retirement to try to fix the mess that Skilling and Fastow made.



And one of that 150 year sentence for Bernie Madoff? You conveniently seem to ignore that...



Canon Shooter said:


> Uh, yeah, guy, you've worked with one more "thief" than I have.  you interviewed him, hired him, supervised him for five years.   That really doesn't say a lot about you as a manager.



Well, if I had a crystal ball, I'd have done differently, certainly. But he came highly recommended and he was very qualified. At some point he decided to go rogue. It happens. The fact that you've never seen it is utterly meaningless...



> Uh, yes, I have.



You've provided no evidence to the contrary and, given that you're an avowed liar, there's no reason to believe it...



> I write resumes because I ENJOY it.



You write resumes because no one will give you a _real _job...



> Gives me a little extra spending money and I get to help people. ( A concept that you probably couldn't get your brain around.  Enjoying helping people... how silly.)



If you were interested in helping them you'd do it for free. But you take people who need a job and squeeze a few bucks out of them so you can go to happy hour, probably because you're an alcoholic.

On the other hand, I'd let you ask my employee Emilio if I helped him with the award we dreamed up, that came with a nice little cash bonus, so he was able to get a decent car and keep his job...



> I really don't.  I do understand why scumbag employers get ripped off, though.  Usually because they are bad managers.  Good managers don't get ripped off.



No, you _do _support it. I don't give a fuck if you "understand" shit. The fact of the matter here is that you're not able to say that stealing from an employer is unacceptable. That means you support it. If you were to state that stealing from an employer is never acceptable, you would be admitting that the fault lied on the employee we fired.

You support theft.

So, you're a thief. You're a liar. You're dishonest.

You're devoid of redeeming qualities...


----------



## JoeB131

Sooooo needy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> And?
> 
> Unless you're prepared to show that 100 million innocent Americans have accepted plea deals, your point falls flat on its face...



white people get plea deals, poor people get bullshit sentences... our justice system is broken.  Sorry you can't see that. 

It stopped being, "Let's lock the dangerous people up" and became, "Let's create a slave labor pool for big corporations."   No one benefits from this deal except them. 

We don't, having to pay the taxes for it. 
The people caught up in it don't, having their lives ruined and become permanent wards of the state. 

But the heck with fixing things... we need to make mean people happy. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, you _do _support it. I don't give a fuck if you "understand" shit. The fact of the matter here is that you're not able to say that stealing from an employer is unacceptable. That means you support it. If you were to state that stealing from an employer is never acceptable, you would be admitting that the fault lied on the employee we fired.



No, it's on the manager for hiring the wrong people and then not motivating them properly.   Sorry, man, if you got ripped off, it's because you were a shitty manager.  



Canon Shooter said:


> And one of that 150 year sentence for Bernie Madoff? You conveniently seem to ignore that...



Um, yeah, because he ripped off other rich people....  The thing is, all that criminality that went on in 2008, and he was the ONLY guy who went to jail.   Everyone else got bailouts the rest of us paid for. 

When the Poor Steal, it's called Crime.
When the rich steal, it's called Profits.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Sooooo needy.



I agree, you are...



> white people get plea deals, poor people get bullshit sentences... our justice system is broken.  Sorry you can't see that.



Wow.

Honest to God, I didn't have you pegged for being a racist. Your position that whites are rich (as opposed to the poor folk who get "bullshit sentences") is pretty racist, scumbag. Biden said almost the exactly same thing. He's an idiot, too.

I bet all white people are now wondering where their untold riches are...

But, here's what you said: "Okay, real world... innocent people accept plea deals all the time..."

The reality is that innocent people don't take plea deals "all the time".

What an ignorant thing to say...



> It stopped being, "Let's lock the dangerous people up" and became, "Let's create a slave labor pool for big corporations."   No one benefits from this deal except them.



Man, you got fucked hard by someone, didn't you? Nobody cops your kind of shitty attitude unless he thinks he's been fucked...



> But the heck with fixing things... we need to make mean people happy.



That's great.

It's also not the gist of this thread...



> No, it's on the manager for hiring the wrong people and then not motivating them properly.   Sorry, man, if you got ripped off, it's because you were a shitty manager.



The opinion of a dishonest, stupid, scumbag lying racist really carries no weight for me.

I know differently. You know nothing. The fact of the matter is that he was with my company for several years before he ever had the thought of misappropriating funds from my company.

The sad part is that you wear your monumental ignorance as a badge of honor...



> Um, yeah, because he ripped off other rich people



That's it, shit-eater, move that goalpost.

With every post, you peel back another layer of the onion.

So, theft is okay if rich people are the victims. Got it.

Here's the thing you'll have to contend with: You will never, ever be able to be successful because you've spent so much time demonizing people who are successful.

You're nothing but a jealous little worm. You can't have what others have so, in your pointed, empty little head they're "bad". They're bad because they had to fortitude to keep working towards success while you have to beg people to let you write them resumes while belching up nonsense stories about how you worked for "multi-national billion dollar corporations".



> The thing is, all that criminality that went on in 2008, and he was the ONLY guy who went to jail.   Everyone else got bailouts the rest of us paid for.



Wow, moving the goal post twice in one post.

Impressive...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Honest to God, I didn't have you pegged for being a racist. Your position that whites are rich (as opposed to the poor folk who get "bullshit sentences") is pretty racist, scumbag. Biden said almost the exactly same thing. He's an idiot, too.



Which still makes it true.  When we throw rich white people in the same jails we use for people of color... then you can get back and talk to me about "morality" and "Justice".  



Canon Shooter said:


> So, theft is okay if rich people are the victims. Got it.
> 
> Here's the thing you'll have to contend with: You will never, ever be able to be successful because you've spent so much time demonizing people who are successful.



Naw, man, I have what I want from life...   The problem is, if anything, you are the one who comes of as a miserable, angry racist POS despite being so "successful"


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Which still makes it true.  When we throw rich white people in the same jails we use for people of color... then you can get back and talk to me about "morality" and "Justice".



You're a fucking idiot.

You made this comment: "white people get plea deals, poor people get bullshit sentences

That comment says that all non-whites are poor and all whites are rich.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you fail to see the idiocy of that statement...



> Naw, man, I have what I want from life...   The problem is, if anything, you are the one who comes of as a miserable, angry racist POS despite being so "successful"



Says the guy who just made a tremendously racist comment...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You're a fucking idiot.
> 
> You made this comment: "white people get plea deals, poor people get bullshit sentences
> 
> That comment says that all non-whites are poor and all whites are rich.



Uh, no, it says no such thing.  Anyone who denies that racism and poverty are linked in this country is just kidding himself. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Says the guy who just made a tremendously racist comment...



Says the guy who has a racist tagline... 

Enjoying the Chauvin Verdict?  I know I am.


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!





Actually, being "cancelled" was the smartest career move Kaepernick ever made.   A washed up 2nd string quarterback suddenly becoming a household name and making more money hawking cheap Red Chinese made shoes to suckers than he ever did in the NFL.    

If Kaep hadn't decided to disrespect America's veterans, he'd be forgotten by now, sitting in a bar someplace bragging about how he was in the NFL to interested barflys.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, no, it says no such thing.



That's exactly what it says. Why not mention poor white people?

The way you state it, one cannot be both.



> Anyone who denies that racism and poverty are linked in this country is just kidding himself.



There's no argument that a large percentage of negroes are poor. If they'd get off their dead asses and actually choose to earn a living instead of having the government provide one the numbers would be much, much lower.

To suggest that whites don't fall below the poverty line is absolutely ignorant...



> Says the guy who has a racist tagline...



I've never tried to hide my racist slant when it comes to certain races, dipshit. You, on the other hand... well...



> Enjoying the Chauvin Verdict?  I know I am.



"Enjoy"?

How does one "enjoy" a verdict? Frankly, that's pretty stupid.

As for what I think of the verdict, the only problem I have with it is the charges that led to it. Charging Chauvin with 2nd _and _3rd degree murder is ridiculous. If you think you're case might only be strong enough to secure a 3rd degree conviction, then that's the charge which should be prosecuted.

I have no problem with him being found guilty, though. He acted wrongly and should suffer the repercussions...


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> Actually, being "cancelled" was the smartest career move Kaepernick ever made. A washed up 2nd string quarterback suddenly becoming a household name and making more money hawking cheap Red Chinese made shoes to suckers than he ever did in the NFL.
> 
> If Kaep hadn't decided to disrespect America's veterans, he'd be forgotten by now, sitting in a bar someplace bragging about how he was in the NFL to interested barflys.



Kap didn't disrespect veterans... he protested police brutality.  

And he was proven right.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> There's no argument that a large percentage of negroes are poor. If they'd get off their dead asses and actually choose to earn a living instead of having the government provide one the numbers would be much, much lower.



Yeah, that's right. They're "lazy".  It's not that we have 400 years of institutionalized racism.  Not at all. 

Check your privilege, Bitch. 



Canon Shooter said:


> That's exactly what it says. Why not mention poor white people?



Because even POOR white people have more privileges than middle class minorities.... 



Canon Shooter said:


> How does one "enjoy" a verdict? Frankly, that's pretty stupid.
> 
> As for what I think of the verdict, the only problem I have with it is the charges that led to it. Charging Chauvin with 2nd _and _3rd degree murder is ridiculous. If you think you're case might only be strong enough to secure a 3rd degree conviction, then that's the charge which should be prosecuted.



Get real.  Lesser and included charges are allowed under our law.  

In this case, including all three options does make sense, given that the evidence supported all three, it's just a matter of interpretation.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, being "cancelled" was the smartest career move Kaepernick ever made. A washed up 2nd string quarterback suddenly becoming a household name and making more money hawking cheap Red Chinese made shoes to suckers than he ever did in the NFL.
> 
> If Kaep hadn't decided to disrespect America's veterans, he'd be forgotten by now, sitting in a bar someplace bragging about how he was in the NFL to interested barflys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kap didn't disrespect veterans... he protested police brutality.
> 
> And he was proven right.
Click to expand...


Are you a Veteran? Have you ever served your country in uniform?

No, you haven't. Consequently, you're in no position to speak to how Veterans feel about what Kaepernick did...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Yeah, that's right. They're "lazy".  It's not that we have 400 years of institutionalized racism.  Not at all.
> 
> Check your privilege, Bitch.



My "privilege" comes as a result of my hard work, Bitch.

Saying I'm privileged because I'm white is every bit as racist as saying that someone is discriminated against because he's black...



> Because even POOR white people have more privileges than middle class minorities.



Not the poor whites I know...



> Get real.  Lesser and included charges are allowed under our law.



I fully understand that, and my opinion is not regarding only this case. If you think you need to try someone on a lesser charge because you might not get a conviction on the more serious crime, you probably shouldn't try someone on the more serious charge...



> In this case, including all three options does make sense, given that the evidence supported all three, it's just a matter of interpretation.



If the evidence supported all three, why bother with the lesser charges?

If you need to include lesser charges just so you can get a conviction on something, maybe you should just try the person on the lesser charge in the first place...


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, being "cancelled" was the smartest career move Kaepernick ever made. A washed up 2nd string quarterback suddenly becoming a household name and making more money hawking cheap Red Chinese made shoes to suckers than he ever did in the NFL.
> 
> If Kaep hadn't decided to disrespect America's veterans, he'd be forgotten by now, sitting in a bar someplace bragging about how he was in the NFL to interested barflys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kap didn't disrespect veterans... he protested police brutality.
> 
> And he was proven right.
Click to expand...



That's not the way the veterans saw it.    They saw his actions against America as a direct attack.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Polishprince said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, being "cancelled" was the smartest career move Kaepernick ever made. A washed up 2nd string quarterback suddenly becoming a household name and making more money hawking cheap Red Chinese made shoes to suckers than he ever did in the NFL.
> 
> If Kaep hadn't decided to disrespect America's veterans, he'd be forgotten by now, sitting in a bar someplace bragging about how he was in the NFL to interested barflys.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kap didn't disrespect veterans... he protested police brutality.
> 
> And he was proven right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way the veterans saw it.    They saw his actions against America as a direct attack.
Click to expand...


Hey, check yourself, pal. This is _Joey _you're talking to. Didn't you know that he's decided he's qualified to speak affirmatively on anything and everything he knows nothing about, and is qualified to opine as to what others believe?

Please. Know your place...

LOL!


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Are you a Veteran? Have you ever served your country in uniform?
> 
> No, you haven't. Consequently, you're in no position to speak to how Veterans feel about what Kaepernick did...



Um, yes, I was in the Army for 11 years active duty and reserves... thanks for asking.  

MOS 76Y, rank SSG.


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> That's not the way the veterans saw it. They saw his actions against America as a direct attack.



I'm a veteran, I didn't see it that way.  

I saw it as a legitimate protest, which is what I thought I was protecting when I served.  

What I wasn't out there protecting... the ability of cops to murder black people in the streets.


----------



## Polishprince

JoeB131 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the way the veterans saw it. They saw his actions against America as a direct attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a veteran, I didn't see it that way.
> 
> I saw it as a legitimate protest, which is what I thought I was protecting when I served.
> 
> What I wasn't out there protecting... the ability of cops to murder black people in the streets.
Click to expand...



A lot of combat veterans saw it differently, I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Kaepernick didn't bother going to the VFW and American Legion in advance, which is what he would have done if he was concerned.

However, I just see it as a schtick.   A device to get people interested in his career and ready to buy tickets and tune into the game ,  just to watch him get his comeuppance.

Much like Muhammad Ali's adoption of the anti-honky and anti-American banter,  or Sergeant Slaughter defecting to Iraq and declaring war on the idea of peace.   

If people buy tickets to see you play because they dislike you and want to get you knocked on your keister, the money spends just as well as people buying tickets because they love you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a Veteran? Have you ever served your country in uniform?
> 
> No, you haven't. Consequently, you're in no position to speak to how Veterans feel about what Kaepernick did...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yes, I was in the Army for 11 years active duty and reserves... thanks for asking.
> 
> MOS 76Y, rank SSG.
Click to expand...


I don't believe you. After all, you've already told me you're a liar.

But, let's pretend you _were _in the Army. E-6 in 11 years is nothing to write home about...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I'm a veteran, I didn't see it that way.



Odds are slim that you're being truthful but, if you are a Veteran, you're in a very small, ignorant group...



> I saw it as a legitimate protest, which is what I thought I was protecting when I served.



You were a fucking supply clerk who took 11 fucking years to make Staff Sergeant...



> What I wasn't out there protecting... the ability of cops to murder black people in the streets.



How do you protect an American's rights when your job is issuing toilet paper?


----------



## JoeB131

Polishprince said:


> A lot of combat veterans saw it differently, I'll just leave it at that. Mr. Kaepernick didn't bother going to the VFW and American Legion in advance, which is what he would have done if he was concerned.



Actually, Kap did have a conversation with a veteran and they agreed kneeling would be a peaceful, respectful protest.  



Canon Shooter said:


> ou were a fucking supply clerk who took 11 fucking years to make Staff Sergeant...



Actually, I made it in about 7 years... and five of those I was a reservist and wasn't taking it terribly seriously.  Just using the reserves to pay for college.  When I went active, I made SSG in about two years.  



Canon Shooter said:


> How do you protect an American's rights when your job is issuing toilet paper?



If you think that's all a Supply NCO does, then you probably never served.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, Kap did have a conversation with a veteran and they agreed kneeling would be a peaceful, respectful protest.



One Vet doesn't speak for all.

Kaepernick waited to go public with that until he found a Vet who agreed with him, and then he rode that story like a carnival ride. He spoke with several Veterans who told him it would be disrespectful. The VFW didn't support him, nor did the American Legion...



> Actually, I made it in about 7 years... and five of those I was a reservist and wasn't taking it terribly seriously.  Just using the reserves to pay for college.  When I went active, I made SSG in about two years.



Liar.

Besides, that would mean you spent four years as an E-6. That's almost shameful...



> If you think that's all a Supply NCO does, then you probably never served.



It's all you did, I'm confident of that. The Army would entrust someone as dishonest as you with anything important...


----------



## Rigby5

No sense to this discussion.
A football game is not supposed to be about veterans, the military, or the flag.
Nor is anyone supposed to be able to tell anyone else what being "patriotic" is supposed to mean.
If you can't criticize your government, then you don't have a democratic republic, but instead a dictatorhip, and it should be destroyed.
And in fact, we likely do live in a dictatorship.
It is not just that unarmed Blacks are being murdered by police, but the Pentagon lied about WMD in Iraq, Vietnam, etc., and we murdered millions of innocent people.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> One Vet doesn't speak for all.
> 
> Kaepernick waited to go public with that until he found a Vet who agreed with him, and then he rode that story like a carnival ride. He spoke with several Veterans who told him it would be disrespectful. The VFW didn't support him, nor did the American Legion...



So what?  Most vets don't belong to either of those organizations. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Liar.
> 
> Besides, that would mean you spent four years as an E-6. That's almost shameful...



Not really.  You needed a minimum of 10 years in to make E-7.   In order to make E-7, I would have had to have gone to BNCOC, (I had just slipped in under the wire to make E-6 with just PLDC, what they call WLC now),  ANCOC, and then would have had to gone to a Second AIT to get a second MOS.   And frankly, by that point, right after the Gulf War, I was kind of sick of the whole thing.   So it would have meant another 20 or more weeks of training to get something I wasn't that keen on getting. 

And they even tried wiggling a E-7 slot in front of me to get me to re-enlist.  I wasn't going for it. 



Canon Shooter said:


> It's all you did, I'm confident of that. The Army would entrust someone as dishonest as you with anything important...



Well, except, again, I was the Supply NCO for the Battalion HHC.  And I was specifically requested for the role by the Bn. Cdr. at that time.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> So what?  Most vets don't belong to either of those organizations.



Perhaps, yet no other organizations have more Veteran members. They represent the two largest groups of Veterans.

You probably don't spend much time around Vets, but I can assure you that the membership of those two groups, for the most part, think Kaepernick's a piece of shit...



> Not really.  You needed a minimum of 10 years in to make E-7.   In order to make E-7, I would have had to have gone to BNCOC, (I had just slipped in under the wire to make E-6 with just PLDC, what they call WLC now),  ANCOC, and then would have had to gone to a Second AIT to get a second MOS.   And frankly, by that point, right after the Gulf War, I was kind of sick of the whole thing.   So it would have meant another 20 or more weeks of training to get something I wasn't that keen on getting.



Spin it any way you want. The fact of the matter is that getting out after 11 years, as an E-6, is indicative of someone who was either lazy or inept...



> And they even tried wiggling a E-7 slot in front of me to get me to re-enlist.  I wasn't going for it.



Of course not.

As an E-7, you'd have to be willing to shoulder responsibility for the good of the unit. You've made it rather clear that you're not capable of being concerned with anyone but yourself. Had they actually offered it to you (and there's not a single reason to believe they had) you'd have been an unqualified disaster had you accepted it...



> Well, except, again, I was the Supply NCO for the Battalion HHC.  And I was specifically requested for the role by the Bn. Cdr. at that time.



And why would anyone believe that?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Perhaps, yet no other organizations have more Veteran members. They represent the two largest groups of Veterans.
> 
> You probably don't spend much time around Vets, but I can assure you that the membership of those two groups, for the most part, think Kaepernick's a piece of shit...



I don't ask people their veteran status when I meet them, so I have no idea how many are vets unless they volunteer that info.  

Point was, kap turned out to be right... kind of too bad we didn't listen to him before we had riots. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Of course not.
> 
> As an E-7, you'd have to be willing to shoulder responsibility for the good of the unit. You've made it rather clear that you're not capable of being concerned with anyone but yourself. Had they actually offered it to you (and there's not a single reason to believe they had) you'd have been an unqualified disaster had you accepted it...



Except I did perfectly fine as an E-6 and they really did want me to re-enlist.   I didn't want to beacuse at that point, I was just kind of sick of the whole thing. I signed up to protect America, not the profits of Exxon. 

Let Exxon hire it's own army.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I don't ask people their veteran status when I meet them, so I have no idea how many are vets unless they volunteer that info.



If you have to ask someone if they've served, you probably never have yourself...

Point was, kap turned out to be right...[/quote]

About what?



> kind of too bad we didn't listen to him before we had riots.



Nothing would've stopped those riots.

Look at Chauvin's verdict. He was found guilty on all counts. BLM animals demand "THAT'S NOT ENOUGH!"

Okay, so when IS it enough? The Minneapolis PD is being investigated by the Feds. If they find a problem with violence against negroes in that department, will THAT? be enough?

No, it won't be. See, once they decide "that's enough" then there will be no reason to riot and, if there are no riots, then they can't loot and steal...



> Except I did perfectly fine as an E-6 and they really did want me to re-enlist.   I didn't want to beacuse at that point, I was just kind of sick of the whole thing. I signed up to protect America, not the profits of Exxon.
> 
> Let Exxon hire it's own army.



Exxon has its own army.

But you didn't answer my question: Why should anyone believe anything you say?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Nothing would've stopped those riots.
> 
> Look at Chauvin's verdict. He was found guilty on all counts. BLM animals demand "THAT'S NOT ENOUGH!"
> 
> Okay, so when IS it enough? The Minneapolis PD is being investigated by the Feds. If they find a problem with violence against negroes in that department, will THAT? be enough?
> 
> No, it won't be. See, once they decide "that's enough" then there will be no reason to riot and, if there are no riots, then they can't loot and steal...



Well, no, just convicting Chauvin isn't enough.   We have to correct the problem that creates Chauvins. 

We have to get rid of the bad apples. 
We have to retrain these guys in de-escalation.

It was never about just one bad cop, it's about a bad system.  



Canon Shooter said:


> But you didn't answer my question: Why should anyone believe anything you say?



Because I can prove it... that's why.   

Your creepy pal Mormon Bob doubted I was in the service, until I provided pictures of me in my time in.


----------



## Rigby5

Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda were all correct.
They are heros.
Those who did not agree or understand, are still wrong.

Twitter must not be allowed to censor, police must not be allowed to murder, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and so was Vietnam.

If we do not support these heros, then we are accomplices to the crimes they are trying to stop.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing would've stopped those riots.
> 
> Look at Chauvin's verdict. He was found guilty on all counts. BLM animals demand "THAT'S NOT ENOUGH!"
> 
> Okay, so when IS it enough? The Minneapolis PD is being investigated by the Feds. If they find a problem with violence against negroes in that department, will THAT? be enough?
> 
> No, it won't be. See, once they decide "that's enough" then there will be no reason to riot and, if there are no riots, then they can't loot and steal...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, just convicting Chauvin isn't enough.   We have to correct the problem that creates Chauvins.
> 
> We have to get rid of the bad apples.
> We have to retrain these guys in de-escalation.
> 
> It was never about just one bad cop, it's about a bad system.
Click to expand...


I won't necessarily disagree with that.

But as long as there are riots, things won't change. Why not? Because those who have to do the changing are going to busy keeping rabid negroes from rioting. They need to stand the fuck down...



> But you didn't answer my question: Why should anyone believe anything you say?



Because I can prove it... that's why. 



> Your creepy pal Mormon Bob doubted I was in the service, until I provided pictures of me in my time in.



Who the fuck is Mormon Bob?

There's not a single reason to believe you. You're an admitted liar...


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda were all correct.
> They are heros.
> Those who did not agree or understand, are still wrong.
> 
> Twitter must not be allowed to censor, police must not be allowed to murder, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and so was Vietnam.
> 
> If we do not support these heros, then we are accomplices to the crimes they are trying to stop.



They might have been all correct, but that doesn't mean their employers weren't within their rights to fire them, or that social media isn't within their rights to ban them.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I won't necessarily disagree with that.
> 
> But as long as there are riots, things won't change. Why not? Because those who have to do the changing are going to busy keeping rabid negroes from rioting. They need to stand the fuck down...



No, the cops have to show real reform... then people will calm down. 



Canon Shooter said:


> There's not a single reason to believe you. You're an admitted liar...



You mean I accept reality... we all lie. Everyone lies...  

You keep lying about why that guy misused his company credit card, because the truth probably doesn't make you look good.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> No, the cops have to show real reform... then people will calm down.



And I've explained why that won't happen. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it.

What would constitute "real reform"? At what point can we expect to turn on the news and _not _hear about riots?

The riots can't be allowed to continue, and "reform" takes time...



> You mean I accept reality... we all lie. Everyone lies...



No, I mean you're a liar. Not only are you a scumbag liar, you're proud of it...



> You keep lying about why that guy misused his company credit card, because the truth probably doesn't make you look good.



Another lie from you. You just can't help yourself, can you?

I've not lied at all, because, while I've explained how he misused it, I've never stated why. I've never stated why because the "why" isn't important.

And, for the life of me, I can't imagine why I would tell you, since you believe that stealing from an employer is acceptable.

Then again, you could've known the "why", but you're too stupid and inept to recognize when an opportunity to get something states you right in the face...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> And I've explained why that won't happen. You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it.
> 
> What would constitute "real reform"? At what point can we expect to turn on the news and _not _hear about riots?
> 
> The riots can't be allowed to continue, and "reform" takes time...



I agree, we should have started the reform when Colin took a knee.  Now we've had riots, and guess what, they are finally getting off their lazy asses and doing reform. 





Canon Shooter said:


> I've not lied at all, because, while I've explained how he misused it, I've never stated why. I've never stated why because the "why" isn't important.



Exactly my point. Frankly, that would be the FIRST question I would have asked... the fact you are hiding the why tells me the why makes you look kind of foolish.  It's what people don't say that says a lot. 

So all your complaints about "honesty", you engage in a lie of omission.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> I agree, we should have started the reform when Colin took a knee.  Now we've had riots, and guess what, they are finally getting off their lazy asses and doing reform.



Why didn't you answer my question?

What would constitute the "reform" that the left and BLM want to see? What will have to have happened for BLM to say "Okay, we're done, thanks!"?

Reform doesn't happen overnight, and decent Americans don't have the patience to allow these animal thugs to riot until they're satisfied...



> Exactly my point. Frankly, that would be the FIRST question I would have asked... the fact you are hiding the why tells me the why makes you look kind of foolish.  It's what people don't say that says a lot.



You're drawing a conclusion based on incomplete information. That's stupid. What's even more stupid is you failing to get that information when you were presented a golden opportunity. All you did is prove that you're an inept idiot...



> So all your complaints about "honesty", you engage in a lie of omission.



How does the "why" matter?

The only way it doesn't matter is if you believe that stealing from an employer is acceptable behavior from an employee. It's clear you believe that. You believe that because you've probably stolen from employers in your past...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Why didn't you answer my question?
> 
> What would constitute the "reform" that the left and BLM want to see? What will have to have happened for BLM to say "Okay, we're done, thanks!"?
> 
> Reform doesn't happen overnight, and decent Americans don't have the patience to allow these animal thugs to riot until they're satisfied...



Uh, yeah, guy, you keep telling yourself that.  

Reality - the demonstrations have calmed down quite a bit..  but you still need to keep the pressure on, because left to their own devices, they'll keep putting it off.  



Canon Shooter said:


> You're drawing a conclusion based on incomplete information. That's stupid. What's even more stupid is you failing to get that information when you were presented a golden opportunity. All you did is prove that you're an inept idiot...



If the missing information made you look good, you'd be broadcasting it.  The fact you are hiding it tells me that it makes you look like a real shitheel.  



Canon Shooter said:


> How does the "why" matter?
> 
> The only way it doesn't matter is if you believe that stealing from an employer is acceptable behavior from an employee. It's clear you believe that. You believe that because you've probably stolen from employers in your past...



Except you haven't proven he stole anything.  You gave him a credit card.   It's like saying you left your TV on the front lawn and the people who picked it up "stole" from you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Uh, yeah, guy, you keep telling yourself that.
> 
> Reality - the demonstrations have calmed down quite a bit..  but you still need to keep the pressure on, because left to their own devices, they'll keep putting it off.



If the riots and protests continue, reform won't happen.

I would rather see rioters gunned down in the streets than allow then to continue their destructive ways...



> If the missing information made you look good, you'd be broadcasting it.  The fact you are hiding it tells me that it makes you look like a real shitheel.



Horseshit.

I've shared positive things I've done for my employees; things that most non-idiots (read: not people like you) would find admirable, and you've belittled me for them, so fuck you.

But you can blame yourself for not having the information you want. Blame yourself for being too goddamn stupid to recognize a chance to get what you want and to act on it. You're an idiot...



> Except you haven't proven he stole anything.  You gave him a credit card.   It's like saying you left your TV on the front lawn and the people who picked it up "stole" from you.



It's actually nothing like that. There are guidelines and rules a card holder must follow. This piece of shit didn't follow them. But, you're a thief and a liar, so it's no surprise to see you being supportive of another thief...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> If the riots and protests continue, reform won't happen.
> 
> I would rather see rioters gunned down in the streets than allow then to continue their destructive ways...



I'm sure you would, but most non-sociopaths are kind of sick of that sort of thing.   Reform is going to happen, for no other reason than cities can't afford to be paying out $27 million dollar settlements.  



Canon Shooter said:


> I've shared positive things I've done for my employees; things that most non-idiots (read: not people like you) would find admirable, and you've belittled me for them, so fuck you.



yes, you share things that make you look good, and hide something that makes you look bad... We get that.  It must make you look really bad because the stuff that makes you look good really doesn't.  You bought a slacker a beater once?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Reform is going to happen, for no other reason than cities can't afford to be paying out $27 million dollar settlements.



Reform will happen when the negro hordes announce that they're more willing to work towards reform than they are interested in acting like rabid animals...



> yes, you share things that make you look good, and hide something that makes you look bad... We get that.  It must make you look really bad because the stuff that makes you look good really doesn't.  You bought a slacker a beater once?



No, dumbfuck, I didn't. 

We created a way to put this kid in a position where he could help himself. We created an award that he would be a shoe-in to win. When it was awarded to him, it came with a monetary award, as well. We never told him how to spend the money. He took it upon himself to go find a decent used car at a price he could afford. And he's far from being a slacker. He's pretty much the hardest worker in his department.

And he hasn't missed a minute of work since he got that car.

But you prove my point. I don't know anyone who wouldn't welcome something like that, yet you belittle it. So, you see, it doesn't really matter if something is positive or negative: you'll take issue with it. This kid would've lost his job, and we put him in a place where he could keep it. He's a bright kid with a great future with my company if he wants it. That'll be up to him. He's been with us for several years, though, so I don't expect to see him leave any time soon.

So, fuck you. I gave you a golden opportunity to get the information you wanted. I said if you could explain how stealing from an employer is ever acceptable I would give you that information, I'd give you all the info you wanted.

You were too stupid to see that opportunity, or you believe that committing a theft from an employer is acceptable.

Face it, Nancy, you're a wannabe. You wish you had the great work opportunities which are afforded to others who are smarter than you. You've proven to be remarkably unintelligent and needy. You're pretty worthless as far as humans go...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Reform will happen when the negro hordes announce that they're more willing to work towards reform than they are interested in acting like rabid animals...



Why should they be the ones working towards reform, it's the police who are acting out of line. 



Canon Shooter said:


> But you prove my point. I don't know anyone who wouldn't welcome something like that, yet you belittle it. So, you see, it doesn't really matter if something is positive or negative: you'll take issue with it. This kid would've lost his job, and we put him in a place where he could keep it. He's a bright kid with a great future with my company if he wants it. That'll be up to him. He's been with us for several years, though, so I don't expect to see him leave any time soon.



Actually, I'd be more impressed with him if he moved on from your company to something better....  but I'm sure you prefer compliant sheep. 



Canon Shooter said:


> I said if you could explain how stealing from an employer is ever acceptable I would give you that information, I'd give you all the info you wanted.



Why should there be ANY condition if you were in the right?  If you were in the right, you'd be explaining exactly why he did it.  Of course, it's probably something that makes you look bad, like he had permission, but then you needed a scapegoat when his plan to wine and dine a low-level flunky in purchasing backfired.  

Instead, you decided to vindictively screw up this guys life over a couple of dinners?  Really?  Wow, makes you sound like a complete asshole.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Why should they be the ones working towards reform, it's the police who are acting out of line.



These don't strike you as being "out of line"?

















Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, I'd be more impressed with him if he moved on from your company to something better....  but I'm sure you prefer compliant sheep.



I prefer employees who enjoy coming to work every day, to earn more than the industry average for doing a job they excel at.

You just hate it, and me, because I'm able to provide my employees with an outstanding work environment, with no need for some union goon to come in and negotiate it for them. You hate that my employees are happy.

You're just a sad little simpleton who has to beg others to let you write their resumes...



> Why should there be ANY condition if you were in the right?



Exactly my point; there shouldn't, and isn't, ever an acceptable reason to steal from an employer. 

You just happen to believe otherwise.

See, you've already admitted that you condone employee theft. You've admitted to being disonest. You've admitted to being a liar.

And you're trying to make _me _look bad for shit-canning a guy who stole from me?

What an ignorant little douchebag you are...


> If you were in the right, you'd be explaining exactly why he did it.



Why? Because _you _want me to?

Eat a dick.

The catalyst behind him going rogue is unimportant, simply because there's NEVER an instance where stealing from an employee is acceptable...



> Of course, it's probably something that makes you look bad, like he had permission, but then you needed a scapegoat when his plan to wine and dine a low-level flunky in purchasing backfired.



He had permission to use the card, but only for certain things. He used it for things that he was not authorized to purchase. It's clear; and you have my sympathies for this, that you're simply too fucking retarded to comprehend that.

A good friend of mine owns his own photography business. He and his crew were shooting an event a couple of years ago, and he gave his credit card to one of the gals working for him to go purchase things needed by him and the crew; everything from notepads and pens to stuff to make sandwiches with, snacks, etc. 

While she used the card to purchase everything he'd requested, she also used it to by a new blouse, some jeans and some make-up. 

Now, she also was the one who maintained his books, did payroll, made hotel and travel reservations, etc. She figured she'd be able to hide these purchases because A) the owner would likely never see the receipt (unless, I guess, if he was audited) and B) as the one who maintains the books for his small company, she could hide the purchases from him.

Do you believe it was appropriate for her to purchase those personal items with the owner's business credit card?

Do you believe that was okay for her to do?



> Instead, you decided to vindictively screw up this guys life over a couple of dinners?



My, but you truly are the stupid one, aren't you. I've told you the things he's purchased, and it was a lot more than a few dinners.

But, yeah, steal from me and I'm going to fuck up your entire life to the best of my ability.

See, that's why those who know me; those who work for me and those who don't, respect me. I take very good care of those who work for me. They're a huge part of why my company is as successful as it is, and I make sure they know I appreciate that.

But I have exactly zero tolerance for someone who would lie or steal from me...



> Really?  Wow, makes you sound like a complete asshole.



Well, and I say this in all honesty, the opinion of some lying douchebag on the internet isn't going to be all too sufficient to get me to change how I conduct my business. My company is very, very successful. My people are paid very, very well. The work atmosphere is enjoyable; people want to be there. And you can't stand that because it didn't take some union dipshit to get that for them.

So, fuck you, nimrod. You're nothing. You're failed in business (probably because you're a lying thief), and you can't hold down a regular job so you have to write resumes for $125 pop.

Me? I'm in my fifth week of a seven week road trip with my daughter, exploring this wonderful country of ours. My team back in Florida is running the show and killin' it. Business is stronger and more profitable now than it was pre-Covid. Life is a wonderful thing. When I get back to the office I'm announcing pay raises across the board.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> These don't strike you as being "out of line"?



No, this strikes me as being out of line.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You just hate it, and me, because I'm able to provide my employees with an outstanding work environment, with no need for some union goon to come in and negotiate it for them. You hate that my employees are happy.



Guy, you fire people for arguments and you screw up their lives for mistakes.  Frankly, everything you describe indicates a toxic work environment with fear based management.  

I'm sorry you've deluded yourself otherwise. 

Now you are going to spend the next ten paragraphs explaining why you don't want to say why your former employee made a mistake you ruined his life over.  Because, honestly, the story makes not a lick of sense.  



Canon Shooter said:


> A good friend of mine owns his own photography business. He and his crew were shooting an event a couple of years ago, and he gave his credit card to one of the gals working for him to go purchase things needed by him and the crew; everything from notepads and pens to stuff to make sandwiches with, snacks, etc.



Okay, this all sounds petty, but... um... it has nothing to do with why YOUR former employee spent money on a customer who wasn't his account.  You seem to want to avoid that subject like the plague, probably because it makes you look like kind of an idiot. 



Canon Shooter said:


> See, that's why those who know me; those who work for me and those who don't, respect me.



Uh, guy, that's the mantra of every dictator and bully.   Just so you know. Fear isn't respect. It's fear.  

That you found some people who are just masochistic enough to put up with it, just like an abusive husband can find a wife that likes to be slapped around.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Me? I'm in my fifth week of a seven week road trip with my daughter, exploring this wonderful country of ours



And this is how you are spending it, trying to impress a complete stranger on the internet you are a good boss? Really?  That's kind of pathetic and NEEDY.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> These don't strike you as being "out of line"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, this strikes me as being out of line.
> 
> View attachment 485127View attachment 485128View attachment 485129
> 
> View attachment 485130
Click to expand...


 Oh, I don't disagree with you.

Where I disagree with you is that one action is acceptable because another isn't.

That;s stupid...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, you fire people for arguments and you screw up their lives for mistakes.



No, I fire people for breaking a very simple, but resolute company rule and for stealing from me.

The fact that you find both of those acceptable means nothing to me, beyond further proving how absolutely weak a manager you would be...



> Frankly, everything you describe indicates a toxic work environment with fear based management.



If you're not going to hold people accountable for breaking rules, there's no reason to have rules. And, if you have no rules, then the inmates are running the asylum...



> I'm sorry you've deluded yourself otherwise.



You want delusional? Keep telling yourself that you're a better businessman than me...



> Now you are going to spend the next ten paragraphs explaining why you don't want to say why your former employee made a mistake you ruined his life over.  Because, honestly, the story makes not a lick of sense.



To a retard like you, who could've had that information if he _wasn't_ a retard, I'm sure that's true...



> Okay, this all sounds petty, but... um... it has nothing to do with why YOUR former employee spent money on a customer who wasn't his account.  You seem to want to avoid that subject like the plague, probably because it makes you look like kind of an idiot.



It's called a "comparison", you stupid dumbfuck.

Nevermind, it's clear you support her using his card in an unauhroized manner, as well. You do this because you support employee theft...



> Uh, guy, that's the mantra of every dictator and bully.   Just so you know. Fear isn't respect. It's fear.



Um, no.

Again, even those who _don't_ work for me respect me. I have no control over them. They've no reason to fear me. No one does, actually...



> That you found some people who are just masochistic enough to put up with it, just like an abusive husband can find a wife that likes to be slapped around.



Yeah, it's just like that...








> And this is how you are spending it, trying to impress a complete stranger on the internet you are a good boss? Really?  That's kind of pathetic and NEEDY.



Oh, I'm hardly wasting much time on you, little boy. Everyone's still asleep, so I'm getting caught up on things.

Handing your ass to you is one of those things...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Oh, I don't disagree with you.
> 
> Where I disagree with you is that one action is acceptable because another isn't.
> 
> That;s stupid...



Naw, man, what's stupid is ignoring this for years, and then acting all surprised when they decide to stop peacefully protesting it after peaceful protests get nothing done... 

Again, if we had said, "Wow, Kap, you have a legit point about police brutality, let's do something about that.", when rioting would have been out of line. 

Instead they fired Kap, called him every name inthe book, and they are STILL blackballing him in his sport. 



Canon Shooter said:


> The fact that you find both of those acceptable means nothing to me, beyond further proving how absolutely weak a manager you would be...



Except I've done fine in management roles...  I just don't want the headaches. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Nevermind, it's clear you support her using his card in an unauhroized manner, as well. You do this because you support employee theft...



Well, no, THAT was a clear case of using it for things she shouldn't have used them for.  You never really explained why he used his card on a customer that wasn't his.   (Again, my guess, he probably had tacit permission, the customer got offended, and you had to offer someone up as a scapegoat, but I don't expect you to be man enough to admit that.) 



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, even those who _don't_ work for me respect me. I have no control over them. They've no reason to fear me. No one does, actually...



Guy, we've already established that you are kind of needy that you really CARE what people think about you...or you wouldn't be here six weeks later arguing the same lame points that have been rejected on an off topic rant.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Naw, man, what's stupid is ignoring this for years, and then acting all surprised when they decide to stop peacefully protesting it after peaceful protests get nothing done...



What peaceful protests?

It's been a loooooooong time since I've seen one of those regarding "police violence"...



> Again, if we had said, "Wow, Kap, you have a legit point about police brutality, let's do something about that.", when rioting would have been out of line.



People did say that. A _lot _of people said that. To expect everyone to say it, though, is stupid. Yet that's exactly what protesters wanted. They want to go up to people who are quietly enjoying dinner, grab their drinks, get in their face and scream "SAY HIS NAME!"

Well, fuck them. I hope those people die. When you do shit like that you're no longer peacefully protesting. Actions like that won't win anyone over so, when you want to know why reform is slow to come, consider the fact that animals such as these "peaceful protesters" act in such a way as to make people not give a fuck about reform...



> Instead they fired Kap, called him every name inthe book, and they are STILL blackballing him in his sport.



Well, he made the choice to fall on his sword. While I don't agree with him, I can admire his commitment to his cause...



> Except I've done fine in management roles...  I just don't want the headaches.



Well, if "fine" is your metric for success, you're a fuckin' loser.

My managers _excel_. They rock it, _every fucking day_. That's why they're paid as well as they are, and that's why my Hiring Manager has a stack of resumes (written by professionals, not someone like you who does it for beer money) on her desk.

No, my folks would commit Hari Kari if they did "fine"...



> Well, no, THAT was a clear case of using it for things she shouldn't have used them for.  You never really explained why he used his card on a customer that wasn't his.   (Again, my guess, he probably had tacit permission, the customer got offended, and you had to offer someone up as a scapegoat, but I don't expect you to be man enough to admit that.)



He had no permission to use the card in the manner he did on the people he did. Period. You just want the details and, because you're a failure at recognizing opportunity, you don't have them.

And I don't have to use anyone for a scapegoat. The guy did what he did and what he did was illegal. Why is that so difficult for you to wrap your pointed little head around?



> Guy, we've already established that you are kind of needy that you really CARE what people think about you...or you wouldn't be here six weeks later arguing the same lame points that have been rejected on an off topic rant.



Oh, make no mistake, your opinion means dick. The opinions that matter are those who mean something to me: my family and loved ones, my employees, my mechanic. You? You're nothing but a dishonest, lying piece of shit. Please don't fool yourself into believing that I might actually care about your opinion of me.

I can assure you, I certainly do not...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> What peaceful protests?
> 
> It's been a loooooooong time since I've seen one of those regarding "police violence"...



Colin taking a knee. That was a peaceful protest.  That didn't work.   You want to get white people's attention, break their stuff.   White people are like that, you can't really appeal to their decency, but threaten to break their stuff, you have their undivided fucking attention. 



Canon Shooter said:


> People did say that. A _lot _of people said that. To expect everyone to say it, though, is stupid. Yet that's exactly what protesters wanted. They want to go up to people who are quietly enjoying dinner, grab their drinks, get in their face and scream "SAY HIS NAME!"



Oh, noes, you got your dinner interrupted? this is the most horrible thing ever.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, fuck them. I hope those people die. When you do shit like that you're no longer peacefully protesting. Actions like that won't win anyone over so, when you want to know why reform is slow to come, consider the fact that animals such as these "peaceful protesters" act in such a way as to make people not give a fuck about reform...



The racists like you weren't going to be for reform no matter what happened...  So we are just going to ignore you on this topic, as we should have.  

DECENT people look at George Floyd and say, "Yup, that's wrong."  

But since you can't be appealed to on a sense of decency, how about a sense of fiscal practicality.  Floyd's family got a payout of $27,000,000.    That's a lot of money.  Prior to this, families of police victims were getting payouts of 1-5 million.  In 2018, the City of Chicago had to pay out $180,000,000.00 to settle police brutality claims.  We simply can't afford rogue cops on a fiscal level... 



Canon Shooter said:


> Well, if "fine" is your metric for success, you're a fuckin' loser.



I don't spend every day thinking of ways to screw people over to benefit myself... that you do is kind of shallow. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He had no permission to use the card in the manner he did on the people he did. Period. You just want the details and, because you're a failure at recognizing opportunity, you don't have them.



If the details supported you, you'd have shared them by now.  

The rest is you being needy trying to get me to approve of you... ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Colin taking a knee. That was a peaceful protest.  That didn't work.   You want to get white people's attention, break their stuff.   White people are like that, you can't really appeal to their decency, but threaten to break their stuff, you have their undivided fucking attention.



And, with many of us, it's not going to be the kind of attention you want.

I have no interest in working with anyone, on any problem, if they believe the best way for them to approach the issue is to destroy the shit that belongs to people who've done nothing to them. Start rocking my car back and forth? Jump up and down on the hood? Someone's gonna' get tangled in the undercarriage, and I don't give a fuck. Wanna' pull me out of my car? You need to be ready for me to defend myself. I'm armed. Are you?



> Oh, noes, you got your dinner interrupted? this is the most horrible thing ever.



You know, for someone who has no idea what it's like to deal with scumbag vermin from time to time, yeah, it could be. Exactly what's gained by attacking people who are simply sitting down having dinner? What do these vermin scumbags expect these people to do? Suddenly adopt their cause?



> The racists like you weren't going to be for reform no matter what happened...  So we are just going to ignore you on this topic, as we should have.



Hey, I'm all for police reform. I've held that position all along. You'll never find a post from me which states that George Floyd deserved to die, or that he died because of a drug overdose. He died because of an over-zealous cop.

I challenge you to find one post from me to the contrary. You're so sure as to what my mindset is, well, prove it. Find where I've posted anything that suggests I believe as you suggest...



> DECENT people look at George Floyd and say, "Yup, that's wrong."



And that's exactly what I did.

And, being a "decent person", I said the same thing about the animals rioting and looting...



> But since you can't be appealed to on a sense of decency,...



My challenge to you stands...



> how about a sense of fiscal practicality.  Floyd's family got a payout of $27,000,000.    That's a lot of money.  Prior to this, families of police victims were getting payouts of 1-5 million.  In 2018, the City of Chicago had to pay out $180,000,000.00 to settle police brutality claims.  We simply can't afford rogue cops on a fiscal level...



First off, Chicago's a shit-hole.

Secondly, the Chicago Reporter puts the number closer to $113 million: .

Still a shit-ton of money but, you're a liar, so you inflate. I get it...



> I don't spend every day thinking of ways to screw people over to benefit myself... that you do is kind of shallow.



When everyone benefits, business is good. Everyone in my company benefits. I don't think of ways to screw people over. I think of ways to benefit their bank accounts. You know why that can happen? Because no one who works for me is satisfied with being "fine".

Shitbags are satisfied with "doing fine"...



> If the details supported you, you'd have shared them by now.



Why would I have done that?



> The rest is you being needy trying to get me to approve of you... ain't gonna happen.



Only a retard would read my postings to you and come away with the belief that I'm seeking your approval. I don't need, nor want, the approval of someone who believes that doing "fine" is laudable...


----------



## Jarlaxle

ThisIsMe said:


> No, but you are trying to force corporations into action, how long before you start demanding that other people take action?


He already is. Joey is 100% in favor of using mob violence to force people to do what he wants.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> You are right. I would hold people to standards related to their work.  What they discuss in the lunchroom or what they are doing in their private lives... nothing to do with Work, Captain Needy.



Liar.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, okay... man, the truth of it must not make you look good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what: You tell me under what circumstances it would be okay to steal thousands of dollars from an employer, and make a convincing argument, and I'll give you all the details you want...
Click to expand...


I can actually come up with one situation where it probably isn't legal, but I would have absolutely no problem with it: a bounced paycheck. Bounce a paycheck and the guy takes the money from the company? Yeah, I'm fine with that!


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, he does look like a bad person, because by his own admission, he just admitted they set the guy up to charge him with a crime...
> 
> You see, a good boss would call him into the office and get to the bottom and find out why he did what he did.
> 
> I'm kind of suspecting CS never bothered to even find out what the whole story was...


You need to stop listening to those voices. They're just as stupid as you.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> Goddamn, Joey, how fucking stupid and ignorant are you really?


Joey takes that question as a CHALLENGE.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> No, he just copped a plea to avoid $400.00 an hour lawyer fees.
> 
> Again, you gave him a card... sounds like pretty bad management to me.  I've never seen anything like that in my career, which tells me that you kind of suck as a manager.



More likely, Joey, that nobody actually is dumb enough to trust you with a company credit card!


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the union declared the strike, these folks were able to pay their bills. It was only after the strike was called that shit hit the fan. Some people lost everything, and it happened only AFTER the fucking UNION called the strike...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were they? Were they really?  Or were they just one medical crisis away from bankruptcy like most of us are?
> 
> You keep citing these "some people", but 87% of union members voted for the contract that was eventually won.
Click to expand...


Well, of course...because after four months off work, they needed to start getting paid again! Are you THIS fucking simple, boy?


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they voted for it. They were getting tired of not working, not earning money and getting foreclosed on or evicted...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They could have crossed the picket lines... or voted for a less stringent agreement.. they didn't. That was the point.
Click to expand...


They can only vote for what is agreed to, and they may not have wanted their children murdered.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What peaceful protests?
> 
> It's been a loooooooong time since I've seen one of those regarding "police violence"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin taking a knee. That was a peaceful protest.  That didn't work.   You want to get white people's attention, break their stuff.   White people are like that, you can't really appeal to their decency, but threaten to break their stuff, you have their undivided fucking attention.
Click to expand...


Not enough of the BLM thugs get shot. Make a couple dozen too dead to break anything and the rest might smarten up. The correct way to deal with feral thugs is *buckshot*.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gina Carano, Colin Kaepernick, The Dixie Chicks and Jane Fonda were all correct.
> They are heros.
> Those who did not agree or understand, are still wrong.
> 
> Twitter must not be allowed to censor, police must not be allowed to murder, the invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and so was Vietnam.
> 
> If we do not support these heros, then we are accomplices to the crimes they are trying to stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They might have been all correct, but that doesn't mean their employers weren't within their rights to fire them, or that social media isn't within their rights to ban them.
Click to expand...


If you can be fired for telling the truth, then we do not live in a democratic republic.
And social media is not supposed to censor at all, for any reason really.
For a democratic republic to work, not only do people have a responsibility to the truth, but have an obligation to act to preserve what is legal and condemn what is not.

The only times you can fire or censor is when it would otherwise cause you harm.
That was not the case with any of these.

When you contest what the truth is, that is when trials are needed.
You don't just get to harm people by firing them, without a trial.


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Not enough of the BLM thugs get shot. Make a couple dozen too dead to break anything and the rest might smarten up. The correct way to deal with feral thugs is *buckshot*.



Yeah, you try that, Ditchweed.  I'll enjoy watching your hate crime trial. 



Jarlaxle said:


> More likely, Joey, that nobody actually is dumb enough to trust you with a company credit card!



Uh, dude, I just placed $187,000 worth of purchase orders this week with an overseas supplier.... that's how much trust I have with my employer.


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> If you can be fired for telling the truth, then we do not live in a democratic republic.



Really? 

"Hey, Boss, you are a fucking moron!"
"You're fired"
"Waaaahhhh... I don't live in a democratic republic anymore!!!" 

He probably is a Moron, but he has the ability to make decisions as to who works for him.



Rigby5 said:


> And social media is not supposed to censor at all, for any reason really.



Um, no. Actually, Social Media has the potential to be sued if they promote pornography or violence.  The real problem is that they have very few people to monitor content. so they have to rely on people snitching on each other. 



Rigby5 said:


> For a democratic republic to work, not only do people have a responsibility to the truth, but have an obligation to act to preserve what is legal and condemn what is not.



Here's the thing, in most cases, we aren't talking about the "truth", we are talking about OPINIONS.  Carano, Kaepernick, Fonda were all expressing OPINIONS that weren't popular.  Their employers are perfectly within their rights to fire them if they don't want to be associated with those opinions. 

Now, if the GOVERNMENT were taking action against these people for their opinions, I'd be right there with you.



Rigby5 said:


> The only times you can fire or censor is when it would otherwise cause you harm.
> That was not the case with any of these.



Actually, I would argue the exact opposite.  NFL attendance has dropped because of the Protests by Kaepernick, even after they fired him.  Jane Fonda was box office poison by the 1980's, when the "Stabbed in the Back" myth about Vietnam came full circle.   Carano is a harder case to make, because Disney has so messed up the Star Wars IP that the fans all hate them at this point. 



Rigby5 said:


> When you contest what the truth is, that is when trials are needed.
> You don't just get to harm people by firing them, without a trial.



Um. No. we live in a world of "At Will Employment".  If anything, the people listed in the subject line probably have more worker protections than most of us have.  Most of us work in a company where they hand us an employee handbook with a list of things they CAN fire us for, including saying the wrong thing on social media if it makes the company look bad.  These handbooks almost always say, THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT.  In short, the employer has no obligations.


----------



## Jarlaxle

> Jane Fonda was box office poison by the 1980's...



No matter how many times you regurgitate this, it is *still a lie!*


----------



## JoeB131

Jarlaxle said:


> Jane Fonda was box office poison by the 1980's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No matter how many times you regurgitate this, it is *still a lie!*
Click to expand...


Jane Fonda's USMB Page. 









						Jane Fonda - IMDb
					

Jane Fonda, Actress: Klute. Born in New York City to legendary screen star Henry Fonda and Ontario-born New York socialite Frances Seymour Brokaw, Jane Seymour Fonda was destined early to an uncommon and influential life in the limelight. Although she initially showed little inclination to...




					www.imdb.com
				




Her last memorable role was in on Golden Pond in 1981.  After that, she did nothing but art films and pretty much stopped acting after 1990 when she tried to make a comeback in 2005 that went nowhere. 

Should point out at the same time her career was declining in the 1980's, is about the same time you had Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone (Guys who both avoided service in Vietnam) trying to rewrite the history where it wasn't the complete clusterfuck that it was.


----------



## Canon Shooter

Jarlaxle said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, okay... man, the truth of it must not make you look good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what: You tell me under what circumstances it would be okay to steal thousands of dollars from an employer, and make a convincing argument, and I'll give you all the details you want...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can actually come up with one situation where it probably isn't legal, but I would have absolutely no problem with it: a bounced paycheck. Bounce a paycheck and the guy takes the money from the company? Yeah, I'm fine with that!
Click to expand...


I would disagree with that, simply because there are legal avenues available to address that...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not enough of the BLM thugs get shot. Make a couple dozen too dead to break anything and the rest might smarten up. The correct way to deal with feral thugs is *buckshot*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you try that, Ditchweed.  I'll enjoy watching your hate crime trial.
Click to expand...


When thugs start destroying what isn't theirs, it's no longer a "hate crime". Instead, it's "protecting my shit"...



> Uh, dude, I just placed $187,000 worth of purchase orders this week with an overseas supplier.... that's how much trust I have with my employer.



LOL!! $187,000?

Golly, what a big man you are!

I think our largest PO last week was $400,000. I was out of the office, so I'd have to check, but it was up there.

Take your chump change and hit the bricks, little boy...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Should point out at the same time her career was declining in the 1980's, is about the same time you had Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone (Guys who both avoided service in Vietnam) trying to rewrite the history where it wasn't the complete clusterfuck that it was.



Chuck Norris enlisted in the Air Force in 1958 and was honorably discharged in 1962. He didn't "avoid" anything. He simply wouldn't have been drafted before those who hadn't yet served...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, I would argue the exact opposite.  NFL attendance has dropped because of the Protests by Kaepernick, even after they fired him.



He was certainly the catalyst and, yeah, NFL attendance dropped because of him, but not because people agreed with him. It dropped because people grew sick and fucking tired of everyone bending over backwards to placate Kapaernick and his "cause" that people said "fuck it" and spent their time elsewhere...



Rigby5 said:


> When you contest what the truth is, that is when trials are needed.
> You don't just get to harm people by firing them, without a trial.





> Um. No. we live in a world of "At Will Employment".  If anything, the people listed in the subject line probably have more worker protections than most of us have.  Most of us work in a company where they hand us an employee handbook with a list of things they CAN fire us for, including saying the wrong thing on social media if it makes the company look bad.  These handbooks almost always say, THIS IS NOT A CONTRACT.  *In short, the employer has no obligations*.



Absolute nonsense.

As an employer, I have no shortage of obligations to my employees...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> When thugs start destroying what isn't theirs, it's no longer a "hate crime". Instead, it's "protecting my shit"...



again, I doubt it will go well for you, but have at it. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Chuck Norris enlisted in the Air Force in 1958 and was honorably discharged in 1962. He didn't "avoid" anything. He simply wouldn't have been drafted before those who hadn't yet served...



Why didn't he re-enlist?  He's another right winger who was happy to send OTHER people off to war. 



Canon Shooter said:


> LOL!! $187,000?
> 
> Golly, what a big man you are!
> 
> I think our largest PO last week was $400,000. I was out of the office, so I'd have to check, but it was up there.



Wow, you really think that's a huge difference?  Okay.  I mean, I guess you are happy sitting on your little dungheep of a company.  

Guys like you suck up to me all the time trying to get me to toss PO's their way. 



Canon Shooter said:


> He was certainly the catalyst and, yeah, NFL attendance dropped because of him, but not because people agreed with him. It dropped because people grew sick and fucking tired of everyone bending over backwards to placate Kapaernick and his "cause" that people said "fuck it" and spent their time elsewhere...



So you just said what I said a different way... isn't that special.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> again, I doubt it will go well for you, but have at it.



I don't sweat it...



> Why didn't he re-enlist?  He's another right winger who was happy to send OTHER people off to war.



Every time I think you're the biggest piece of human shit I've ever encountered, you prove to be an even _bigger _piece of human shit.

He did his time. He didn't re-enlist because he'd applied to be a police officer in Torrance, CA. See, NOrris wasn't a pussy who had to write resumes for other people for a living after he was discharged.

That said, he could've re-enlisted and still wouldn't have seen time in Vietnam...



Canon Shooter said:


> LOL!! $187,000?
> 
> Golly, what a big man you are!
> 
> I think our largest PO last week was $400,000. I was out of the office, so I'd have to check, but it was up there.



Wow, you really think that's a huge difference?  Okay.  I mean, I guess you are happy sitting on your little dungheep of a company. [/quote]

Sorry, my mistake. The largest was $550K. The smallest was $380K.

My little "dungheep of a company" could buy and sell your scrawny ass...



> Guys like you suck up to me all the time trying to get me to toss PO's their way.



Not if you're bragging about PO's less than $200K...



> So you just said what I said a different way... isn't that special.



No, I didn't.

Your position is that people gave up on the NFL because they agreed with Kaepernick, and the NFL wouldn't give the has-been a job.

My position is that the general public gave up on the NFL because the NFL started to capitulate, and good Americans weren't interested in that...


----------



## hadit

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except nobody insisted on firing him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kapernick kneeled because he lives in a country where police can murder people like him, with no consequences.  That's kind of a big deal.
> 
> Tebow kneeled because he thinks his Imaginary Friend in the Sky is invested in him winning a football game.
> 
> Frankly, I've always wondered about a God who really is invested in who wins a football game but could care less about starving children in Africa.
> 
> 
> It kind of trivializes your God, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Mind readers of the world, unite!!!

Gotta love it when people who should know better pretend they know what somebody is thinking. Better get that foil helmet adjusted, it's not working too well.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Every time I think you're the biggest piece of human shit I've ever encountered, you prove to be an even _bigger _piece of human shit.
> 
> He did his time. He didn't re-enlist because he'd applied to be a police officer in Torrance, CA. See, NOrris wasn't a pussy who had to write resumes for other people for a living after he was discharged.
> 
> That said, he could've re-enlisted and still wouldn't have seen time in Vietnam...



Well, that's true.. Norris probably couldn't string a sentence together without a writer telling him what to say and a director telling him how to say it.  

My point stands. All these people who were all for the Vietnam War, none of them seemed to have found their way over there.   But Jane Fonda was bad because she said it was wrong. 



Canon Shooter said:


> My little "dungheep of a company" could buy and sell your scrawny ass...



Again, you couldn't afford my asking price.  That was before I'd get to an interview and all the alarms would go off about "Toxic Management".  



Canon Shooter said:


> Your position is that people gave up on the NFL because they agreed with Kaepernick, and the NFL wouldn't give the has-been a job.



Nope. Never said they agreed with him.  I mean, go back and have someone explain the big words to you. 

White people got ANGRY when Kap took a knee.  Of course, he was right... we have too many thugs cops shooting black people for no good reason, and he was totally right to be upset about it.  So were a lot of his fellow players, who have achieved that pinnacle of professional success of being in the NFL, but still encounter being pulled over for a "DWB" (Driving While Black).  

But the reality- we didn't listen to Kap when he did a peaceful protest and have a thoughtful discussion. 

He got fired. 
White people stopped watching football
Thug cops kept killing black people. 
Black people got fed up and started burning shit.  

See how that works, buddy?


----------



## POM

JoeB131 said:


> So we've seen a few threads on these boards about how Gina Carano was fired by Disney after she repeatedly posted racist, conspiratorial and transphobic memes on Twitter, and someone decided that she wasn't the best person to have on your Fun Space Adventure for the Whole Family.  Yes, after spending 4 BILLION to buy the rights to Star Wars, they didn't want some third tier actor dragging them into controversy they didn't need.
> 
> View attachment 464341
> _*Fun Space Adventure... Calling them "Younglings" so you don't have to say, "Killed Children"*_
> 
> Anyway, the Right Wing has gone apoplectic over this.  How dare we punish this poor woman for merely expressing her opinion.
> 
> Of course, these were the same people who insisted that the NFL Fire Colin Kaepernick because he took a knee protesting police misconduct and killing of black people.
> 
> View attachment 464342
> 
> Eventually, he was proven right when the country exploded into riots after George Floyd was murdered.  Even big corporations got in on the act.
> 
> Then there were the Dixie Chicks.  Remember them?  They were a country band that expressed the opinion that our war with Iraq over weapons that didn't exist was probably a bad idea.  (Actually, only one of them did, but they all paid for it.
> 
> View attachment 464343
> 
> Eventually, they were proven right.  Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find a Right Winger today who would argue the Iraq War was a good idea.
> 
> Then there was the grandmother of all "Cancel Culture", Jane Fonda.  You remember Jane?  She was the one who said our undeclared war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  Even humanized the people we were mercilessly bombing by visiting them.
> 
> View attachment 464344
> 
> Well, she was proven right.  The war was a bad idea.  Not that it did her any good, people still denounced her as "Hanoi Jane" and her career was pretty much over by 1980.
> 
> Point is, the Right Wing was for Cancel Culture (really, "Consequence Culture") before they were against it.
> 
> So let the right wing outrage begin!!!


Jane Fonda said


"I just think COVID is God's gift to the left," Fonda remarked with a chuckle. "It's a terrible thing to say, I mean, I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the bandaid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average working people in this country."










						Jane Fonda says COVID-19 'God's gift to the left,' pushing people to vote for change
					

Jane Fonda's remark came during an online event as she highlighted the importance of voting and how it can decide what happens to humanity.




					www.9news.com


----------



## JoeB131

CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:


> Jane Fonda said
> 
> 
> "I just think COVID is God's gift to the left," Fonda remarked with a chuckle. "It's a terrible thing to say, I mean, I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the bandaid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average working people in this country."



Okay, that statement probably has some merit.  

I mean, it would be nice if dumb white folks could get the point that Trump is an idiot without killing them... but that's kind of what it took.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Well, that's true.. Norris probably couldn't string a sentence together without a writer telling him what to say and a director telling him how to say it.
> 
> My point stands. All these people who were all for the Vietnam War, none of them seemed to have found their way over there.



Unless you can demonstrate that Norris advocated for the Vietnam War, then you're nothing but a lying sack of shit.

Please provide your proof that he was in favor of the Vietnam War...



> But Jane Fonda was bad because she said it was wrong.



No, she was bad because she chose to pose for pictures with the enemy and mock our troops.

Bitch needs to catch a bullet between the eyes...



> Again, you couldn't afford my asking price.  That was before I'd get to an interview and all the alarms would go off about "Toxic Management".



Not that I couldn't, because I easily could. I wouldn't, because you're a liar and a thief...



> White people Decent, non-scumbag Americans got ANGRY when Kap took a knee.



Fixed that for ya'...



> Of course, he was right... we have too many thugs cops shooting black people for no good reason, and he was totally right to be upset about it.  So were a lot of his fellow players, who have achieved that pinnacle of professional success of being in the NFL, but still encounter being pulled over for a "DWB" (Driving While Black).



So, let's burn down whitey's shit?

Fuck that...



> But the reality- we didn't listen to Kap when he did a peaceful protest and have a thoughtful discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, for him, it was his way or the highway. That's exactly how the rioters reacted, as well. There was no room for compromise or discussion. We either did what they wanted or they'd attack middle America.
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Unless you can demonstrate that Norris advocated for the Vietnam War, then you're nothing but a lying sack of shit.
> 
> Please provide your proof that he was in favor of the Vietnam War...



He starred in the "Missing in Action" films...  Horrible, nasty bits of Jingoism that repeated a bunch of lies. 



Canon Shooter said:


> No, she was bad because she chose to pose for pictures with the enemy and mock our troops.
> 
> Bitch needs to catch a bullet between the eyes...



When did she "mock the troops".  Yes, she posed for picture with the people we were mercilessly bombing for not wanting the kind of government we thought they should have.  How dare you humanize the enemy?  



Canon Shooter said:


> Not that I couldn't, because I easily could. I wouldn't, because you're a liar and a thief...



Naw, you really couldn't... given you don't even pay your managers good wages. 



Canon Shooter said:


> So, let's burn down whitey's shit?
> 
> Fuck that...



They got Whitey's attention, didn't they?  White people are falling all over themselves now to do what they SHOULD have done years ago. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Because, for him, it was his way or the highway. That's exactly how the rioters reacted, as well. There was no room for compromise or discussion. We either did what they wanted or they'd attack middle America.



What was Kap asking for that was so unreasonable?   We'll wait.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...



yup, you're not a racist.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> He starred in the "Missing in Action" films...  Horrible, nasty bits of Jingoism that repeated a bunch of lies.



What that proves is that he was an actor who needed to earn a living. Nothing more, nothing less.

Using your logic, Anthony Hopkins condones cannabalism...



> How dare you humanize the enemy?



Humanizing the enemy is a strong step down the path to defeat.

You were just a supply clerk, though, so you wouldn't know that...



> Naw, you really couldn't... given you don't even pay your managers good wages.



That's right, I don't pay them "good" wages. "Good" wages are for losers who do "fine" at their jobs.

My people get paid _stellar _wages; wages you could only dream of getting...



> They got Whitey's attention, didn't they?  White people are falling all over themselves now to do what they SHOULD have done years ago.



Whites who are capitulating to them are doing it for the wrong reasons. How is that progress?

Okay, we'll take down some statues because your little feelings go hurt, but how does that address cops killing negroes?



> What was Kap asking for that was so unreasonable?   We'll wait.



It was the manner in which he presented his point which made his point unimportant to good Americans...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yup, you're not a racist.
Click to expand...


Um, did I claim otherwise?

No, dipshit, I didn't.

I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.

I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.

That speaks volumes about you...


----------



## POM

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda said
> 
> 
> "I just think COVID is God's gift to the left," Fonda remarked with a chuckle. "It's a terrible thing to say, I mean, I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the bandaid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average working people in this country."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that statement probably has some merit.
> 
> I mean, it would be nice if dumb white folks could get the point that Trump is an idiot without killing them... but that's kind of what it took.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...
Click to expand...

I am a black man and from what I see so far your are a racist

CB


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> What that proves is that he was an actor who needed to earn a living. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Using your logic, Anthony Hopkins condones cannabalism...



Actually, he made a couple of them...  

And he's a typical RW hypocrite... always happy to send someone else's kid off to war. 






						What are the political views and Religious Beliefs of Chuck Norris? - Hollowverse
					

Religion: Norris was raised in a devout Baptist home and is very, very devout to this day, promoting Christianity in his books and his regular blog/column. Political views: Norris' religion dictates his politics. He has advocated creationism in schools, warned America to not vote for an atheist...




					hollowverse.com
				






Canon Shooter said:


> Humanizing the enemy is a strong step down the path to defeat.
> 
> You were just a supply clerk, though, so you wouldn't know that...



Dehumanizing the enemy is what the Nazis did... you are in fine company. 

The real problem in Vietnam, we were 100% completely in the wrong and our leaders lied to us.  (Both parties). 



Canon Shooter said:


> That's right, I don't pay them "good" wages. "Good" wages are for losers who do "fine" at their jobs.
> 
> My people get paid _stellar _wages; wages you could only dream of getting...



140K for a facility manager?  That's a joke.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Whites who are capitulating to them are doing it for the wrong reasons. How is that progress?
> 
> Okay, we'll take down some statues because your little feelings go hurt, but how does that address cops killing negroes?



Real police reform is being passed.  Taking down the statues is nice, too.   Now, sending racists off to re-education camps, while that would be satisfying, might be a little harsh.  



Canon Shooter said:


> It was the manner in which he presented his point which made his point unimportant to good Americans...



Uh, the manner he did it in was a PEACEFUL PROTEST.  You know, the kind you guys say you are all for now that black people got sick of your shit and started burning stuff.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.



Hey, guy, I'm just going to start reporting your ass when you say shit like this... I'm done trying to be civil to you.


----------



## POM

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I'm just going to start reporting your ass when you say shit like this... I'm done trying to be civil to you.
Click to expand...

Canon Shooter is a Racist
I am a black man 
CB


----------



## Canon Shooter

CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jane Fonda said
> 
> 
> "I just think COVID is God's gift to the left," Fonda remarked with a chuckle. "It's a terrible thing to say, I mean, I think it was a very difficult thing to send down to us, but it has ripped the bandaid off who [Trump] is and what he stands for and what is being done to average working people in this country."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, that statement probably has some merit.
> 
> I mean, it would be nice if dumb white folks could get the point that Trump is an idiot without killing them... but that's kind of what it took.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am a black man and from what I see so far your are a racist
> 
> CB
Click to expand...


Well, stick around and learn.

If you're a decent guy you and I won't have any problems.

If you're some scumbag who'd rather cash a welfare check than a paycheck, you and I will part ways in pretty short order...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I'm just going to start reporting your ass when you say shit like this... I'm done trying to be civil to you.
Click to expand...


When I start saying what?

That you're a liar, a thief and dishonest?

Those are all things YOU'VE laid claim to, dummy...


----------



## Canon Shooter

CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I'm just going to start reporting your ass when you say shit like this... I'm done trying to be civil to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canon Shooter is a Racist
> I am a black man
> CB
Click to expand...


Do you support the burning down of cities and attacks on whites who've done absolutely nothing to anyone?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> When I start saying what?
> 
> That you're a liar, a thief and dishonest?
> 
> Those are all things YOU'VE laid claim to, dummy...



Never said anything of the sort.  

Reported.


----------



## POM

Canon Shooter said:


> CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, guy, I'm just going to start reporting your ass when you say shit like this... I'm done trying to be civil to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Canon Shooter is a Racist
> I am a black man
> CB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support the burning down of cities and attacks on whites who've done absolutely nothing to anyone?
Click to expand...

Do you support white cops murdering black people?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, he made a couple of them...
> 
> And he's a typical RW hypocrite... always happy to send someone else's kid off to war.



Do you ever actually read what's in the links you post?

You can read, can't you?

There's not a single mention about Vietnam in the article you linked to.

You, again, are a failure...



> Dehumanizing the enemy is what the Nazis did... you are in fine company.



There it is. You are aware, aren't you, that "Nazi" is trotted out first by the person who has no argument. Nice work, dipshit.

The fact of the matter is that anyone who's ever stepped on a battlefied, if he or she had any hope of victory, dehumanized their enemy...



> 140K for a facility manager?  That's a joke.



Here ya' go, dumbfuck:

Facilities Manager Salary in Jacksonville, FL | Salary.com


----------



## Coyote

*Guys, get back on topic.  Now. *


----------



## POM

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yup, you're not a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, did I claim otherwise?
> 
> No, dipshit, I didn't.
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> That speaks volumes about you...
Click to expand...

So you have no problems with white people "living off the government teet" ?


----------



## POM

Coyote said:


> *Guys, get back on topic.  Now. *


thank you !


----------



## Canon Shooter

Coyote said:


> *Guys, get back on topic.  Now. *



I've been trying. Joey, however, insists on wanting to talk about how horrible a boss I am...


----------



## Canon Shooter

CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What in the actual fuck?
> 
> This has nothing to do with Trump.
> 
> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yup, you're not a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, did I claim otherwise?
> 
> No, dipshit, I didn't.
> 
> I have no problem with blacks. They're good people; no better or worse than whites, who go to work, pay their taxes, raise their families, and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Negroes are those of the same skin color, but who prefer to make demands and live off the government teet. They're of no value, whatsoever, to society.
> 
> I also take note, and others should, as well, that you don't deny being dishonest, a thief and a liar.
> 
> That speaks volumes about you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have no problems with white people "living off the government teet" ?
Click to expand...


Did I say that?

Don't make assumptions. It makes you look inept...


----------



## POM

Canon Shooter said:


> This has to do with how we need to start killing scumbag negroes and about you being a lying thief...



Excuse me?


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Do you ever actually read what's in the links you post?
> 
> You can read, can't you?
> 
> There's not a single mention about Vietnam in the article you linked to.
> 
> You, again, are a failure...



Kind of infers, he supports every other bit of Right Wing asshattery.  


Canon Shooter said:


> There it is. You are aware, aren't you, that "Nazi" is trotted out first by the person who has no argument. Nice work, dipshit.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that anyone who's ever stepped on a battlefied, if he or she had any hope of victory, dehumanized their enemy...



Um, quite the contrary. In WWII, our propagandists made a big distinction between the Nazis and "Good Germans" who were waiting to be liberated.  (The Japanese, on the other hand, were uniformly portrayed as sub-human).   As a result, while Germans on the Eastern Front fought to the last man against the Russians, they surrendered to the Americans when they saw the war was lost.  Because we treated them HUMANELY, we reduced fatalities on both sides. 

What Fonda did was go to Vietnam and said, "This is what our tax dollars are doing.  They are bringing untold misery to women and children."  Yes, some of what she did was stupid, like sitting on the AA Gun.  

But you compare that to people like Norris who didn't go, were happy to make films propagandizing the war, repeating some of the most obnoxious myths (like the Vietnamese were holding our POW's after hostilities ended.) IN short, he was cashing in.  Meanwhile, Fonda took a pretty bad career hit in the 1980's when all the post-war regret started to set in.  

Now, keeping this on topic. That was a choice she made.  She probably should have known taking an unpopular political stance would hurt her career, and it did.   Movie studios were well within their rights to not hire her, even though she is one of the best actresses Hollywood has ever produced.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Guys, get back on topic.  Now. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying. Joey, however, insists on wanting to talk about how horrible a boss I am...
Click to expand...


Uh, you specifically walked into this thread an attacked me when I stopped paying attention to you in another thread.

I don't think you've added anything to the topic of the thread.


----------



## JoeB131

Trying to get back on track.... 

Looks like Disney might rehire Carano after all.  


Or maybe this is a fanboy wet dream.


----------



## JoeB131

Right wingers were for Cancel Culture before they were against it.  

My perfect world, we'd stop looking to Actors and performers for their views on anything not related to acting or sports.  

Of course, we put a manifestly unfit person in the presidency because he had a fake reality TV show with washed up C-list celebrities..


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Um, quite the contrary. In WWII, our propagandists made a big distinction between the Nazis and "Good Germans" who were waiting to be liberated.



Hey, dummy: "Good Germans" weren't trying to take over Europe like the Nazis were...



> What Fonda did was go to Vietnam and said, "This is what our tax dollars are doing.  They are bringing untold misery to women and children."  Yes, some of what she did was stupid, like sitting on the AA Gun.



And she rightfully paid for her unbridled stupidity...



> But you compare that to people like Norris who didn't go, were happy to make films propagandizing the war, repeating some of the most obnoxious myths (like the Vietnamese were holding our POW's after hostilities ended.)



If you're going to be reporting me for calling you a liar, permit me to suggest that you stop belching up lies.

I made no such comparison...



> IN short, he was cashing in.  Meanwhile, Fonda took a pretty bad career hit in the 1980's when all the post-war regret started to set in.



You know, let's just go ahead and float the idea that she was simply slipping into the abyss of being a pretty shitty actress...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Guys, get back on topic.  Now. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been trying. Joey, however, insists on wanting to talk about how horrible a boss I am...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, you specifically walked into this thread an attacked me when I stopped paying attention to you in another thread.
> 
> I don't think you've added anything to the topic of the thread.
Click to expand...


Awwwww, whassamatta, Joey? On your period?

This is my first post in this thread, in its entirety:



> While I don't share his beliefs, Tim Tebow was vilified by the left for kneeling in silent prayer. No more disruptive than anything Kaepernick did, the act was considered intolerant and outright disgusting by the shit-stained left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tebow knelt in an act of silent, personal prayer. Kapernick knelt in an act of public defiance. The left looked at Tebow as some sort zealot and at Kaepernick as some sort of hero. Kapernick is no hero and Tebow is no zealot, yet only the act of one of them is acceptable to the dumbfucks who inhabit the left...



Where's this "attack" you speak of? I never mentioned your name. Hell, I didn't even quote you.

You apparently believe you're more important to others than you are...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Hey, dummy: "Good Germans" weren't trying to take over Europe like the Nazis were...



Actually, Hitler enjoyed public support all the way up until the War's end.  



Canon Shooter said:


> And she rightfully paid for her unbridled stupidity...



No, the stupidity was throwing away 56,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that the Pentagon concluded in 1968 was unwinnable.  









						Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				






Canon Shooter said:


> You know, let's just go ahead and float the idea that she was simply slipping into the abyss of being a pretty shitty actress...



Um, except she wasn't. 

She won an Oscar for Coming Home and she was nominated for another for On Golden Pond.  

She also won three BAFTA awards and two golden globes.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Awwwww, whassamatta, Joey? On your period?
> 
> This is my first post in this thread, in its entirety:



You mean where you lied about Tebow getting shit for Praying to the God of the End Zone. 

He really didn't.  No one blackballed him.  They just made fun of him, because they SHOULD have made fun of him.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, dummy: "Good Germans" weren't trying to take over Europe like the Nazis were...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Hitler enjoyed public support all the way up until the War's end.
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And she rightfully paid for her unbridled stupidity...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the stupidity was throwing away 56,000 lives and hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that the Pentagon concluded in 1968 was unwinnable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pentagon Papers - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, let's just go ahead and float the idea that she was simply slipping into the abyss of being a pretty shitty actress...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, except she wasn't.
> 
> She won an Oscar for Coming Home and she was nominated for another for On Golden Pond.
> 
> She also won three BAFTA awards and two golden globes.
Click to expand...


There's no shortage of people who think Nicholas Cage is a horrible actor, yet he's got an Oscar.

Weird...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> There's no shortage of people who think Nicholas Cage is a horrible actor, yet he's got an Oscar.
> 
> Weird...



Um, yeah, that has to do more with the fact his behavior got more and more erratic.  Not because he was blackballed by Hollywood.


----------



## Rigby5

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you ever actually read what's in the links you post?
> 
> You can read, can't you?
> 
> There's not a single mention about Vietnam in the article you linked to.
> 
> You, again, are a failure...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of infers, he supports every other bit of Right Wing asshattery.
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There it is. You are aware, aren't you, that "Nazi" is trotted out first by the person who has no argument. Nice work, dipshit.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that anyone who's ever stepped on a battlefied, if he or she had any hope of victory, dehumanized their enemy...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, quite the contrary. In WWII, our propagandists made a big distinction between the Nazis and "Good Germans" who were waiting to be liberated.  (The Japanese, on the other hand, were uniformly portrayed as sub-human).   As a result, while Germans on the Eastern Front fought to the last man against the Russians, they surrendered to the Americans when they saw the war was lost.  Because we treated them HUMANELY, we reduced fatalities on both sides.
> 
> What Fonda did was go to Vietnam and said, "This is what our tax dollars are doing.  They are bringing untold misery to women and children."  Yes, some of what she did was stupid, like sitting on the AA Gun.
> 
> But you compare that to people like Norris who didn't go, were happy to make films propagandizing the war, repeating some of the most obnoxious myths (like the Vietnamese were holding our POW's after hostilities ended.) IN short, he was cashing in.  Meanwhile, Fonda took a pretty bad career hit in the 1980's when all the post-war regret started to set in.
> 
> Now, keeping this on topic. That was a choice she made.  She probably should have known taking an unpopular political stance would hurt her career, and it did.   Movie studios were well within their rights to not hire her, even though she is one of the best actresses Hollywood has ever produced.
Click to expand...


I think the success of movies like "9 to 5" that starred Jane Fonda, showed that it was illegal for studios to not cast her as much as they should have.
They would not have taken any financial hit.

I think that actually Fonda's politics would instead of increased the revenue of Fonda movies.

{... 

_*9 to 5*_ (listed in the opening credits as _*Nine to Five*_) is a 1980 American comedy film directed by Colin Higgins, who wrote the screenplay with Patricia Resnick. It stars Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton as three working women who live out their fantasies of getting even with and overthrowing the company's autocratic, "sexist, egotistical, lying, hypocritical bigot" boss, played by Dabney Coleman.

The film grossed over $103.9 million[2] and is the 20th-highest-grossing comedy film.[3] As a star vehicle for Parton—already established as a successful singer, musician and songwriter—it launched her permanently into mainstream popular culture. A television series of the same name based on the film ran for five seasons, and a musical version of the film (also titled _9 to 5_), with new songs written by Parton, opened on Broadway on April 30, 2009.

_9 to 5_ is number 74 on the American Film Institute's "100 Funniest Movies"[4] and has an 83% approval rating on review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes.[5] ...}


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Awwwww, whassamatta, Joey? On your period?
> 
> This is my first post in this thread, in its entirety:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean where you lied about Tebow getting shit for Praying to the God of the End Zone.
> 
> He really didn't.  No one blackballed him.  They just made fun of him, because they SHOULD have made fun of him.
Click to expand...


We're discussing your false assertion that I attacked you in my first post which, clearly, I did not. I did nothing of the sort.

Again, if you're going to constantly whine about me calling you a liar and want to report me for it you might start out with the obvious: DON'T LIE...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no shortage of people who think Nicholas Cage is a horrible actor, yet he's got an Oscar.
> 
> Weird...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, yeah, that has to do more with the fact his behavior got more and more erratic.  Not because he was blackballed by Hollywood.
Click to expand...


I don't know anyone who rates an actor's acting ability based on anything but what's seen on the screen.

For the record, I'm a big Page fan. He should've won an Oscar for "The Frozen Ground"...


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Her last memorable role was in on Golden Pond in 1981.  After that, she did nothing but art films and pretty much stopped acting after 1990 when she tried to make a comeback in 2005 that went nowhere.
> 
> Should point out at the same time her career was declining in the 1980's, is about the same time you had Chuck Norris and Sly Stallone (Guys who both avoided service in Vietnam) trying to rewrite the history where it wasn't the complete clusterfuck that it was.



Ah, yes, drag those goal posts! Glad to see you finally admit that Fonda's most successful movie (nominated for an Oscar) was in 1981! 

She didn't "stop acting" in 1990, you lackwit...she married Ted Turner and *retired*.


----------



## Jarlaxle

hadit said:


> Mind readers of the world, unite!!!
> 
> Gotta love it when people who should know better pretend they know what somebody is thinking. Better get that foil helmet adjusted, it's not working too well.



Joey *knows ALL!* He is a regular Nostradumbass.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> He starred in the "Missing in Action" films...  Horrible, nasty bits of Jingoism that repeated a bunch of lies.



It's a movie, not court testimony.



> Naw, you really couldn't... given you don't even pay your managers good wages.



Joey, you are so full of shit it is bubbling out your ears.



> They got Whitey's attention, didn't they?  White people are falling all over themselves now to do what they SHOULD have done years ago.



Damn right, and my wife and I helped some people do that yesterday! Arm up, practice, and if required, aim at center mass and fire until the threat is neutralized.  My 11th training class, my wife's 14th.


----------



## Jarlaxle

JoeB131 said:


> Actually, he made a couple of them...



Three, Missing In Action movies, actually (1984, 85, and 88). It looks like Norris had a 3-picture contract, quite common.


----------



## JoeB131

Rigby5 said:


> I think the success of movies like "9 to 5" that starred Jane Fonda, showed that it was illegal for studios to not cast her as much as they should have.
> They would not have taken any financial hit.
> 
> I think that actually Fonda's politics would instead of increased the revenue of Fonda movies.



Would it have, though?  Again, it's a matter of where on the time line you show up. 

 During the 1970s, the backlash hadn't quite hit yet.  Most people were just glad Vietnam was over, the hippies all got jobs and haircuts, Jimmy Carter pardoned all the draft resistors. It seemed like we were putting the nightmare behind us. 

Then the historical revisionism began.  You had movies like First Blood and Missing in Action, which began the "Stabbed in the Back" myth of Vietnam.  We weren't defeated, we were stabbed in the back by the hippies and Jane Fonda.  Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause, and people thought he was nuts for saying it, during the 1980 campaign.  But turned out to resonate with people who just didn't want to admit America could lose a war. (Even a completely pointless war we were lied into getting into). 

So in the midst of this, you saw Jane Fonda's fortunes decline in the kinds of movies she was getting.  Part of it was that she only wanted to do serious films with a message, which kind of limited her, but part of it was Hollywood realizing she was box office toxic. 

Her first movie after Golden Pond was "Rollover" 1981.  It lost money, only making 10 million on a 16 million budget. 

Her next big movie after that was Agnes of God (1985) It made $25MM on a $10MM budget.  Not a loss totally, but not stellar.  People in Hollywood were realizing her name was toxic because people resented her activism. A common T-shirt I saw in the 1980's 'Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales".  

Her next movie was "The Morning After" (1986).  Again, made 25MM on a 10MM budget.  

Her last movie before she "retired" was Old Gringo.  Made 3 million on a 35MM budget.  



Canon Shooter said:


> Again, if you're going to constantly whine about me calling you a liar and want to report me for it you might start out with the obvious: DON'T LIE...



I didn't report you for your childish name-calling.  I reported you on accusing me of crimes.  That's against forum rules. 



Jarlaxle said:


> Ah, yes, drag those goal posts! Glad to see you finally admit that Fonda's most successful movie (nominated for an Oscar) was in 1981!
> 
> She didn't "stop acting" in 1990, you lackwit...she married Ted Turner and *retired*.



See the discussion above, Ditchweed.  After Golden Pond, she made a series of bombs because in the Reagan Era of bullshit patriotism, her brand became toxic.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Would it have, though?  Again, it's a matter of where on the time line you show up.
> 
> During the 1970s, the backlash hadn't quite hit yet.  Most people were just glad Vietnam was over, the hippies all got jobs and haircuts, Jimmy Carter pardoned all the draft resistors. It seemed like we were putting the nightmare behind us.
> 
> Then the historical revisionism began.  You had movies like First Blood and Missing in Action, which began the "Stabbed in the Back" myth of Vietnam.  We weren't defeated, we were stabbed in the back by the hippies and Jane Fonda.  Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause, and people thought he was nuts for saying it, during the 1980 campaign.  But turned out to resonate with people who just didn't want to admit America could lose a war. (Even a completely pointless war we were lied into getting into).
> 
> So in the midst of this, you saw Jane Fonda's fortunes decline in the kinds of movies she was getting.  Part of it was that she only wanted to do serious films with a message, which kind of limited her, but part of it was Hollywood realizing she was box office toxic.
> 
> Her first movie after Golden Pond was "Rollover" 1981.  It lost money, only making 10 million on a 16 million budget.
> 
> Her next big movie after that was Agnes of God (1985) It made $25MM on a $10MM budget.  Not a loss totally, but not stellar.  People in Hollywood were realizing her name was toxic because people resented her activism. A common T-shirt I saw in the 1980's 'Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales".
> 
> Her next movie was "The Morning After" (1986).  Again, made 25MM on a 10MM budget.
> 
> Her last movie before she "retired" was Old Gringo.  Made 3 million on a 35MM budget.



I'm not sure which would be funnier: The fact that you're so well versed in the increasingly failing career of Jane Fonda or that you wasted time on Google looking up so much shit that no one really gives a fuck about...



> I didn't report you for your childish name-calling.  I reported you on accusing me of crimes.  That's against forum rules.



I see.

So you take the position that it's okay stealing from an employer; which tacitly identifies you as a thief, and then you want to whine because I point that out?

You really are a delicate little flower, aren't you?



> See the discussion above, Ditchweed.  After Golden Pond, she made a series of bombs because in the Reagan Era of bullshit patriotism, her brand became toxic.



Yes, it did. People were sick and tired of her anti-American rhetoric. 

I did find it particularly satisfying that the bitch had to play a Republican in "The Butler" in order to get a paycheck...


----------



## POM

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it have, though?  Again, it's a matter of where on the time line you show up.
> 
> During the 1970s, the backlash hadn't quite hit yet.  Most people were just glad Vietnam was over, the hippies all got jobs and haircuts, Jimmy Carter pardoned all the draft resistors. It seemed like we were putting the nightmare behind us.
> 
> Then the historical revisionism began.  You had movies like First Blood and Missing in Action, which began the "Stabbed in the Back" myth of Vietnam.  We weren't defeated, we were stabbed in the back by the hippies and Jane Fonda.  Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause, and people thought he was nuts for saying it, during the 1980 campaign.  But turned out to resonate with people who just didn't want to admit America could lose a war. (Even a completely pointless war we were lied into getting into).
> 
> So in the midst of this, you saw Jane Fonda's fortunes decline in the kinds of movies she was getting.  Part of it was that she only wanted to do serious films with a message, which kind of limited her, but part of it was Hollywood realizing she was box office toxic.
> 
> Her first movie after Golden Pond was "Rollover" 1981.  It lost money, only making 10 million on a 16 million budget.
> 
> Her next big movie after that was Agnes of God (1985) It made $25MM on a $10MM budget.  Not a loss totally, but not stellar.  People in Hollywood were realizing her name was toxic because people resented her activism. A common T-shirt I saw in the 1980's 'Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales".
> 
> Her next movie was "The Morning After" (1986).  Again, made 25MM on a 10MM budget.
> 
> Her last movie before she "retired" was Old Gringo.  Made 3 million on a 35MM budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which would be funnier: The fact that you're so well versed in the increasingly failing career of Jane Fonda or that you wasted time on Google looking up so much shit that no one really gives a fuck about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't report you for your childish name-calling.  I reported you on accusing me of crimes.  That's against forum rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> So you take the position that it's okay stealing from an employer; which tacitly identifies you as a thief, and then you want to whine because I point that out?
> 
> You really are a delicate little flower, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the discussion above, Ditchweed.  After Golden Pond, she made a series of bombs because in the Reagan Era of bullshit patriotism, her brand became toxic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. People were sick and tired of her anti-American rhetoric.
> 
> I did find it particularly satisfying that the bitch had to play a Republican in "The Butler" in order to get a paycheck...
Click to expand...

With all due respect you are insulting.

Signed 

CB


----------



## Canon Shooter

CLARENCE_BIGSBY said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it have, though?  Again, it's a matter of where on the time line you show up.
> 
> During the 1970s, the backlash hadn't quite hit yet.  Most people were just glad Vietnam was over, the hippies all got jobs and haircuts, Jimmy Carter pardoned all the draft resistors. It seemed like we were putting the nightmare behind us.
> 
> Then the historical revisionism began.  You had movies like First Blood and Missing in Action, which began the "Stabbed in the Back" myth of Vietnam.  We weren't defeated, we were stabbed in the back by the hippies and Jane Fonda.  Ronald Reagan called Vietnam a noble cause, and people thought he was nuts for saying it, during the 1980 campaign.  But turned out to resonate with people who just didn't want to admit America could lose a war. (Even a completely pointless war we were lied into getting into).
> 
> So in the midst of this, you saw Jane Fonda's fortunes decline in the kinds of movies she was getting.  Part of it was that she only wanted to do serious films with a message, which kind of limited her, but part of it was Hollywood realizing she was box office toxic.
> 
> Her first movie after Golden Pond was "Rollover" 1981.  It lost money, only making 10 million on a 16 million budget.
> 
> Her next big movie after that was Agnes of God (1985) It made $25MM on a $10MM budget.  Not a loss totally, but not stellar.  People in Hollywood were realizing her name was toxic because people resented her activism. A common T-shirt I saw in the 1980's 'Feed Jane Fonda to the Whales".
> 
> Her next movie was "The Morning After" (1986).  Again, made 25MM on a 10MM budget.
> 
> Her last movie before she "retired" was Old Gringo.  Made 3 million on a 35MM budget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which would be funnier: The fact that you're so well versed in the increasingly failing career of Jane Fonda or that you wasted time on Google looking up so much shit that no one really gives a fuck about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't report you for your childish name-calling.  I reported you on accusing me of crimes.  That's against forum rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see.
> 
> So you take the position that it's okay stealing from an employer; which tacitly identifies you as a thief, and then you want to whine because I point that out?
> 
> You really are a delicate little flower, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See the discussion above, Ditchweed.  After Golden Pond, she made a series of bombs because in the Reagan Era of bullshit patriotism, her brand became toxic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. People were sick and tired of her anti-American rhetoric.
> 
> I did find it particularly satisfying that the bitch had to play a Republican in "The Butler" in order to get a paycheck...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With all due respect you are insulting.
> 
> Signed
> 
> CB
Click to expand...


With all due respect, you're irrelevant...

Signed

FU


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> I'm not sure which would be funnier: The fact that you're so well versed in the increasingly failing career of Jane Fonda or that you wasted time on Google looking up so much shit that no one really gives a fuck about...



Uh, people are discussing it here, so people care... um, yeah.. okay. 



Canon Shooter said:


> So you take the position that it's okay stealing from an employer; which tacitly identifies you as a thief, and then you want to whine because I point that out?



I don't take a position one way or the other, since you never actually explained what he did. You avoided that topic.  But this is off topic to this thread.  Accusing forum members of criminal activity is against forum rules. Reported again. 



Canon Shooter said:


> Yes, it did. People were sick and tired of her anti-American rhetoric.
> 
> I did find it particularly satisfying that the bitch had to play a Republican in "The Butler" in order to get a paycheck...



Did she do it for the paycheck, or did she do it because she was interested in the story?  haven't seen the movie and I doubt you have, either.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure which would be funnier: The fact that you're so well versed in the increasingly failing career of Jane Fonda or that you wasted time on Google looking up so much shit that no one really gives a fuck about...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, people are discussing it here, so people care... um, yeah.. okay.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you were Johnny On The Spot with cinematic stats that no normal person would ever give a fuck about.

That's dedication...


JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you take the position that it's okay stealing from an employer; which tacitly identifies you as a thief, and then you want to whine because I point that out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't take a position one way or the other, since you never actually explained what he did. You avoided that topic.  But this is off topic to this thread.  Accusing forum members of criminal activity is against forum rules. Reported again.
Click to expand...

You're a fuckin' idiot.

I absolutely explained what he did. You've spent pages, in fact, responding to it. For you to now say that I've haven't said what he did makes you look like an insufferable  dipshit.

And I've not accused you of criminal activity. I've merely expressed my opinion that you're a thief. In support of that opinion, everyone should take note that you've not once denied that...



JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it did. People were sick and tired of her anti-American rhetoric.
> 
> I did find it particularly satisfying that the bitch had to play a Republican in "The Butler" in order to get a paycheck...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did she do it for the paycheck, or did she do it because she was interested in the story?  haven't seen the movie and I doubt you have, either.
Click to expand...


"The Butler"?

I absolutely did. Forrest Whittaker was great in it...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Yeah, but you were Johnny On The Spot with cinematic stats that no normal person would ever give a fuck about.



Actually, I'm Johnny on the spot with a lot of trivia...  Probably someone you'd never want to play Trivial pursuit against...   



Canon Shooter said:


> For you to now say that I've haven't said what he did makes you look like an insufferable dipshit.



You didn't explain WHY he did it, so you didn't really explain what he did.  

Other violations of forum rules reported... I'm done with you.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but you were Johnny On The Spot with cinematic stats that no normal person would ever give a fuck about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I'm Johnny on the spot with a lot of trivia...  Probably someone you'd never want to play Trivial pursuit against...
Click to expand...


LOL!!!

The guys who always won at Trivial Pursuit were the guys whose only dates were with Rosie Palm and her five sisters...


JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> For you to now say that I've haven't said what he did makes you look like an insufferable dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't explain WHY he did it, so you didn't really explain what he did.
> 
> Other violations of forum rules reported... I'm done with you.
Click to expand...


Well, I did explain what he did. If you're too fucking stupid to comprehend that, well, ain't my problem.

Oh, and reporting me?

LOL!!!!

For what? LOLOL!!


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> The guys who always won at Trivial Pursuit were the guys whose only dates were with Rosie Palm and her five sisters...



Wow.. weirdly obsessing about my sex life... um... yeah... okay.... no, you are a weird stalker at all.


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Well, I did explain what he did. If you're too fucking stupid to comprehend that, well, ain't my problem.



No, you didn't explain WHY he did it. I don't really care "what" you "claimed" he did, because frankly, the story just plain old didn't add up.   2 = X = Y, you don't really know what Y means if you don't know what X is.  It's simple math. 

Also- off topic... has nothing to do with cancel culture....Do you have anything intelligent to say about that?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The guys who always won at Trivial Pursuit were the guys whose only dates were with Rosie Palm and her five sisters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.. weirdly obsessing about my sex life... um... yeah... okay.... no, you are a weird stalker at all.
Click to expand...


Actually, I was unaware your sex life consisted of nothing more then pleasuring yourself.

How sad for you...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Actually, I was unaware your sex life consisted of nothing more then pleasuring yourself.
> 
> How sad for you...



Funny, I'm sure you spend all night thinking about me, which is really, really sad. 

I must have seriously bruised your ego.


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I did explain what he did. If you're too fucking stupid to comprehend that, well, ain't my problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't explain WHY he did it. I don't really care "what" you "claimed" he did, because frankly, the story just plain old didn't add up.   2 = X = Y, you don't really know what Y means if you don't know what X is.  It's simple math.
> 
> Also- off topic... has nothing to do with cancel culture....Do you have anything intelligent to say about that?
Click to expand...


Joey, c'mere, Sport. We need to talk.

See, you've got a problem here. You think that you're a lot more significant than you are. I'm not saying that to be mean, pal. I'm simply pointing out to you (because someone needs to) that nobody gives a fuck about you. You're unimportant. As such, nobody cares about what you think you should be privy to, either.

You've admitted to being dishonest.

You've admitted to being a liar.

You've not condemned the act of stealing from an employer, so the only conclusion which can be reached is that you condone such theft and, by extension, could very well be a thief yourself, especially considering all of those important Klinger-like assignments you had while you were a slack-jawed supply clerk in the Army...


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I was unaware your sex life consisted of nothing more then pleasuring yourself.
> 
> How sad for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I'm sure you spend all night thinking about me, which is really, really sad.
> 
> I must have seriously bruised your ego.
Click to expand...


You suffer delusions of grandeur to the nth degree.

I guess I can see why. That's the only way you can convince yourself that anyone gives a shit about you or your ignorant opinions.

Oh, and your post was off topic. Reported.

LOLOLOL!!!


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> Joey, c'mere, Sport. We need to talk.
> 
> See, you've got a problem here. You think that you're a lot more significant than you are. I'm not saying that to be mean, pal. I'm simply pointing out to you (because someone needs to) that nobody gives a fuck about you. You're unimportant. As such, nobody cares about what you think you should be privy to, either.



Then why have you spent like a month stalking me... I mean, it was flattering at first, but now it's getting a bit creepy. 

Do you have anything to add to the topic of the thread?


----------



## Canon Shooter

JoeB131 said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey, c'mere, Sport. We need to talk.
> 
> See, you've got a problem here. You think that you're a lot more significant than you are. I'm not saying that to be mean, pal. I'm simply pointing out to you (because someone needs to) that nobody gives a fuck about you. You're unimportant. As such, nobody cares about what you think you should be privy to, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have you spent like a month stalking me... I mean, it was flattering at first, but now it's getting a bit creepy.
> 
> Do you have anything to add to the topic of the thread?
Click to expand...

You should educate yourself on h0ow internet forums and threads on those forums work.

Because right now you just look like a fuckin' idiot...


----------



## JoeB131

Canon Shooter said:


> You should educate yourself on h0ow internet forums and threads on those forums work.
> 
> Because right now you just look like a fuckin' idiot...



Um, yeah, the way they are supposed to work is you discuss the topic, not weirdly stalk people because they hurt your little feelings.  

I'm just putting you on ignore now... maybe in a month or so, I'll take you off....


----------



## Jarlaxle

Canon Shooter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey, c'mere, Sport. We need to talk.
> 
> See, you've got a problem here. You think that you're a lot more significant than you are. I'm not saying that to be mean, pal. I'm simply pointing out to you (because someone needs to) that nobody gives a fuck about you. You're unimportant. As such, nobody cares about what you think you should be privy to, either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why have you spent like a month stalking me... I mean, it was flattering at first, but now it's getting a bit creepy.
> 
> Do you have anything to add to the topic of the thread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should educate yourself on h0ow internet forums and threads on those forums work.
> 
> Because right now you just look like a fuckin' idiot...
Click to expand...

It's a look Joey is quite used to by now.


----------

