Frothers Unite! UK

Is it just Tourette's on your part, Grampa Apathy? Why do you always play the "both sides are bad" card whenever bad conservatives are mentioned? Why won't you admit that you are carrying the white supremacists' water by the constant distractions?

One could be fired at will, in parts of the country, but if it falls under the protection of one or more of the Amendments, one better hope the former employee can't be bothered to bring suit, due to lacking time and money.

That's just wrong and silly.

The amendments refer to what government can do to citizens, not private business in an at will state. You cannot sue a business over the First Amendment or the Fourteenth, they apply only to what government can do. Try suing over an employer over not letting you have a gun at work under the Second Amendment.

I fired a lot of folks in 40+ years in business in everything from layoffs to 'with cause', every time working with our General Counsel and never got sued although I did get threatened fairly often.

If I wanted to can a Nazi/White, Supremacist, General Asshole (fired a few of those) it is easy provided no union or civil service protection.

Eliminate the position - easiest of all. No cause needed, just don't need that position at that spot at this time.
Document a violation of the Company Guidelines/Ethics Statement - (easy Nazi killer)
Document any and all hostile/racist/sexist/sketchy statements or behaviors - (hard to believe a Nazi could stay in bounds)
Set goals seemingly reachable but actually impossible and then document failure. Takes longer but kill them in a quarterly or mid-year review then put them on a performance improvement plan they cannot meet and then can them all nice, neat and documented.

Bottom line. If your employer wants you gone, you are gone and unless they are an idiot, you aren't winning anything in court.

General Apathy wrote:

And Apathy reaches his apotheosis, realizing that the first amendment allows people to do things he doesn't like.

FTFU. I've been aware of that from the outset.

Yeah, we're aware, it's pretty obvious.

Fuck you. I've been clear about how they should be handled from the beginning. The fact you choose to ignore that to continue this nonsense shows you are either trying to become your locale's version of Rebby the town moron, or you are willfully ignoring what I have actually posted so you can be a dishonest troll.

As I already explained at length, you did. And then used the very same breath to leap into your routine 2 minutes of hate.


Here, let me illustrate:

"Yeah, at Wells Fargo we did commit large-scale fraud, but why aren't we talking about the Russian Mob in New York more, they steal too"

If i was a guy at Wells Fargo would you think that was a genuine statement?

No, of course not, it'd be madness. Everyone would call him a fraud.


Let me give you another example that might seem more fitting for you, since it involves people you hate:

"Yeah, BLM have caused riots and property damage, but why aren't we talking about the terror bombing of mosques in America?"

Sound like that person actually feels genuine? Or does it sound like they want to change the conversation to another target, one they find more morally outrageous?
Does it sound like they are equating the two, stating that one is acceptable as long as the other exists?

Yeah, it kinda does.

rebelyell2006 wrote:Is it just Tourette's on your part, Grampa Apathy? Why do you always play the "both sides are bad" card whenever bad conservatives are mentioned? Why won't you admit that you are carrying the white supremacists' water by the constant distractions?

No, it is on your part. You apparently can't discern any differentiation between there being SOME bad individuals on a side like the counter protesters and the claim that both sides are bad. I haven't defended "bad conservatives" at all.

"Why won't you admit that you are carrying the white supremacists' water" Simple. I'm not.

Why won't you admit that you are to addled with your toxic substances where you work to carry on an informed intelligent conversation based on what I ACTUALLY POST and not the voices in your head?

Sound like that person actually feels genuine? Or does it sound like they want to change the conversation to another target, one they find more morally outrageous?
Does it sound like they are equating the two, stating that one is acceptable as long as the other exists?

Yeah, it kinda does.

Your example does not parallel what I've posted. I've equated the two nowhere in my posts. I've made no excuses for the alt right thugs and have called for the federal government to go after them both for civil rights violations as well as possible domestic terrorism charges.

Please show me where I've said the same should be done for the other side.

I've stated that the vast majority of the counter protesters were peacefully demonstrating but that a small number of folks like ANTIFA came armed and were looking to cause trouble. How does that differentiation not make it clear that I've distinguished between the protesters against the alt right and the thugs looking to cause trouble?

I've posted nothing indicating that you couldn't or shouldn't talk about them. My objection was to those who rightfully complained about the Nazis and white supremacists but were totally silent about any wrongdoing on the other side. You could have talked about them from the outset even without the murderous driver.

The vast majority of the counter protesters were peaceful and law abiding. But others came from elsewhere looking for a violent confrontation.

Your argument would be helped a lot if you didn't literally just post a hysterical screed, decrying a protest you know nothing about as being full of violent revolutionaries.

Grampa Apathy, you can't seem to accept the fact that all white supremacists are bad, because of their beliefs. Stop mentioning ANTIFA and I'll stop accusing you of Whataboutism.

You cannot even keep track of the voices in your own head, Grampa Apathy. You post something, and your very next post is a denial that you ever posted that. Did you recently suffer a head injury? That is an honest question.

And Trump disbands the Trade and Manufacturing councils rather than have all the CEO's keep quitting.
The unintended humor!

Your argument would be helped a lot if you didn't literally just post a hysterical screed, decrying a protest you know nothing about as being full of violent revolutionaries.

Except that isn't what I did.

Grampa Apathy, you can't seem to accept the fact that all white supremacists are bad, because of their beliefs.

How you get that notion from my posts is beyond me. Where did I post anything to indicate that I think any of them are good? There is a big difference between they have a constitutional first amendment right to free speech and defending them or thinking they are anything but evil because of their beliefs.

I'll continue to mention ANTIFA because none of you hive mind crowd has yet acknowledged that (1) they were there (2) they were armed and (3) they were looking for trouble. Pointing that out in no way excuses what the alt right did nor does it blame the counter protesters for trying to hold a peaceful protest.

Why is so hard to admit that there are violent nut cases on both sides?

You post something, and your very next post is a denial that you ever posted that

Link please...

I post the difference between what I posted and what the little voices in the collective hive mind wants to think I've posted. That isn't the same as what you claim. Did you recently suffer a head injury? That is an honest question as well. And no, I did not. But if you can't actually produce examples of what you claim, it will be clear that you either have suffered one, are toxically deranged, or just a lying troll.

I'll wait for your examples...