enoch said:

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

ChaosEngine said:

"if this tactic is unsuccessful,they will do what they did to ron paul and demonize sanders.they will portray him as a "kook" a weird,fringe "goofy' candidate.which is exactly what was done to ron paul."

Except that Paul WAS a goofy, fringe candidate. He had no mainstream support from either side. Sure, the libertarians loved him, but the conservatives hated his stance on drugs and progressives hated his stance on, well, pretty much everything else.

Sanders probably has more actual support amoung his liberal base than Paul did amoung the conservatives, but there's a very real chance that he WOULD lose a presedential race against a moderate conservative.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see Sanders get in. Ironically, I think the only chance he has is if Trump gets the republican nod.

enoch said:

oh gawd i need to share the horror.
*promote

fine lady,you have properly grossed me out enough to never drink milk or eat cheese.

whats next? eggs?

and is it my imagination or did she give a slight,under the table jab,at vegetarians for not being vegetarian enough?

this women is going to be an epic jewish mother!!!
(or italian)
(or german)
(or korean)
(or mexican)
.....
.....
..
.

enoch said:

@Lawdeedaw

so if someone is just repeating slander,or conspiring to get others to repeat that slander.if it is not from the original accuser,then it is not slander or libel?

is that true?
i had no idea.

seems all you have to do nowadays is accuse...sit back and watch the disintegration of your targets life and then rejoice in the wreckage.

and then pay zero consequences.

hooray for social justice warriors!

*ps-you and newt need to start making out,but we get to watch.
segsy bastards.
segsy opinionated bastards.
like me!
ok ok..lets all make out!

newtboy said:

What insane, totally not applicable, wrong legal advice.
Quoting lyrics is different from making a clear public lie about a person being a vile criminal and telling your followers to spread the lie, especially when it leads to damage. It is NOT protected as 'satire' when the claim is made with 100% seriousness and spread as 'truth', if it were, there would be no such thing as 'slander', every defendant would simply cry 'satire' and go home. Duh.

...but I'm beginning to think you're jut trolling here, only looking for someone's goat to get with your insanity so you can get attention. I'm about done giving you any....on any topic. There's nothing to be gained from conversation with you but frustration at idiocy.

newtboy said:

Isn't there actually a 'game' where you choose the picture and 'beat it up'?

It's pretty funny that they get upset at an 'internet bully', so they become a gang of internet bullies to...well...I'm not sure...get theirs? Certainly not to stop internet bullying...they're using it as a main tactic.

Can't they be sued for publicly calling him a pedophile? Do they really accuse people of being pedophiles so often that they can't remember doing it?

I have to think there's something missing here....like what he actually posted that he's being charged with. Did he make threats? Unfortunately, time and time again this kind of opinion piece leaves out the most important pieces of information. I need to see the tweet that rose to the level of charging him before I form an opinion.

It sure seems like calling him a pedophile publicly meets the criminal standard, why isn't she up on charges?

newtboy said:

Learn to read the whole post, in which I also said....

"I never said it was 'justice' that he would lose his job and be mostly unemployable forever, I said it was IRONIC, since he was lambasting people on the video for being 'lazy' and 'taking his tax dollars', which is what he'll be doing now. I agree, it's a little much that he's mostly unemployable for life now, but as I said, he just needs to find an employer that's willing to be labeled, at best, a racist sympathizer if not racist themselves...he should try Trump."

Also try reading your own posts...and not adding words that aren't there when you quote yourself, like you have here. You didn't qualify your statements until now, so that's NOT what you actually said.

You didn't deserve this explanation, and it's the last one.

Smell ya later.

newtboy said:

Learn to read the whole post, in which I also said....

"I never said it was 'justice' that he would lose his job and be mostly unemployable forever, I said it was IRONIC, since he was lambasting people on the video for being 'lazy' and 'taking his tax dollars', which is what he'll be doing now. I agree, it's a little much that he's mostly unemployable for life now, but as I said, he just needs to find an employer that's willing to be labeled, at best, a racist sympathizer if not racist themselves...he should try Trump."

Also try reading your own posts...and not adding words that aren't there when you quote yourself, like you have here. You didn't qualify your statements until now, so that's NOT what you actually said.

You didn't deserve this explanation, and it's the last one.

Smell ya later.

newtboy said:

Then allow me to clarify for you, this is how....you didn't say "our criminal justice system forever holds records against people ", you said...
Newtboy said:
"Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them."
Lawdeedaw said:
Newt, this is a racists dream come true...it's what's keeping black men and women (who predominately are abused into our criminal justice system) unable to be productive citizens. This grudge holding helps no one.

You state that what's keeping blacks down is their criminal records...as if they all have one, and it's the only thing they have to overcome, and as if only blacks have criminal records. Need I say more, or do you now see the racism I see there?

I did not say it SHOULD be indefinitely held against him, please read again more clearly. I said it WOULD be held against him. Two different words and concepts. I said clearly that it was overboard that that would happen, but it's reality that once on the internet with his name attached, it will follow him for life. That's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact.

You are FAR from crystal clear. I've now explained how you said what I read.
I'll assume that you assume my assumption is assumptive, and assume your assumptions are also all assumptive assumptions, although I do assume that assumption is all based on assumptions. That clear it up?

newtboy said:

Then allow me to clarify for you, this is how....you didn't say "our criminal justice system forever holds records against people ", you said...
Newtboy said:
"Absolutely it's fair to expose people's public actions and tie it to them personally. 100% fair and proper. Period. People should own their actions, some need to be forced to own them."
Lawdeedaw said:
Newt, this is a racists dream come true...it's what's keeping black men and women (who predominately are abused into our criminal justice system) unable to be productive citizens. This grudge holding helps no one.

You state that what's keeping blacks down is their criminal records...as if they all have one, and it's the only thing they have to overcome, and as if only blacks have criminal records. Need I say more, or do you now see the racism I see there?

I did not say it SHOULD be indefinitely held against him, please read again more clearly. I said it WOULD be held against him. Two different words and concepts. I said clearly that it was overboard that that would happen, but it's reality that once on the internet with his name attached, it will follow him for life. That's not an endorsement, it's a statement of fact.

You are FAR from crystal clear. I've now explained how you said what I read.
I'll assume that you assume my assumption is assumptive, and assume your assumptions are also all assumptive assumptions, although I do assume that assumption is all based on assumptions. That clear it up?

newtboy said:

Well, yes, that's possible but not likely, to hold that theory you must assume the people running it are both 1)100% tolerant of antagonistic racist behavior and 2)liars. I'll give them the benefit of a doubt that they didn't bow to perceived possible future pressure and actually found this personally disgusting. That's not a stretch for most. It's also quite possible they saw it as a potential internal lawsuit they were nipping in the bud.

I asked about his rights...I asked..."does he have a right to his job?" The answer is no.

Ahhh, but it's not illegal to ADVOCATE for having sex with children, only to actually HAVE sex with children. What would you arrest him for?

'intent to harm'? Certainly not. For pedophiles, they don't think having sex with children is harmful to them, so there's no intent to harm. On the other hand, the racist DID intend to harm (intentional infliction of emotional distress is a crime in many places) those he ridiculed, he just isn't very good at it.

Advocating for legalization of something is not the same as advocating people doing it illegally....so no.

If the company has a strict 100% no drug policy, yes. I hate those kinds of policies, but I do see that private companies have the right to hire people they trust, and if using drugs makes them lose that trust in a person, they can fire them...for any stupid thing really.

I'm pretty sure we have laws protecting people from being fired based on political affiliation...so no.

Again, I never said it was justice. I said it's reality. I actually mentioned that I think it's overboard that he's essentially unemployable now, but also mentioned that he could get a job with Trump, or any number of other employees that don't have a problem with his racism. Being fired for ridiculing random strangers for being non-white and therefore on welfare...well, that's poetic justice at least, if not pure justice. Poetic justice is a form of justice...so yes.

Companies have every right to not employ grotesque and offensive people. Don't you think?

Again...intentional infliction of emotional distress...that's harm. Not physical harm, but harm none the less. You may disagree, but you're disagreeing with the law and supreme court, not me.

They were no threat to his livelihood, he's not a fracker, he's in construction.


When is it OK to hold them to company policy? When they are making public, recorded, unambiguous, inapropriate statements and actions. The company draws the line, the company decides where, the company enforces it. If this were due to an outside influence, I would think differently, but because the company itself wrote how disgusted they are and that they have a zero tolerance policy for this...it's fine. He's not just a racist bastard off work...if they have a single person of color working for them, they just saved themselves from a HUGE lawsuit for allowing a hostile work environment.

Yes, the courts have said they have that right.

Again...no PC police here, just his company bosses that were outraged and disgusted with him...and they fired him. This is not new, or strange in any way. It happens hundreds of times daily.

Why? Because we have decided that firing/denying service to someone based on their (or your) religion is not acceptable, and codified that in law. Racists have no such protection, either by society or the law.

yes, I can look at the entire situation and see that some justice was served. I can also look to the future and see that it likely will be over served....but not necessarily. He just needs to apply to the Trump campaign, they love this kind of person, then it will be pure justice.

Look to the past. This 'moral calculus' has been in effect and in use for decades. I find it disturbing that you only get upset about it when it's applied to racist douchebags...he's insanely far from the first one.

Once again...NO PC POLICE HERE. Why don't you get it? Come on man...please...just GET IT. This is a private companies sole action...not bowing to PC police...the PC police didn't have time to find out where he worked and complain, the company saw it and said 'Aww HELL no!".

I would also rather keep my liberty and freedoms...like the liberty and freedom to hire people that share my level of civility, and display that at all times, not only while being paid. Fortunately for me, that's what the law says today...but if people thinking like you have your way, that liberty and freedom will be lost and companies will be forced to hire and not fire disgusting pieces of racist shit like this...because people that think like you are can't fathom that his job found this disgusting, you've decided it MUST have been the PC thugs (or fear of them) that forced his job to fire him, PC thugs that must be fought, so you're fighting. To me, that's just sad, and incredibly poorly thought through or understood...and a bit like seeing racism where it doesn't exist.

You have your liberty and freedom to do as you wish...there was NEVER the freedom to do what you wished AND HAVE NO CONSEQUENSE FOR YOUR ACTIONS. That's what you're advocating. This isn't about a law, it's a private company's private decision...no right has been removed, you have the right to be as disgusting as you wish, you don't have a right to force yourself into a job.

In short, this is his (non existent) right to keep his job VS his bosses right to fire him. The right right won out.

EDIT: It seems you two have not considered the possibility that the company might be owned by a black person.

enoch said:

@newtboy

so i finally got my point across?
thank god!
it only took me a novella.
jesus christ,you would think me being a poet would equate to a more economical verbiage.

man do i fail.

so yeah,we are arguing two separate points.
you are arguing this specific turdnugget and i am arguing the broader implications of abuse in the future.

i still stand by my stance that i do not think this turdnugget should have lost his job.i think there could have been a much better way to have handled this situation,but as you stated (and i agree) the company was within their rights to fire him.

if i was his boss,i would have used this situation to educate,because lets be honest..this man is pretty fucking ignorant.

he even admits to not knowing any black people and had only been exposed to 9,in his entire life,and then he proceeds to vomit the most repugnant,racial shit.

ignorance is curable.
stupid is not.

but it is not the companies job to cure this neanderthal of his ignorance,but i suspect losing his job will only exacerbate an already instilled racism.

so lost opportunity and ultimately:fail.

i also think we are becoming far to comfortable and complicit in our ever-increasingly surveilled,data mined and personal data collected state.

which i am just repeating my main point,but it does concern me.