Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

 

2009-10-30 15:52:14
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6981|San Francisco
Well, you have to understand that "god" wasn't in patriotic verses, on money or in government buildings until the 1950s.  I think that wanting to restore them back to they way they were intended to be when first created is more patriotic than trying to cram "god" down everyone's throats in this country.  This is no longer the McCarthy era, as much as you'd want it to be.

And again, there simply is no underlying PC issue to this case.  I'm sorry that PC is limiting your ability to be a racist, a bigot, full of unwanton hatred and an overbearing religious ass.  That's the underlying issue to your ultimate problem with being PC.  Everyone knows it.
2009-10-30 15:58:49
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Marconius wrote:

Well, you have to understand that "god" wasn't in patriotic verses, on money or in government buildings until the 1950s.  I think that wanting to restore them back to they way they were intended to be when first created is more patriotic than trying to cram "god" down everyone's throats in this country.  This is no longer the McCarthy era, as much as you'd want it to be.

And again, there simply is no underlying PC issue to this case.  I'm sorry that PC is limiting your ability to be a racist, a bigot, full of unwanton hatred and an overbearing religious ass.  That's the underlying issue to your ultimate problem with being PC.  Everyone knows it.
LOL, Must be a new record, 5 pages before a liberal brought out the standard fall back position, "you're a racist".

Nope, my underlying issue is the crippling stiffling effect of PC that you embrace, Mr. zero tolerance.

IIsn't it ironic that it is a liberal who preaches zero tolerance. I guess he means he supports tolerance toward like minded individuals and stiffle all others through PC.
2009-10-30 16:29:32
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6981|San Francisco
I don't like zero tolerance either, but I was elucidating the point from Home Depot's perspective.  Oh, and it's not a fallback position, it's just the truth.  You haven't defeated my point at all, just stayed strong to your position because you still think PC caused this issue.  Well, good luck with that.   
2009-10-30 18:14:00
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

I see, so terminating a man. Removing his ability to provide food shelter and clothing for his family for wearing a non-offensive button because a company is too scare of offending someone IS NOT "blowing this out of proportion". Pointing it out is. Got it.
Choosing to be fired so you go onto dole and can't support your family instead of taking a pin off must be the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

Must be a librul TBH.
Fuck Israel
2009-10-31 11:47:06
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6914|Canada

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so terminating a man. Removing his ability to provide food shelter and clothing for his family for wearing a non-offensive button because a company is too scare of offending someone IS NOT "blowing this out of proportion". Pointing it out is. Got it.
Choosing to be fired so you go onto dole and can't support your family instead of taking a pin off must be the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

Must be a librul TBH.
I bet he felt entitled to keep his job bc of the pin. He thought wrong. Shame he is now sucking on the government teet of unemployment. Maybe he'll learn to respect the rules of the next company he works for...
2009-10-31 11:56:23
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Marconius wrote:

I don't like zero tolerance either, but I was elucidating the point from Home Depot's perspective.  Oh, and it's not a fallback position, it's just the truth.  You haven't defeated my point at all, just stayed strong to your position because you still think PC caused this issue.  Well, good luck with that.   
No I haven't defeated your point, in fact  Iagreed with it. He didn't follow the rules and he was fired.

MY point is the state of our country where such zero tolerance PC infested rules MUST be implimented to protect from law suits, and boycott.

How racism played into that point I will never know. So yes, it is your standard fall back position.
2009-10-31 11:58:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so terminating a man. Removing his ability to provide food shelter and clothing for his family for wearing a non-offensive button because a company is too scare of offending someone IS NOT "blowing this out of proportion". Pointing it out is. Got it.
Choosing to be fired so you go onto dole and can't support your family instead of taking a pin off must be the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

Must be a librul TBH.
He didn't choose to be fired, he took a stand against zero tolerance and its attack on common sense. yeah and he lost, not the point of my argument however. Any chance you will acknowledge that?
2009-10-31 11:59:53
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

destruktion_6143 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

I see, so terminating a man. Removing his ability to provide food shelter and clothing for his family for wearing a non-offensive button because a company is too scare of offending someone IS NOT "blowing this out of proportion". Pointing it out is. Got it.
Choosing to be fired so you go onto dole and can't support your family instead of taking a pin off must be the pinnacle of irresponsibility.

Must be a librul TBH.
I bet he felt entitled to keep his job bc of the pin. He thought wrong. Shame he is now sucking on the government teet of unemployment. Maybe he'll learn to respect the rules of the next company he works for...
Nope, he felt entitled t okeep his job because he felt he was right in his effort to fight for what he believed in. Not one of you, fall in line sheeple, to be sure.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-31 13:49:28)

2009-10-31 12:57:20
destruktion_6143
Was ist Loos?
+154|6914|Canada
lowing loves his buzz words doesnt he?
2009-10-31 13:42:29
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6981|San Francisco

lowing wrote:

Nope, he felt entitled t okeep his job because he felt he was right in his effort to fight for what he believed in. Not one of you fall in line sheeple to be sure.
Evidently he only believed in breaking the rules.
2009-10-31 13:52:47
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Marconius wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, he felt entitled t okeep his job because he felt he was right in his effort to fight for what he believed in. Not one of you fall in line sheeple to be sure.
Evidently he only believed in breaking the rules.
No point in continuing with you Marconious. I have been more than clear on my argument. You choose to not address it, merely sticking to your beloved zero torerance  and its removal of common sense. So be it.
2009-10-31 13:54:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, he felt entitled t okeep his job because he felt he was right in his effort to fight for what he believed in. Not one of you fall in line sheeple to be sure.
Evidently he only believed in breaking the rules.
No point in continuing with you Marconious. I have been more than clear on my argument. You choose to not address it, merely sticking to your beloved zero torerance  and its removal of common sense. So be it.
I love how now you all are strick rule enforcers now, unless it is the police you are dealing with, then you can fight with them, call them names, and disrespect them all you want, because you think you have the right.
2009-10-31 14:01:16
mikkel
Member
+383|6888

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

Marconius wrote:


Evidently he only believed in breaking the rules.
No point in continuing with you Marconious. I have been more than clear on my argument. You choose to not address it, merely sticking to your beloved zero torerance  and its removal of common sense. So be it.
I love how now you all are strick rule enforcers now, unless it is the police you are dealing with, then you can fight with them, call them names, and disrespect them all you want, because you think you have the right.
I'm sorry to tell you this, lowing, but the only one who's being hypocritical in this thread is you. The rest of us by and large respect the rights of private corporations to set their own rules and guidelines in these cases. Law enforcement is not a private matter, and nor are law enforcement organisations private corporations.
2009-10-31 14:07:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

lowing wrote:

No point in continuing with you Marconious. I have been more than clear on my argument. You choose to not address it, merely sticking to your beloved zero torerance  and its removal of common sense. So be it.
I love how now you all are strick rule enforcers now, unless it is the police you are dealing with, then you can fight with them, call them names, and disrespect them all you want, because you think you have the right.
I'm sorry to tell you this, lowing, but the only one who's being hypocritical in this thread is you. The rest of us by and large respect the rights of private corporations to set their own rules and guidelines in these cases. Law enforcement is not a private matter, and nor are law enforcement organisations private corporations.
last I check, LAWS supercide rules.  Yet you think you can disrespect the law and our bound by rules? Yeah, I am the hypocrite.

No, what you are doing is refusing to address the underlying issue here, and that is the reason why companies felt the need to impliment such bullshit rules. I don't blame you, If I loved PC as much as you, I would have a hard time defending firing a man for showing pride in his country.

Really? you now "by and large" all respect PRIVATE corporations and their rules and guidelines. You mean except how that PRIVATE corporations pay their executives?

Please, do not even think about talking to me about hypocrisy.

Last edited by lowing (2009-10-31 14:14:47)

2009-10-31 14:23:43
mikkel
Member
+383|6888
Jesus christ.
2009-10-31 14:30:38
SEREMAKER
BABYMAKIN EXPERT √
+2,187|6855|Mountains of NC

https://www.foxnews.com/images/root_images/103109_headscarf3_20091031_171603.jpg

" Zaki wants an apology and a change in CareNow's policies to accommodate expressions of religious belief — "whether it be a turban or facial hair." "
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/17445/carhartt.jpg
2009-10-31 14:42:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

mikkel wrote:

Jesus christ.
You can try, but I am not convinced he is going to help you explain how can respect the rules and decisions of a PRIVATE corporation, exept when it comes to PRIVATE payscales, or how you can justify zero tolerance except when dealing with the laws of the land.

Look, I have already acknowledged that he broke the rule and got canned. I am examining the reasons behind such rules and how far they go with their zero tolerance in order to keep from offending people like Marconious.

If you do not want to explore that question, so be it. DOn't blame ya, I would have a hard time explaining it, if I embraced zero tolerance and PC as well.
2009-10-31 16:52:18
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6981|San Francisco
I've already explored the question.  I postulated that it's less and less to do with PC and more to do with a business attempting to remain politically and socially neutral in today's zeitgeist.
2009-10-31 18:26:56
Stubbee
Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts
+223|7030|Reality
ummmm zeitgeist
The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'
2009-10-31 23:15:22
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

He didn't choose to be fired, he took a stand against zero tolerance and its attack on common sense. yeah and he lost, not the point of my argument however. Any chance you will acknowledge that?
He would have been given the choice, take off the pin or be fired. He chose to be fired.

If he'd had balls instead of being a pussy he would have taken off the pin and sued until he was allowed to put it back on.
Reckon he would still have lost, companies can have whatever rules they like over trivial stuff.

He's free to put a banner on his house, a bumper sticker on his car, an ad in the paper or on TV.
He's not free to wear a pin while in the employ of a private company - hard luck.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-01 08:56:08
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Marconius wrote:

I've already explored the question.  I postulated that it's less and less to do with PC and more to do with a business attempting to remain politically and socially neutral in today's zeitgeist.
THink maybe you want to re-read what you wrote. You deny PC is afoot, then describe the company's actions which is exactly what PC is all about..

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-01 13:23:14)

2009-11-01 13:24:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

He didn't choose to be fired, he took a stand against zero tolerance and its attack on common sense. yeah and he lost, not the point of my argument however. Any chance you will acknowledge that?
He would have been given the choice, take off the pin or be fired. He chose to be fired.

If he'd had balls instead of being a pussy he would have taken off the pin and sued until he was allowed to put it back on.
Reckon he would still have lost, companies can have whatever rules they like over trivial stuff.

He's free to put a banner on his house, a bumper sticker on his car, an ad in the paper or on TV.
He's not free to wear a pin while in the employ of a private company - hard luck.
This post is a repeat from others making this argument, it has been addressed already.
2009-11-01 14:07:50
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|6037|شمال

SEREMAKER wrote:

http://www.foxnews.com/images/root_imag … 171603.jpg
Nice pic
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
2009-11-01 14:29:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,817|6393|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

This post is a repeat from others making this argument, it has been addressed already.
No it hasn't, he wasn't 'taking a stand' he was being an arse and lost his job.
You just don't get it, or have a counter-argument.
Fuck Israel
2009-11-01 14:37:46
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6938|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

This post is a repeat from others making this argument, it has been addressed already.
No it hasn't, he wasn't 'taking a stand' he was being an arse and lost his job.
You just don't get it, or have a counter-argument.
not sure how many times or different ways I can say I acknowledge he was fired for company policy reasons, but I do have an argument, and that argument is the reason why companies are forced to impliment such "zero tolerance" rules in the first place. THis is the issue you do not want to touch, and the reason Marconious acknowledged, ironically enough while he was denying it. Go figure.

Last edited by lowing (2009-11-01 14:49:23)

 

Pages: 1 … 3 4 5 6

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard