|
 Everything can be about Obummer. If only you try hard enough.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:50 |
|
PUGGERNAUT posted:I don't know the guy in person, one of my friends found it on Facebook. I can ask him if he thinks it's legit something to be concerned about. Yeah, I meant report the site those people are quoting, not the person who forwarded it- sorry, I really should have been more clear. It also has a similar "bounty" on Hillary Clinton- the fact that it's getting spread around is troubling. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:You know weed is illegal, and you know most employers screen. If you piss hot, you are an idiot and have poor decision making skills. Or your an addict which has no relation to being "an idiot." If you fail a drug test for a job you care about you probably are because continued use in the face of adverse consequences is one of the primary markers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
The author kind of has a good point that he probably doesn't notice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 05:24
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:You know weed is illegal, and you know most employers screen. If you piss hot, you are an idiot and have poor decision making skills. So even if it has zero effect on my job, if my employer has a bee in his bonnet about something, then it's cool if he searches me and fires me because of it, since after all I know he hates it so I must be a poor decision maker. Man, I'm glad I was too young to have a job prior to Lawrence v Texas, because apparently if my boss had fired me for hearing that I hosed another dude, I'd have to put up with "liberals" telling me "hey, gay sex is illegal and you knew your company policy, so don't cry that you gov fired. Anyone who won't conform his personal life to his boss's arbitrary whims is obviously in idiot with poor decision-making skills". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:02 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
Has the United States never had a President that smoked before? Eisenhower? Reagan? It's so loving petty. Smoking is cool up to until Obama does it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Has the United States never had a President that smoked before? Eisenhower? Reagan? It's so loving petty. Smoking is cool up to until Obama does it. I'll leave this here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:25
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So even if it has zero effect on my job, if my employer has a bee in his bonnet about something, then it's cool if he searches me and fires me because of it, since after all I know he hates it so I must be a poor decision maker. If you're addicted to something, you very often won't be able to tell it's affecting your performance- and it's not going to be a protected activity/status. Analogizing drug use and sexual orientation isn't a great move to make in attacking drug testing policies, generally- the policy rationales and belief structures of the advocates are too divergent.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
Yeah but just because someone does a drug doesn't mean they're going to show up to work on it. If someone showed up to work drunk off their rear end you'd fire them (or at least reprimand them). Weed should be treated the same way, but drug tests can show a drug in your systems hours and even days after the effects have worn off.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Is that Forest Whitaker from The Butler?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So even if it has zero effect on my job, if my employer has a bee in his bonnet about something, then it's cool if he searches me and fires me because of it, since after all I know he hates it so I must be a poor decision maker. Welcome to Right-to-work laws, which to be more accurate should be called "right to fire you for any reason." You work at the pleasure of the boss, and anything not related to protected class stuff (gender, age, religion, race, and sometimes sexual orientation) is fair game for tossing you out into the street. But at least those goddamned unions are broken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:Welcome to Right-to-work laws, which to be more accurate should be called "right to fire you for any reason." You're confusing right-to-work with at-will employment. You're describing the latter, whereas the former refers to a law restricting a union's ability to compel membership and dues from all employees working in the union shop.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:17
|
|
OAquinas posted:Welcome to Right-to-work laws, which to be more accurate should be called "right to fire you for any reason." That's more a matter of at will employment generally, a category which would still cover a lot of fields that can't sustain unions even absent right-to-work. edit: beaten like a child in a gilded age shoe factory.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If you're addicted to something, you very often won't be able to tell it's affecting your performance- and it's not going to be a protected activity/status. Analogizing drug use and sexual orientation isn't a great move to make in attacking drug testing policies, generally- the policy rationales and belief structures of the advocates are too divergent. Reread the argument I was responding to. The argument wasn't "any amount could affect your performance". The form of the argument was "It doesn't matter if X affects your job at all, firing someone for breaking a policy against X is justified because anyone who doesn't follow a policy is stupid". X may as well be having ugly carpets at that point, because the argument used the existence of a policy to justify the firing and was unconcerned with whether the policy made sense. It's an argument straight out of a Heller novel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:20
|
|
|
I think WoodrowSkillson's argument was more like "anyone who knows their employer tests for this and is currently legally able to fire people for failing the test, then gets high and fails the test anyways, is an idiot". It's not that the policy or outcome would even have to be just- it's that the outcome ought to be obvious, so why would the worker ruin things for themselves?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
Oh sorry, I thought we were having a conversation about how things ought to be. Nevermind then, keep on "telling it like it is".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yeah but just because someone does a drug doesn't mean they're going to show up to work on it. If someone showed up to work drunk off their rear end you'd fire them (or at least reprimand them). Weed should be treated the same way, but drug tests can show a drug in your systems hours and even days after the effects have worn off. Try months in the case of weed. Discendo Vox posted:If you're addicted to something, you very often won't be able to tell it's affecting your performance- and it's not going to be a protected activity/status. Analogizing drug use and sexual orientation isn't a great move to make in attacking drug testing policies, generally- the policy rationales and belief structures of the advocates are too divergent. Referring to the above, weed can stay in your piss for at least a month. And it stays in your hair for at least 3 months even if you only took a puff from your buddy's joint to try it out. It's a little ridiculous to deny someone work because they took a hit of weed months ago. Which is why drug testing should be done based on a certain regulated minimum amount which demonstrates to employers that their candidate is doing the drug regularly. And yes, even weed even though I would take a pothead as a peer/employee over a drunk anyday. Dyz fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh sorry, I thought we were having a conversation about how things ought to be. Nevermind then, keep on "telling it like it is".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:If you think your employers' policies are wrong, counterproductive, useless, or whatever, the proper response is not to flagrantly ignore them and break policy. The way to handle it is to take your concerns to the employer. "You want to smoke pot? As my underling? Guess what, you're fired." Well golly gee that sure didn't handle it very well, Now I'm going to be kicked out of my place!
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
That outcome should have been obvious to you so whatever happened was entirely your fault.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 10:05
|
|
|
AtraMorS posted:If you think your employers' policies are wrong, counterproductive, useless, or whatever, the proper response is not to flagrantly ignore them and break policy. The way to handle it is to take your concerns to the But of course things like this are exactly the reason capital is constantly tearing unions down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 10:11
|
|
|
/\/\ Unions don't exist where I live.VitalSigns posted:That outcome should have been obvious to you so whatever happened was entirely your fault. AtraMorS fucked around with this message at 11:40 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 11:03
|
|
|
Folding Bear posted:
Also, how many of the people complaining about Obama taking vacations were also complaining when Bush Jr. spent an entire YEAR of his presidency (cumulative) on vacation? I'd like to see those numbers, because that was ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
What's ridiculous is people thinking that the President works any % less on his "vacation".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Also, how many of the people complaining about Obama taking vacations were also complaining when Bush Jr. spent an entire YEAR of his presidency (cumulative) on vacation? I'd like to see those numbers, because that was ridiculous. Those were "working" vacations. Where he moved brush around and stuff. Manly things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 13:31
|
|
|
V-Men posted:Those were "working" vacations. Where he moved brush around and stuff. Manly things. And he wasn't spending 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 15:41
|
|
|
Guess who's back? You're right it's LL101! Grammar.  Minimum Wage.  Obama.  Debates.  Catholic church.  ...  Michael Sam.  Income Equality.  Arizona SB 1062.  Furious Liberal Friday.  Ann Coulter. BONUS:           
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
I just saw my new favorite anti gun control picture. It was a screen capture from Star Wars Episode 3 as Anikin was going I to the Jedi temple to kill everyone there and the caption was "NOBODY BLAMED THE LIGHTSABERS" It was beautiful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:42
|
|
|
There was a massive knife attack in China today with 27 dead and over 100 injured, prepare for an onslaught of "Well libtards should we ban knives??!?!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Hey, Liberal Logic, wanna tell us WHY Jesus was flipping over tables? 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:There was a massive knife attack in China today with 27 dead and over 100 injured, prepare for an onslaught of "Well libtards should we ban knives??!?!" Judging from the actions of the UK, I think they'll say yes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
LeJackal, do you just get alerts or something whenever the word gun is said anywhere on the forums
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:LeJackal, do you just get alerts or something whenever the word gun is said anywhere on the forums Lowtax told me that was going to be our secret, like the time behind the barn.  Have some content.  Then the rebuttal. 
LeJackal fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Mar 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
I love this one- the author includes too much contextual information, so it's self-refuting.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I love this one- the author includes too much contextual information, so it's self-refuting. The entire study of economics begins and ends with Econ 101. Which the author would have also failed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Sir Rolo posted:
Saving this for the next time LL101 bemoans how a minimum wage increase will result in massive unemployment. quote:That was quick.  quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y Flying Fawkes of the Yard?! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:43
|
|
|
I've had a little luck by asking people: "If gas prices were to double, what would happen if you went to your boss and said that you need to be paid twice as much per hour in order to make up for your new gas expense?" Best case scenario, your boss is understanding and offers a small increase to offset the price increase, maybe a few more dollars a day at best. What's most likely to happen is that they'll laugh and say that it's your problem, not theirs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
I love how they pretend "accept a lower profit margin" is not an option. As if, every business has a set amount of profit that they are entitled to, and and going from a 14% profit margin to a 12% profit margin is going to cause business owners to just walk away en masse. Especially considering that employee wages are only about 18% of retail operating costs. I couldn't find anything on bakeries, in particular, but most manufacturing gigs were in the 20ish percent range. Dr. Arbitrary posted:Best case scenario, your boss is understanding and offers a small increase to offset the price increase, maybe a few more dollars a day at best. What's most likely to happen is that they'll laugh and say that it's your problem, not theirs. The bootstrap crowd accepts that argument for literally every cost of business except employee compensation. Your suppliers jacked up their prices? Too bad, if you close up shop some other, better businessman will step into your space. The landlord tripled your rent, and you can't afford it? Tough poo poo, it's his land and if you can't afford to pay the price set by the market, someone else will. Walmart opened up in your neighborhood and your mom-and-pop hardware store is going under? Oh, well, Sam Walton was a genius, and it's your own fault if you can't compete. Your employees want to earn enough money to eat every single day of the week and maybe even have a roof over their heads? HOLY gently caress, IT'S SOME SORT OF LIBERAL NAZI FASCIST COMMIE MUSLIM PLOT TO DESTROY WEALTH BECAUSE LIEBERALS HATE RICH PEOPLE OH JESUS IT'S NOT FAIR THE PRICE OF BIG MACS WILL GO UP BY A QUARTER THOSE POOR FRANCHISE OWNER PRODUCERS WHO DRIVE THE GREATEST ECONOMY IN THE WORLD WON'T BE ABLE TO SURVIVE BECAUSE THE POORS WHO DON'T DO ANYTHING BUT PUT PICKLES ON BUNS ARE DEMANDING OUTRAGEOUS COMPENSATION THAT THE ENTIRE REST OF THE FIRST WORLD ALREADY FORCES THOSE SAME EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE BUT IT WON'T WORK HERE BECAUSE REASONS AND OBUMMER AND AMERICA IS THE GREATEST COUNTRY ON EARTH, AMEN.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:15
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Hey, Liberal Logic, wanna tell us WHY Jesus was flipping over tables? "If anyone ever asks you 'What Would Jesus Do?' Remind them that violently persecuting the rich is within the realm of possibilities."
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 17:50 |
|
|
 Help me understand, Something Awful Forums.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2014 02:13
|
|