On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:28:12 AM UTC-8, xpen...@gmail.com wrote:First, the Occupy movement is primarily non-violent. The one notable US incidence of violence, in Oakland, was atypical, and reportedly perpetrated by an anarchist bloc outside the mainstream of both liberal and Occupy politics.
> > You seem to have trouble evaluating the usefulness of information.
> > What do you think is valuable in that story? An anonymous guy says
> > he has fired employees.
> Is it any surprise that he doesn't give his full seeing the violence,
Second, even in that case, violence was an offshoot of a broader protest and encounters with riot police, not a targeted action against one or more private business owners who laid off workers.
In other words, even if he were to give his full name, "David" would be more likely to get hit by lightning than to be physically attacked by "violent liberals."
> It really is of no consequence if the logic is sound or not becauseIt's of consequence because it's the likely difference between whether this is a random, outlying event or a bellwether. Thus far, it appears to be the former.
> there will be twenty two more people out of work.
A few small business owners are laying off workers to get below the 50-employee cap that requires providing health insurance for full-time employees under the Affordable Care Act. But, stories indicate that these employers misunderstand the Act. They assume their current insurance plans are ineligible and/or their costs will otherwise go up, when nonpartisan studies indicate that a broad array of existing plans will either qualify or be exempted under a "grandfather clause," and that employers' costs for providing the same benefits should typically go down.
Also, the cap doesn't kick in until 2014, which gives employers another year to better educate themselves about the Act and explore alternatives to simply reducing their workforce. "David" simply had a knee-jerk reaction to seeing his guy lose the election. (That's assuming his story wasn't a hoax; hard to tell with an anonymous radio call-in.)
> You have noticed that the market dropped 400+ points in theThis was due to financial reports from Europe and jitters over the looming "fiscal cliff." There's not much we can do about the former; as for the latter, all that's required is for Boehner and the House Republicans to get their heads out of their asses on a slight (and necessary) tax increase for the wealthiest Americans.
> last two days haven't you?
> Well I expect it will go back up I plant to get out of it before spring.So, basically, you're betting that the market will trend downward indefinitely. Good luck with that.
> I suspect there will be others like me. I also suspect people like you
> that are so confident in the future won't be replacing us.
> > The part that baffles me is "Well unfortunately, and most of my employeesProgressives explain layoffs by their employees' ethnicity? Can you cite examples?
> > are Hispanic--I'm not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have
> > mostly Hispanic employees...."
> > What is the relevance of the employees' ethnicity?
> I don't suppose you object whenever progressive do the same.
> The relevance is not only are these people losing their jobs they mightSo, you're saying that, as a group, Latinos have the hardest time finding work? Why?
> very well be the people that are going to have the hardest time to
> find another.
> You liberals have been exploiting races and the ethnics for years.By appealing to their needs and interests to win their votes? How terribly exploitative it is to actually represent people.
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.