Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
0 views
Skip to first unread message
MattB
Aug 2, 2012, 6:22:44 PM8/2/12
to
Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefensecuts.html
Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
speculative based on looming spending cuts.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefensecuts.html
Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
speculative based on looming spending cuts.
The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
First.Post
Aug 2, 2012, 6:56:47 PM8/2/12
to
political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
It's a sleazy move on the part of the democrats to push layoffs with
no warning for the sake of possibly saving a few votes.
Now there will be a lot of folks worrying through the holiday season
about whether or not they'll still have a job after the new year.
Since both sides are playing politics with it, it boils down to the
GOP may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason but the
democrats are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
wy
Aug 2, 2012, 7:06:07 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:56 pm, First.Post <LiberalsRLeec...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
>
>
>
>
> <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
>
>
>
>
> <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
>
> >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
Cruel bastards those Repugnants. They don't care who or how many they
> >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
lay off, so long as they can do it right before the election as a
sleazy way to try to win. Thank God Democrats were there to block
their insanity from realizing more misery among the middle class.
>
> It's a sleazy move on the part of the democrats to push layoffs with
> no warning for the sake of possibly saving a few votes.
wouldn't have had to do anything at all if Repugnants didn't instigate
it in the first place. Boy, you're stupid.
>
> Now there will be a lot of folks worrying through the holiday season
> about whether or not they'll still have a job after the new year.
> Since both sides are playing politics with it, it boils down to the
> GOP may be doing the right thing for the wrong reason but the
> democrats are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason.
the holiday season if they'll still have a job or not. Boo-hoo. Hey,
why don't you just tell the Repugnants to pass Obama's jobs bill?
That way nobody will have to worry about not having jobs. But you
won't, because you're a Repugnant hypocrite.
Bradley K Sherman
Aug 2, 2012, 7:41:24 PM8/2/12
to
"wy" <w...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:38294831-8147-4c66...@h5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Obama's a fucking Hypocritical Kenyan Muslim all right
Sen. Obama supported layoff warnings; now sees no need
President Obama's administration doesn't see the need for defense
contractors to warn employees about possible layoffs from across-the-board
budget cuts, but in 2007, then-Sen. Barack Obama railed against employers
for failing to notify workers who were in danger of losing their jobs.
"The least employers can do when they're anticipating layoffs is to let
workers know they're going to be out of a job and a paycheck with enough
time to plan for their future," Mr. Obama said in a news release on July 17,
2007, while campaigning for president.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/obama-favored-stronger-layoff-warnings-07/print/
3109 Dead
Aug 2, 2012, 8:37:28 PM8/2/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 17:56:47 -0500, First.Post wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
> <trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>>
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
politics/2018832669_apusdefensecuts.html
>>
>>Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
>>contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days before
>>the election, calling the move politically driven and purely speculative
>>based on looming spending cuts.
>>
>>The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment by
>>Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned Labor
>>Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they do not
>>have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the automatic,
>>across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>>
>>A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to go
>>out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in workers'
>>mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
>
> It's a sleazy move on the part of the democrats to push layoffs with no
> warning for the sake of possibly saving a few votes.
They aren't pushing layoffs caused by the plan the GOP Congress forced on
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
> <trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>>
>>http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
politics/2018832669_apusdefensecuts.html
>>
>>Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
>>contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days before
>>the election, calling the move politically driven and purely speculative
>>based on looming spending cuts.
>>
>>The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment by
>>Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned Labor
>>Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they do not
>>have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the automatic,
>>across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>>
>>A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to go
>>out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in workers'
>>mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
>
> It's a sleazy move on the part of the democrats to push layoffs with no
> warning for the sake of possibly saving a few votes.
Obama; they are pushing fair warning to the contractors that they might
be terminated at years' end. Can't you read? And if you can, can't you
think?
Message has been deleted
AlleyCat
Aug 3, 2012, 1:22:33 AM8/3/12
to
In article <b6vl18h09h1316hf3...@4ax.com>,
trdell1234...@gmail.com says...
know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
trdell1234...@gmail.com says...
>
> Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
Doesn't matter now. The Repugnants put "it" out there for the public to
> Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
wy
Aug 3, 2012, 1:39:59 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 1:22 am, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
> In article <b6vl18h09h1316hf3211h3jla765818...@4ax.com>,
> trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com says...
with the public. Nobody cares. Repugnants are too stupid to drag it
out and keep it in the public eye for long. And it's clearly a stupid
attempt to force the sending out of layoff notices just days before
the election with no basis for it since no jobs are in peril at this
point, nor can it be assumed that any specific jobs will be in peril
in November. Even Repugnants are too dumb to list which jobs will be
cut in their fantasy universe.
> In article <b6vl18h09h1316hf3211h3jla765818...@4ax.com>,
> trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> Doesn't matter now. The Repugnants put "it" out there for the public to
> know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
It'll be a forgotten story in no time, if it's even registered at all
>
>
> > Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> Doesn't matter now. The Repugnants put "it" out there for the public to
> know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
with the public. Nobody cares. Repugnants are too stupid to drag it
out and keep it in the public eye for long. And it's clearly a stupid
attempt to force the sending out of layoff notices just days before
the election with no basis for it since no jobs are in peril at this
point, nor can it be assumed that any specific jobs will be in peril
in November. Even Repugnants are too dumb to list which jobs will be
cut in their fantasy universe.
jane
Aug 3, 2012, 6:29:40 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:22 pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
> Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
>
> Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
You missed the point completely.
> Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
There will be across the board layoffs on Jan 2 as a result of BOTH
parties. Recently the Obama Labor dept sent out letters to the
Defense contractors stating that the companies didn't have to obey the
law and give the required 60 day layoff notices. Why?? As Harry Reid
said, I don't know for sure, but the 60 day timing of the layoff will
cause the layoff notices to go out the Friday before the Tuesday
presidential elections.
The Labor dept sending out these letters suggesting that the companies
violate the 60 day notice law is incomprehensible because the Labor
dept can not change the law. If the companies follow the "suggestion"
of the labor dept and do not send out the 60 day notices, then the
company is open to lawsuits by the workers.
NoBody
Aug 3, 2012, 6:38:18 AM8/3/12
to
On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:48:41 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
><trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
><trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
>Check out latest public opinion of republicans in congress
>
Odd that you haven't provided a link....
jane
Aug 3, 2012, 6:31:51 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 2, 7:06 pm, wy <w...@myself.com> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:56 pm, First.Post <LiberalsRLeec...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
> > <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
>
> > >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> > >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> > >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> > >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> > >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> > >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> > >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> > >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> > >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> > >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> > >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> > >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> > Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> > political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> > advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
>
> Cruel bastards those Repugnants. They don't care who or how many they
> lay off, so long as they can do it right before the election as a
> sleazy way to try to win.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
> On Aug 2, 6:56 pm, First.Post <LiberalsRLeec...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
> > <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> > >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
>
> > >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> > >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> > >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> > >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> > >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> > >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> > >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> > >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> > >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> > >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> > >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> > >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> > Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> > political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> > advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
>
> Cruel bastards those Repugnants. They don't care who or how many they
> lay off, so long as they can do it right before the election as a
> sleazy way to try to win.
wy
Aug 3, 2012, 7:17:46 AM8/3/12
to
means no one would get laid off till January 7. But they first have
to know to whom to send layoff notices and that's not possible to know
now or might not even be possible to know the day after the election,
so what's the point of sending off notices if you don't know who it'll
affect?
Eddie Haskell
Aug 3, 2012, 10:06:36 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:56 pm, First.Post <LiberalsRLeec...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
>
>
>
>
> <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
>
> >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
> Cruel bastards those Repugnants. They don't care who or how many they
> lay off, so long as they can do it right before the election as a
> sleazy way to try to win. Thank God Democrats were there to block
> their insanity from realizing more misery among the middle class.
I'd explain how stupid you are, but you'd be too stupid to understand it.
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:22:44 -0700, MattB
>
>
>
>
>
> <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> >http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
>
> >Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> >contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> >before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> >speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> >The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> >by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> >Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> >do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> >automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> >A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> >go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> >workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
>
> Even though the move by the GOP is obviously mostly motivated by
> political reasons it is still morally correct to give people as much
> advance warning as possible when it comes to them losing their jobs.
> Cruel bastards those Repugnants. They don't care who or how many they
> lay off, so long as they can do it right before the election as a
> sleazy way to try to win. Thank God Democrats were there to block
> their insanity from realizing more misery among the middle class.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Aug 3, 2012, 10:22:34 AM8/3/12
to
"3109 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jvf6g7$gv9$9...@dont-email.me...
and daring the republicans to GUT the fuck out the military in a desperate
bid to save the country.
FUCK you and the irresponsible blackmail you gamesmanship motherfuckers are
playing while the country burns to the fucking ground.
What ever happened to those deficit reduction commission recommendations
Hussein commissioned? Oh, that's right. It's was all a complete fucking
farce from the get go. Hussein had no intention of even addressing it. He
deliberately wasted the fuck out of their time because he had no intention
whatsoever of doing a fucking thing about the debt besides his pretense
(lie) and furthermore he doesn't have the goddamned balls even if he was
serious which he isn't.
And THAT motherfucker, is why we are here.
Debt crisis here we come all thanks to Hussein and the democrats and all the
while all you care about doing is devising a way to blame republicans. You
fascists are corrupt to the cocksucking core.
Fuck you and your goddamn lying, but of course, it's all you people know.
Goddamn America.
"Oh, my, it must be so rough growing up white and male in America."
-2966 Dead, Friday, April 27, 2012 2:20 PM
"Well, he [Zimmerman] just shot and killed a kid for no reason at all."
-2915 Dead, Thursday, March 22, 2012 12:59 PM
"Oh, I think he [Zimmerman] should be convicted of manslaughter."
-2960 Dead, Saturday, April 14, 2012 7:40 PM
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Aug 3, 2012, 10:35:29 AM8/3/12
to
news:b427d15f-8711-4b16...@l30g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
arm of the DNC will only tell people what they want them to know, and if
Hussein was caught fucking a moose they'd go to work ignoring it while
pretending that Romney fucked a wild bore.
"You didn't build that," and "the private sector's doing fine" = invented
Romney gaffs on his foreign trip as a diversion.
-Eddie Haskell
On Aug 3, 1:22 am, AlleyCat <al...@aohell.com> wrote:
> In article <b6vl18h09h1316hf3211h3jla765818...@4ax.com>,
> trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> Doesn't matter now. The Repugnants put "it" out there for the public to
> know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
> It'll be a forgotten story in no time, if it's even registered at all
> with the public.
Oh, we already know that the Goebbels MSM which is no more than a corrupt
> In article <b6vl18h09h1316hf3211h3jla765818...@4ax.com>,
> trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> Doesn't matter now. The Repugnants put "it" out there for the public to
> know how the Democraps would react... smart move.
> It'll be a forgotten story in no time, if it's even registered at all
> with the public.
arm of the DNC will only tell people what they want them to know, and if
Hussein was caught fucking a moose they'd go to work ignoring it while
pretending that Romney fucked a wild bore.
"You didn't build that," and "the private sector's doing fine" = invented
Romney gaffs on his foreign trip as a diversion.
-Eddie Haskell
Yak
Aug 3, 2012, 10:24:47 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:22 pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dems reject GOP move to force layoff notices
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018832669_apusdefense...
>
>
> Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
So, once again, obama wants to disregard the law to benefit his re-
> Senate Democrats rejected a Republican effort to force defense
> contractors to send out notices of possible job layoffs four days
> before the election, calling the move politically driven and purely
> speculative based on looming spending cuts.
>
> The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-13 against an amendment
> by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. The provision would have overturned
> Labor Department guidance this week to federal contractors that they
> do not have to warn their employees about potential layoffs from the
> automatic, across-the-board cuts that kick in Jan. 2.
>
> A 1980s law, known as the WARN Act, says those notices would have to
> go out 60 days in advance of the cuts, which would put them in
> workers' mailboxes four days before the Nov. 6 election.
election bid.
Eddie Haskell
Aug 3, 2012, 10:39:46 AM8/3/12
to
news:d991fc92-5a6c-4b16...@8g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
Hey, wy, I got a phone from a guy that said that you've been sucking donkey
dicks for the past 10 years. Now, I don't know if it's true, but you could
clear all this up if you'd just come forward with proof that you haven't
been, otherwise we'll be forced to assume that it's true.
Who put this pubic hair on my coke can? Must have been a fascist character
assassin.
-Eddie Haskell
dicks for the past 10 years. Now, I don't know if it's true, but you could
clear all this up if you'd just come forward with proof that you haven't
been, otherwise we'll be forced to assume that it's true.
Who put this pubic hair on my coke can? Must have been a fascist character
assassin.
-Eddie Haskell
Eddie Haskell
Aug 3, 2012, 10:46:54 AM8/3/12
to
"NoBody" <NoB...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:8gan18hej8jkimrv8...@4ax.com...
declared DOA which means that they are a "do nothing congress." Plus, they
won't pass Hussein's second "stimulus" rip off known as the "jobs bill"
give-away to public sector unions to shore up DNC campaign coffers.
And then of course there's the tea party that shot an AZ congresswoman and
that tea party guy that shot up that theater. And we all remember how they
caused a credit downgrade because they oppose Hussein's insane borrowing and
spending.
I know, because NBC edited a tape and video that told me so. Then they took
a poll to make sure I got the message and had my mind right.
-Eddie Haskell
Message has been deleted
3109 Dead
Aug 3, 2012, 12:31:23 PM8/3/12
to
will be laid off yet?
MattB
Aug 3, 2012, 2:56:42 PM8/3/12
to
if he did this now, what will he do as a lame duck President. Hope
the Republicans take the senate.
.
MattB
Aug 3, 2012, 3:01:09 PM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:31:23 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:
You think waiting a week will change who gets the notices. I'm sure
the companies are working on it just in case. This like everything
OBOBO does is about the election. His whole first term has been about
getting a second term, that is why we are in such bad shape. OBOBO
has a agenda nothing else matters.Then he can get "FLEXIBLE" with
Russia and China.
wrote:
the companies are working on it just in case. This like everything
OBOBO does is about the election. His whole first term has been about
getting a second term, that is why we are in such bad shape. OBOBO
has a agenda nothing else matters.Then he can get "FLEXIBLE" with
Russia and China.
AlleyCat
Aug 3, 2012, 3:49:18 PM8/3/12
to
In article <nosn189vi5vt29ck1...@4ax.com>,
Yoor...@Jurgis.net says...
> Wanna tell us what amendment was included in that legislation?
You posted to the wrong thread again. Please wipe the semen out of your
eyes so you can read better.
Yoor...@Jurgis.net says...
You posted to the wrong thread again. Please wipe the semen out of your
eyes so you can read better.
Message has been deleted
MattB
Aug 3, 2012, 4:48:56 PM8/3/12
to
On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:16:42 -0600, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
><trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. He's a liberal.
>
>How about Raygun lying about selling arms to Iran?
>
>Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>
>Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence to
>the contrary.
>
>You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>of your own idiots.
So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. Well at
least you admit he is a lawbreaker. Well liberals can no longer point
to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
.
>
>IDIOT.
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
><trdell1234...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. He's a liberal.
>
>
>Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>
>Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence to
>the contrary.
>
>You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>of your own idiots.
So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. Well at
least you admit he is a lawbreaker. Well liberals can no longer point
to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
.
>
>IDIOT.
Beaker
Aug 3, 2012, 6:31:34 PM8/3/12
to
Yak
Aug 3, 2012, 7:49:30 PM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 4:48 pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
100% accurate right down the middle of the fairway!
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >IDIOT.
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >IDIOT.
First.Post
Aug 3, 2012, 8:27:27 PM8/3/12
to
getting laid off a couple months in advance as opposed to not giving
them any warning at all and letting ALL of them sit and worry through
the entiore holiday season about their jobs is insensitive?
Years ago as a union electrical apprentice I used to appreciate the
"scheduled layoffs" that we were given at least two weeks warning of a
hell of a lot more than the "show up for work and discover you just
got laid off" method.
If you read the original article posted then you would read where the
democrats are championing giving no advance warning whatsoever.
"The provision would have overturned Labor Department guidance this
week to federal contractors that they do not have to warn their
employees about potential layoffs from the automatic, across-the-board
cuts that kick in Jan. 2."
Funny. The party that is supposed to be all about "the worker"
week to federal contractors that they do not have to warn their
employees about potential layoffs from the automatic, across-the-board
cuts that kick in Jan. 2."
advising contractors to pretty much shit on the worker.
3109 Dead
Aug 3, 2012, 8:48:18 PM8/3/12
to
>
>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >IDIOT.
MattB
Aug 3, 2012, 9:46:06 PM8/3/12
to
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:48:18 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>>
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >IDIOT.
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:49:30 -0700, Yak wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 4:48�pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:16:42 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
>>> ><trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. �He's a liberal.
>>>
>>> >How about Raygun lying about selling arms to Iran?
>>>
>>> >Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>>>
>>> >Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence to
>>> >the contrary.
>>>
>>> >You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>>> >of your own idiots.
>>>
>>> So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. �Well at
>>> least you admit he is a lawbreaker. �Well liberals can no longer point
>>> to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
>>
>> 100% accurate right down the middle of the fairway!
>
>Except for one leeedle detail: Obama hasn't broken any laws.
You better hope Independent and moderate voters see it that way.
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:49:30 -0700, Yak wrote:
>
>> On Aug 3, 4:48�pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:16:42 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
>>> ><trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. �He's a liberal.
>>>
>>> >How about Raygun lying about selling arms to Iran?
>>>
>>> >Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>>>
>>> >Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence to
>>> >the contrary.
>>>
>>> >You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>>> >of your own idiots.
>>>
>>> So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. �Well at
>>> least you admit he is a lawbreaker. �Well liberals can no longer point
>>> to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
>>
>> 100% accurate right down the middle of the fairway!
>
>Except for one leeedle detail: Obama hasn't broken any laws.
>>
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >IDIOT.
3109 Dead
Aug 4, 2012, 12:48:07 AM8/4/12
to
So when is Romney going to release his tax returns?
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >IDIOT.
MattB
Aug 4, 2012, 1:50:48 AM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 04:48:07 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
if he does then all Presidential candidates should have to from now
on.
I think he will wait a while.
I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and
cut spending.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >IDIOT.
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:46:06 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:48:18 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:49:30 -0700, Yak wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 3, 4:48�pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:16:42 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
>>>>> ><trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. �He's a liberal.
>>>>>
>>>>> >How about Raygun lying about selling arms to Iran?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence
>>>>> >to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> >You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>>>>> >of your own idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. �Well at
>>>>> least you admit he is a lawbreaker. �Well liberals can no longer
>>>>> point to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>> 100% accurate right down the middle of the fairway!
>>>
>>>Except for one leeedle detail: Obama hasn't broken any laws.
>>
>> You better hope Independent and moderate voters see it that way.
>
>They seem to be catching on to your bullshit.
Yours as well all the lies and BS. Obama has failed.
>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 18:46:06 -0700, MattB wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 00:48:18 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 16:49:30 -0700, Yak wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 3, 4:48�pm, MattB <trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 14:16:42 -0600, Yoorg...@Jurgis.net wrote:
>>>>> >On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:56:42 -0700, MattB
>>>>> ><trdell1234NOMORES...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Obama doesn't have to obey the law. �He's a liberal.
>>>>>
>>>>> >How about Raygun lying about selling arms to Iran?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Was he "obeying law" when he lied (under oath)?
>>>>>
>>>>> >Or Bush when he said: "Iraq has Tons of WMD"---and ignored evidence
>>>>> >to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> >You keep demanding things that you will not, or never have, required
>>>>> >of your own idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you are excusing Obama with the past actions of others. �Well at
>>>>> least you admit he is a lawbreaker. �Well liberals can no longer
>>>>> point to the past actions of the past without being total Hypocrites.
>>>>
>>>> 100% accurate right down the middle of the fairway!
>>>
>>>Except for one leeedle detail: Obama hasn't broken any laws.
>>
>> You better hope Independent and moderate voters see it that way.
>
>They seem to be catching on to your bullshit.
>
>So when is Romney going to release his tax returns?
Well really don't know if he will. Not required by law. Then again
>So when is Romney going to release his tax returns?
if he does then all Presidential candidates should have to from now
on.
I think he will wait a while.
I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and
cut spending.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >IDIOT.
3109 Dead
Aug 4, 2012, 10:34:27 AM8/4/12
to
Presidential candidates have been doing so for the past 32 years. It was
started by a fellow named George Romney.
And there's video of Romney demanding that his opponents show their tax
records in previous races, so he can't exactly claim a moral high ground
here.
>
> I think he will wait a while.
Suits me just fine. It's starting to hit him hard in the polls.
> I think he will wait a while.
Remember, you could get so far behind that you won't be able to steal the
election.
>
> I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
> just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and cut
> spending.
>
Yet spending and taxes have both dropped under Obama. Imagine that.
> I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
> just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and cut
> spending.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >IDIOT.
Steve
Aug 4, 2012, 1:21:53 PM8/4/12
to
On Sat, 4 Aug 2012 14:34:27 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
Actually, it's not...
>Remember, you could get so far behind that you won't be able to steal the
>election.
>>
>> I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
>> just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and cut
>> spending.
>>
>Yet spending and taxes have both dropped under Obama. Imagine that.
That's a lie, of course..
>Remember, you could get so far behind that you won't be able to steal the
>election.
>>
>> I think Romeny has a better chance of fixing our country. Obama will
>> just Tax and spend and that won't work. Need to increase taxes and cut
>> spending.
>>
>Yet spending and taxes have both dropped under Obama. Imagine that.
Eddie Haskell
Aug 6, 2012, 2:54:21 PM8/6/12
to
"Beaker" <m...@pet.com> wrote in message news:501C5146...@pet.com...
Deranged lying fuck.
<shoots bird>
-Eddie Haskell
Obama-not
Aug 6, 2012, 3:00:41 PM8/6/12
to
__________________________________________________________________________
...October campaign surprise coming as Obama struggles to find traction.
__________________________________________________________________________
http://app1.kuhf.org/articles/1343404602-Construction-A-Go-For-Southern-Leg-Of-Keystone-XL.html
Construction A Go For Southern Leg Of Keystone XL
July 27, 2012
by: Andrew Schneider
President Barack Obama encouraged TransCanada to pursue the Gulf Coast
project after he rejected the broader Keystone XL plan, saying it needed
to be rerouted around Nebraska�s environmentally sensitive Sandhills
region. For that project, the company needs presidential approval
because it crosses an international border. The shorter portion only
requires permits from state and federal agencies.
The company is working with Nebraska�s Department of Environmental
Quality to map an alternate route
___________________________________________________________________________
..."working with"...or done and in the bag waiting for Obama's October
surprise?
___________________________________________________________________________
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/05/04/transcanada-applies-for-keystone-xl-pipeline-permit/?__lsa=3997a83c
TransCanada takes another crack at Keystone XL pipeline with new route
Sheldon Alberts, Postmedia News | May 4, 2012
WASHINGTON � TransCanada Corp. on Friday reapplied to the U.S. State
Department for a presidential permit to build the controversial Keystone
XL oilsands pipeline, immediately triggering a new fight with opponents
over the scope of a coming environmental impact study into the project.
In an interview with Postmedia News, TransCanada executive Alex Pourbaix
said the Calgary-based company expects the Obama administration�s review
of Keystone XL to be limited to the new rerouted portion of the pipeline
through Nebraska.
TransCanada submitted its new application for a presidential permit just
two weeks after it proposed several new routes for Keystone XL that
avoid the ecologically fragile Sand Hills region of Nebraska.
President Barack Obama denied TransCanada�s original permit application
in January, citing his administration�s concerns about the impact
construction would have on the delicate topsoil in the Sand Hills region
and the potential for pollution of the vast Ogallala Aquifer that
underlies the area.
____________________________________________________________________________
Obama will launch this one as a play for union votes and a try at
neutralizing Romney's pro-jobs and domestic energy policies.
Folks, this is what his cavalier use of the Executive Order is all about
- cheap campaign shell games for a work already in progress, and a deal
obviously made months ago!
TCP would never build the southern leg is the northern feeder were not
to be approved.
______________________________________________________________________________
0 new messages