US town employee fired over porn actress wife
We read:
"The mayor of a small Florida town has defended the town council's decision to fire its city manager after officials learned his wife is an adult film actress. Fort Myers Beach mayor Larry Kiker insisted that Scott Janke's termination had nothing to do with his spouse's job, that the town was merely trying to maintain order. Janke married Anabela Mota Janke, who goes by the stage name Jazella Moore, in October. He began working for the town in March 2008.
Kiker said he learned of Janke's wife's job after receiving a telephone call from a reporter on Tuesday. He said he then spoke to Janke, who agreed "this was going to be a big disruption for the town and he was not going to be able to do his job well". Within a few hours, Kiker had called an emergency town council meeting, and the group voted 5-0 to exercise a "no-cause" clause in Janke's contract, effectively firing him....
Diane Duke, executive director of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for the adult entertainment industry, said the firing could present legal problems for the town.
Duke said even with a "no-cause" clause in Jenke's contract, as a government employee his rights are still protected. "There may very well be a case here," she said.
Added Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida: "His firing may run up against Florida's law that prohibits discrimination based on marital status."
Source
44 comments:
That mayor is crazy, since when are we judged by the behavior of our spouses? Even when your spouse is a criminal you don't face prosecution unless you where a willing accomplice. That's why men in the mafia don't tell their wives nothing, they want to protect them.
Moreover, making adult porn is legal, I don't know about legitimate, but what's the point of being legitimate when you've been unemployed for 6 months and have credit card debt? If a person is lucky enough to have the right looks, the right endowment, why the hell not? Janke's wife may be pulling $1,500 a shoot. If she becomes famous she could make $150,000, maybe much more if she becomes a porn producer and starts her own website. That's how Jenna Jameson did it.
That mayor is crazy, since when are we judged by the behavior of our spouses?
When the actions of the spouse affects the ability to do the job - as the man admits.
The issue is not what his wife does directly - it is whether that affects his ability to do his job.
But that's beside the point as well - the city manager serves at the pleasure of the council, and they were obviously not pleased about his spouse's career.
Now, put yourself in the councilman or woman's position. Facing voters in a small town where they are going to toss you out because you haven't "done anything" about that man married to that woman. You either have to win over as many voters as possible (leaving a divided community) or you can just take the coward's way out and fire the mayor.
Don't blame politicians for being politicians - they just are.
*mayor -
Should have been "city manager."
"Now, put yourself in the councilman or woman's position. Facing voters in a small town where they are going to toss you out..."
They are a bunch of _______ cowards.
Once again, we see one of the "media-maggotts" instigating trouble simply to stir-up a story. But you can bet the original complaint came from one of FloriDUH's broken-down old females who resent anyone under 80.
And how does firing this guy "maintain order"? These old fools aren't even smart enough to come up with a plausible lie!
Fort Myers, on FloriDUH's west coast, has always been known as a community that is very "selective" about the people who live there. It's a typical example of far too many little people (usually jews) having far too much power, as with so-called "community boards" who run FloriDUH's "private" communities like concentration camps.
The issue is not what his wife does directly - it is whether that affects his ability to do his job.
But that's beside the point as well - the city manager serves at the pleasure of the council, and they were obviously not pleased about his spouse's career.
I don't think this is an either or situation. It is most likely the combination of the two ideas that the city manager's ability to do his job was affected and the career of the wife reflecting badly on the city.
The mayor's last name is Kiker? I was going to make a Jew joke, but it'd be way too easy.
"When the actions of the spouse affects the ability to do the job - as the man admits."
----Did Bill Clinton get fired for having an alcoholic brother? No. Did Bush get impeached for having daughters that party hard? No. If my job is making cars, it doesn't matter if during my free time I'm doing porn, my wife is doing porn or my sister is worshiping the devil. My free time belongs to me, not my employer.
"Now, put yourself in the councilman or woman's position. Facing voters in a small town where they are going to toss you out because you haven't "done anything""
---Why not tell the town people that it would be illegal to fire him and that it would generate a lawsuit that would cost thousands of dollars to defend? Why not teach them a lesson in tolerance? This is political correctness, this is like firing an employee because his wife smokes!
Don't you see it? We are losing our freedom, I know porn is not exactly private but it's not like the guy went to work and said "hey everybody, check out my wife getting gang banged."
In fact, if that community is so holier-than-thou how come one of those saints was watching porn in the first place? Think about it, whoever saw the woman probably had to watch a lot of porn. I'm willing to bet that behind close doors the mayor is watching porn himself.
This is an issue of freedom, you don't have to like porn to root for a victim of political correctness, a victim whose only crime is not divorcing a wife that does porn.
----Did Bill Clinton get fired ......
Did any of those people admit that the relative affected their ability to do the job?
---Why not tell the town people that it would be illegal to fire him and that it would generate a lawsuit that would cost thousands of dollars to defend?
Why would you lie to the townspeople? The contract the manager signed allowed the city to dismiss him at anytime. Secondly, Florida is a "no cause" state. A company does not have to have cause to dismiss someone who does not have a contract. In this case, the city did what was legal under the contract and applicable labor laws.
In fact, if that community is so holier-than-thou how come one of those saints was watching porn in the first place?
This is absolutely hysterical coming from you. You were the one who continually harped on how great Perez Hilton was for exposing things like this and now you are condemning the fact that this came to light.
Think about it, whoever saw the woman probably had to watch a lot of porn. I'm willing to bet that behind close doors the mayor is watching porn himself.
Think about it yourself. From the article: Kiker said he learned of Janke's wife's job after receiving a telephone call from a reporter on Tuesday.
So it wasn't one of the townspeople, it was the type of muckraking reporter you love to support.
This is an issue of freedom....
You still have the freedom to be wrong. (And you exercise that freedom constantly.)
"Did any of those people admit that the relative affected their ability to do the job?"
---If he really felt that wait, why not quit? Why wait until you get fired? I'm really pissed of that Sarah Palin quit her job, maybe this is a trend, but people need to get a thicker skin.
"Why would you lie to the townspeople? The contract the manager signed allowed the city to dismiss him at anytime. Secondly, Florida is a "no cause" state. A company does not have to have cause to dismiss someone who does not have a contract. In this case, the city did what was legal under the contract and applicable labor laws."
---I'm discussing ethics here, not laws. Lawyers will argue anything, what happened here is an injustice that should worry every fair-minded American.
"This is absolutely hysterical coming from you. You were the one who continually harped on how great Perez Hilton was for exposing things like this and now you are condemning the fact that this came to light."
---Those topics are not related. I defend freedom of the press and I defend freedom to pursue the lifestyle of your choice, in this case, it wasn't even his lifestyle, it was the lifestyle of his wife. According to you, I should be able to fire my employee not for their conduct but for the conduct of their family. Even the military doesn't go that far.
"So it wasn't one of the townspeople, it was the type of muckraking reporter you love to support."
---What's your point? That's what reporters do. You want them to starve?
Tell me something, if your brother robs a bank, should you get fired from your job? This is like treating every member of the Jackson family as a pervert just because Michael Jackson was a pervert. If I had the kids, I wouldn't mind Janet Jackson babysitting them, I'm not going to judge her just because Michael Jackson was weird with kids.
Do you have any sense of fairness? And don't tell me that life's not fair. We do not live in anarchy, we have certain expectations of society, and this certainly violates every expectation.
This man is a victim, he did nothing wrong. In fact, seeing pictures of the wife I can imagine how jealous the community must be of him.
If this man had been fired for marrying a black woman you'd be screaming bloody murder. In fact, I think Florida does outlaw discrimination based on marital status. You can't fire a man for being married or for having married someone of questionable moral character.
---If he really felt that wait, why not quit?
It doesn't matter why he did or did not do something. The fact of the matter is that he was terminated legally.
---I'm discussing ethics here, not laws. Lawyers will argue anything, what happened here is an injustice that should worry every fair-minded American.
Your original comment was "why not tell the town people that it would be illegal to fire him..."
You weren't arguing "ethics" and your own statement proves it.
---Those topics are not related.
Of course they are. You have always maintained that reporters do society a benefit when people are "outed" in this manner. Now that you see that there are real damages and harm to people, you are backing away from your original stance. You're coming around to the right conclusion, but yet you are still trying to defend the despicable behaviour of people that muck rake.
According to you, I should be able to fire my employee not for their conduct but for the conduct of their family.
Another unsubstantiated charge from you. Please show me where I have ever said that anyone should be fired for the conduct of a family member.
---What's your point?
The point is clear to all that can read. You initially blamed the townspeople and insinuated nasty things about them. You were wrong as to who brought this to light. You used your ignorance and misconception of the situation to denigrate a whole city of people.
That's what reporters do. You want them to starve?
There ya go. Everything is legal and morally acceptable as long as people make a buck off of it.
Is that really what you want to be saying?
If this man had been fired for marrying a black woman you'd be screaming bloody murder.
Lucky for us that he wasn't fired for that reason, eh?
In fact, I think Florida does outlaw discrimination based on marital status.
The statute in question deals with marital status - as in whether a person is married or not. That is not applicable here, but as usual, you want to try and throw things out to cover your ignorance.
You can't fire a man for being married or for having married someone of questionable moral character.
I find it funny that someone who believes that it is okay for people to lie and deliberately hurt others suddenly has some sort of "moral compass" on an issue like this.
The manager was legally terminated under the terms of his contract - the contract he signed.
"Of course they are. You have always maintained that reporters do society a benefit when people are "outed" in this manner. Now that you see that there are real damages and harm to people, you are backing away from your original stance. You're coming around to the right conclusion, but yet you are still trying to defend the despicable behaviour of people that muck rake."
---The reporter did his job, the mayor didn't do his. One thing is freedom of the press another thing is what happened to this guy. They are separate issues. You remind me of those people that blamed rightwing radio after the OK City Bombing.
"Another unsubstantiated charge from you. Please show me where I have ever said that anyone should be fired for the conduct of a family member."
---You are defending the firing of this town manager, a firing that has nothing to do with his own performance.
"You initially blamed the townspeople and insinuated nasty things about them. You were wrong as to who brought this to light. You used your ignorance and misconception of the situation to denigrate a whole city of people."
---Are they not the people who called the mayor and told him to fire him? Have you ever lived in a small town? There's a lot of pressure to conform, if you stick out they will punish you.
"There ya go. Everything is legal and morally acceptable as long as people make a buck off of it.
Is that really what you want to be saying?"
----I didn't say everything. Porn is not necrophilia.
"Lucky for us that he wasn't fired for that reason, eh?"
---Yeah, then Obama would get involved just like he did with that poor Cambridge cop, although to his credit, he later backtracked.
"I find it funny that someone who believes that it is okay for people to lie and deliberately hurt others suddenly has some sort of "moral compass" on an issue like this."
---Because unlike you, I make a distinction between powerful celebrities and average citizens.
"The manager was legally terminated under the terms of his contract - the contract he signed."
---Fine, you win the legal argument, but not the ethical one. His firing was the morally wrong thing to do.
---The reporter did his job, the mayor didn't do his. One thing is freedom of the press another thing is what happened to this guy. They are separate issues.
I thought that you maintained that "outing" people like this was always a good thing. Guess not.
---You are defending the firing of this town manager, a firing that has nothing to do with his own performance.
I will take this as an admission that you cannot substantiate your claim that I said that a person should be fired for the conduct of a family member.
Secondly, as to "nothing to do with his performance," please learn to read: "this was going to be a big disruption for the town and he was not going to be able to do his job well"."
It was performance related and even if it wasn't, the contract allowed for the city manager to be terminated without cause.
---Are they not the people who called the mayor and told him to fire him?
No. Once again, you make up stuff to try and make a point. Are you that dishonest?
Have you ever lived in a small town? There's a lot of pressure to conform, if you stick out they will punish you.
Ft Meyers has a population of almost 50,000. That is not a small town. Secondly, the surrounding area has a population of almost half of million. So once again, your point falls flat because of your ignorance. Lastly, I happen to live in a town that is has less than 10,000 people in it. I know that I am more versed in small town politics than you are.
---Because unlike you, I make a distinction between powerful celebrities and average citizens.
Hate to tell you this, but by definition, this guy was a "public figure" and would be under the same scrutiny as any celebrity. Secondly, I gurantee that a city manager has more power and authority over the lives of people than a "celebrity." Once again, you are clueless as to how things work.
---Fine, you win the legal argument, but not the ethical one. His firing was the morally wrong thing to do.
The city manger admitted that his ability to do his job had been compromised. How is that not a reason to terminate the guy? Secondly, the guy signed a moral and legal contract. How is the city exercising that contract not moral? You do realize that the guy is accepting the buyout as specified in the contract, right? Both parties got what they wanted out of the contract and yet you who believe that reporters do a "service to people" by exposing secrets and private information such as this do the public and the individual a "service."
In this case you can see a real person being hurt by some reporter. You don't give a rat's butt about that.
You have never run a company have you? You probably never signed a contract over the value of your home. You've probably never had to terminate anyone as you are woefully ignorant of the procedures.
I can hardly wait to see what new distortions and strawmen you come up with next.
Tell ya what, I will only respond to the points that you make that are valid to this case. That will cut down the noise a great deal.
Personally, and in order to have a fair discussion of this topic, i think it only right that we see a few video clips of the wife in question doing her job. In the name of fairness of course.
"I thought that you maintained that "outing" people like this was always a good thing. Guess not."
---I support outing hypocrites, people who preach one thing and do another. This man never did that, he was just a city manager. If he had done porn himself, and the contract has a moral caluse, then maybe I can understand if the mayor is afraid of the city's reputation. But, he did nothing wrong, he wasn't the porn director, producer or participant. Look at the Bernie Maddoff case, his wife is walking free because there's no proof she participated in the scam. The same with the wife of John Gotti, she may have benefited from being married to a mafia guy, but that doesn't make her mafia. Capish?
"Secondly, as to "nothing to do with his performance," please learn to read: "this was going to be a big disruption for the town and he was not going to be able to do his job well"."
---How is this a disruption? You talk about it for a few days and then it's over like most other issues.
"Hate to tell you this, but by definition, this guy was a "public figure" and would be under the same scrutiny as any celebrity. Secondly, I gurantee that a city manager has more power and authority over the lives of people than a "celebrity." Once again, you are clueless as to how things work."
---He's hardly a public figure, newspapers report stories on the mayor, on laws voted, on taxes. The city manager only makes headlines after getting elected, and in this case, after his wife gets exposed.
"The city manger admitted that his ability to do his job had been compromised. How is that not a reason to terminate the guy?"
---Maybe he was pressured into admitting that, we don't know the full story.
"Secondly, the guy signed a moral and legal contract. How is the city exercising that contract not moral?"
---So if your son steals a car should you get fired from your job? Did the family of Jeffrey Dahmer lost their jobs after their sons got arrested? Where they told that being related to Dahmer compromised their ability to do their jobs.
"In this case you can see a real person being hurt by some reporter. You don't give a rat's butt about that."
---You know, there are people that get hurt by free speech, yes. A psycho watches Natural Born Killers and goes on a rampage, an angry young man visits neo-nazi websites and get inspired to shoot jews, a lunatic reads about the threat of gays and bombs a gay bar. Yes, shit happens, but that doesn't mean we stand against free speech, EVER! I do care about the person who got hurt, but rather than blaming the gun manufacturer I'm blaming the shooter. The media didn't fire this guy, the mayor did.
The mayor is nothing but a gutless coward that instead of standing for principle he has allowed this travesty to occur.
This is just like the 1950s, where people sometimes got fired for getting a divorce.
---I support outing hypocrites, people who preach one thing and do another.
Bull. You support the muckrakers no matter what.
---How is this a disruption? You talk about it for a few days and then it's over like most other issues.
So let's see.... you aren't familier with the city, you aren't familier with the laws of the state, you aren't familier with the people and yet when the ex city manager admits that his abilty to do his job has been compromised, you say he's wrong.
Unbelievable.
---He's hardly a public figure, newspapers report stories on the mayor, on laws voted, on taxes. The city manager only makes headlines after getting elected, and in this case, after his wife gets exposed.
The city manager sits in on all city council meetings, and reports to the council and the public in public meetings. In many ways, he is the functional face of the city. He's a public figure. And by the way, as usual, you don't know what you are talking about.... the city manager is hired, not elected. Public notices and hearings are held on his hiring.
---Maybe he was pressured into admitting that, we don't know the full story.
And maybe his body was taken over by pod people.
Stop making allegations that you cannot support.
---So if your son steals a car should you get fired from your job? Did the family of Jeffrey Dahmer lost their jobs after their sons got arrested? Where they told that being related to Dahmer compromised their ability to do their jobs.
I said that I would not respond to anything that is not related to this case. This is clearly another attempt of yours to obfuscate the situation here where the city manager was terminated in a lawful manner.
The mayor is nothing but a gutless coward that instead of standing for principle he has allowed this travesty to occur.
Th "principle" that you are against is that the city manager was no longer able to effectively do his job. He admitted it.
The problem here is that you don't have a moral or legal leg to stand on. You are like so many liberals who thing "free speech for me but not for thee," and "it's wrong to actually hold people to standards of job performance."
You just "feel bad" for this guy.
Your sympathy is noted.
It doesn't have anything to do with the case, but your liberal leanings are noted.
"Bull. You support the muckrakers no matter what."
--That's the price of a free media!
"The problem here is that you don't have a moral or legal leg to stand on. You are like so many liberals who thing "free speech for me but not for thee," and "it's wrong to actually hold people to standards of job performance.""
---What are you talking about? I support free speech for everyone. I'm a libertarian, I don't know what you are.
--That's the price of a free media!
There is no "price" for a "free media" when the media acts irresponsibly or with intent to harm.
At the very least there is a moral issue that the media should be condemned for muckraking. That will never happen because moral cowards such as yourself will always delight in the failings of others. They will always delight in seeing others fall. They will always delight in having lies spread about other people.
You enjoy Hilton's childish and perverse postings that are designed to hurt people but decry a legal and moral firing of a worker who admitted they cannot perform the job for which they were hired.
You suppor the speech that makes you look good in your eyes.
Period.
"There is no "price" for a "free media" when the media acts irresponsibly or with intent to harm."
---And how do you judge intent? That's subjective, you're asking the media to reform something subjective.
"At the very least there is a moral issue that the media should be condemned for muckraking."
---And who decides when an action is or is not muckraking? Again, it's subjective.
"That will never happen because moral cowards such as yourself will always delight in the failings of others. They will always delight in seeing others fall. They will always delight in having lies spread about other people."
---You're generalizing, this reporter told the truth. As for "moral cowards," forgive me but I do not wish to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia where morality is enforced with deadly consequences. You may call me a liberal for saying that, but a free person CHOOSES his own morality and doesn't need the state to make moral choices for him.
"You enjoy Hilton's childish and perverse postings that are designed to hurt people but decry a legal and moral firing of a worker who admitted they cannot perform the job for which they were hired."
---Excuse me? We are having this discussion because I do decry the firing of a worker. You're the one who blames the media for what happened. The media may have open the door, but it was the mayor and the worker that took action.
Besides, Perez Hilton bothers big shot celebrities, not little city managers that only people in Fort Myers know. Perez attacks those who are strong to defend himself, this poor city manager is not going to get access to the major TV stations to defend himself.
"You suppor the speech that makes you look good in your eyes."
---Bullshit, I support all forms of free speech, including yours.
---And how do you judge intent? That's subjective, you're asking the media to reform something subjective.
You're joking, right? Are you that stupid to think that the media has no clue as to when a story crosses the line from being in the public's interest to a story that is harms people?
---And who decides when an action is or is not muckraking? Again, it's subjective.
All you continue to do here is show a complete lack of a moral compass.
---You're generalizing, this reporter told the truth.
Yet your buddy Hilton makes up stuff all the time.
As for "moral cowards," forgive me but I do not wish to live in Iran or Saudi Arabia where morality is enforced with deadly consequences.
You wish to live in a place where people can write or say anything without any consequences - moral or legal. Thankfully that isn't the US.
---Excuse me? We are having this discussion because I do decry the firing of a worker.
Right. You decry the legal and moral firing of a city manager.
You're the one who blames the media for what happened. The media may have open the door, but it was the mayor and the worker that took action.
Wrong again.
I am not blaming the media for this at all. What you fail to get is that the firing of the manager a foreseeable result of what the reporter did.
You think that speech has no consequences. When it does, you want to blame everyone else.
Besides, Perez Hilton bothers big shot celebrities, not little city managers that only people in Fort Myers know.
So you agree that he does what he does to "bother celebrities?" Once again you have a skewed moral compass when you support someone who exists to make other people miserable.
this poor city manager is not going to get access to the major TV stations to defend himself.
I guess you have missed that this story has been in all major newspapers across the country, has been seen on all stations in Florida (that I know of) and has been picked up by all the major news outlets?
You missed that, right?
The problem with talking with you is that you continually make stuff up.
---Bullshit, I support all forms of free speech, including yours.
You support it without the caveat that there are consequences to that speech.
That is a difference between us. I know that legally and morally there are consequences to speech. You think otherwise. You don't care who gets hurt.
Once again, your moral compass is skewed to the left.
"You're joking, right? Are you that stupid to think that the media has no clue as to when a story crosses the line from being in the public's interest to a story that is harms people?"
---It's a subjective issue! Who decides what's in the public interest? What's important? What's not important? You don't need a degree in Communications (which I have) to know how the media works. It's all about ratings! That's why they're more likely to publish something salacious than something relevant.
"All you continue to do here is show a complete lack of a moral compass."
---Because I don't think doing porn is bad? Because I admire people who do what they want rather than follow someone else's moral values? If sex is so bad, why did King Salomon had 600 wives and 300 concubines? I don't know what moral compass you have, but when it comes to sex I believe in two things: 1. It must be between adults. 2. It must be consensual. 3. There must be no deception or coercion of any kind. If it meets that criteria, it's moral according to me.
"Yet your buddy Hilton makes up stuff all the time."
---Not all the time, and even if he does, he's not a journalist, he's a blogger.
"You wish to live in a place where people can write or say anything without any consequences - moral or legal. Thankfully that isn't the US."
---That is the US. I took Communication Law in college, I learned that an opinion enjoys so much protection that you can't sue the speaker/writer even if his opinion has defamation or libel. If I say or write, "in my opinion, Cindy Sheehan is a traitor who deserves to be shot" there ain't nothing she can do about it.
"I am not blaming the media for this at all. What you fail to get is that the firing of the manager a foreseeable result of what the reporter did."
---Look at how the media treated President Bush. Did he get impeached? Did he get arrested for "war crimes?" Did he had to withdraw the troops from Iraq? No. President Bush and others are proof that while the media can influence opinion polls, it's someone else who does the firings.
"So you agree that he does what he does to "bother celebrities?" Once again you have a skewed moral compass when you support someone who exists to make other people miserable."
--No, you're taking my words out of context. He doesn't do it to bother celebrities, he does it for fun and to make money. I said WHAT HE DOES bothers celebrities as in "celebrities are bothered by what he does." And I say, so what? I'm bothered by the media's love affair with Obama, yet does anyone care about me? No. So why should I care about celebrities' feelings towards Perez?
"You support it without the caveat that there are consequences to that speech."
---You want journalists to get sued for the stories they report? IS that what you want?
"That is a difference between us. I know that legally and morally there are consequences to speech. You think otherwise. You don't care who gets hurt."
---The First Amendment says noting about hurtful speech. In fact, free speech wasn't created for popular ideas but for unpopular ideas. Free speech is what keeps the government from censoring games like Grand Theft Auto, movies like Saw, books like The Turner Diaries and blogs like perezhilton.com
People will always get hurt no matter what. Rather than protecting their feelings tell them to grow a thicker skin.
"Once again, your moral compass is skewed to the left."
---I'm a member of the NRA, I'm for the death penalty, I'm against affirmative action, I support our military without question, including our so-called "torturers" at Abu Ghraib, and I'm against big government. How dare you question my moral compass just because I happen to support sex, drugs, porn, and politically incorrect speech and gossip?
Liberals say that porn demeans women, they keep raising the tobacco tax and want to keep drugs illegal except for pot, they support political correctness and they turned against Perez Hilton. How exactly am I a liberal? My moral compass is skewed towards freedom.
---It's a subjective issue!
Thank you for not answering the question.
You don't need a degree in Communications (which I have) to know how the media works.
I am trying not to laugh here. A degree in communications and yet you have a deep problem both communicating and understanding.
If it meets that criteria, it's moral according to me.
See above. You cannot communicate effectively and actually converse on topic.
---Not all the time, and even if he does, he's not a journalist, he's a blogger.
There ya go, trying to rationalize his lies.
If I say or write, "in my opinion, Cindy Sheehan is a traitor who deserves to be shot" there ain't nothing she can do about it.
Oh dear. This is so clueless as to not bother a response.
He doesn't do it to bother celebrities, he does it for fun and to make money.
I see. So in your world causing people harm, making fun of them, and bothering them is acceptable as long as the person doing it is having fun and or making money.
Once again, you have a skewed moral compass.
---You want journalists to get sued for the stories they report? IS that what you want?
You mean they can't be sued? Are you that friggin' clueless?
But that is not the point. There are moral repercussions to what people do. You seem to think that as long as the person causing the harm is a "reporter," doing it for "fun" or "making money," that makes it acceptable.
All you do is continue to prove you have no moral compass.
---The First Amendment says noting about hurtful speech. In fact, free speech wasn't created for popular ideas but for unpopular ideas.
Sorry Skippy, but the first amendment was not to protect unpopular ideas but to protect the EXCHANGE of ideas, no matter whether those ideas are popular or not. There is a difference there. Of course, with your degree in communications, you won't see that.
People will always get hurt no matter what. Rather than protecting their feelings tell them to grow a thicker skin.
There ya go. Bobby's "Golden Rule" in action.
Once again, you have no moral compass. None.
"I am trying not to laugh here. A degree in communications and yet you have a deep problem both communicating and understanding."
---They don't teach you how to communicate when you study communications. They teach you advertising, pr, journalism, broadcasting, a little bit of everything.
"I see. So in your world causing people harm, making fun of them, and bothering them is acceptable as long as the person doing it is having fun and or making money."
---David Letterman, Bill Maher, Jay Leno and plenty of other people make fun of celebrities, sometimes causing them harm. Stop being a goody two-shoes.
"You mean they can't be sued? Are you that friggin' clueless?"
---Sure they can be sued, but is that what you want? For them to be sued everytime they write a story that offends somebody? Give me a break.
"But that is not the point. There are moral repercussions to what people do. You seem to think that as long as the person causing the harm is a "reporter," doing it for "fun" or "making money," that makes it acceptable."
---If it's protected by the first amendment, and doesn't violate the rules against libel, then yes, it's acceptable. In this story, the reporter found out the truth, he didn't make things up, he didn't lie or used unnamed sources. I saw the issue debated tonight on The O'reilly Factor, neither Bill nor the other lawyer agrees with the firing and even the lawyer who did agree had nothing to say against the reporter who brought up this issue.
"Sorry Skippy, but the first amendment was not to protect unpopular ideas but to protect the EXCHANGE of ideas, no matter whether those ideas are popular or not. There is a difference there. Of course, with your degree in communications, you won't see that."
---Popular ideas don't need protection! They can be exchanged freely. If you go to Cuba you're free to shout "Viva Fidel!" because it's the popular thing to shout. The whole point of free speech is that we can debate pretty much anything without fear of government censorship or coercion. It's the politically correct nazis that want to keep us from expressing ourselves.
"There ya go. Bobby's "Golden Rule" in action."
---The golden rule doesn't work. People do unto others whatever the hell they want. At least I admit it, you on the other hand insult me and then pretend that you're actually treating me the way you'd like to be treated.
I don't know what's your problem, maybe you want to live in some sort of Pleasantville fantasy where everything's pure and everyone smiles. Tell me, did you voted for Obama? I'll bet your boy in the White House is real good about the golden rule and all that bullshit.
---They don't teach you how to communicate when you study communications. They teach you advertising, pr, journalism, broadcasting, a little bit of everything.
So advertising doesn't involve communicating? Public Relations doesn't involve communicating? Journalism doesn't involve communicating? Broadcasting doesn't involve communicating?
---David Letterman, Bill Maher, Jay Leno and plenty of other people make fun of celebrities, sometimes causing them harm. Stop being a goody two-shoes.
There is a difference between good natured fun from which people can laugh at themselves. Hilton does not do that.
---Sure they can be sued, but is that what you want? For them to be sued everytime they write a story that offends somebody? Give me a break.
Another deflection from you. Do you think that a story that is factually false and ends up harming someone should just be excused?
---If it's protected by the first amendment, and doesn't violate the rules against libel, then yes, it's acceptable.
This is a difference between you and me. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD.
I saw the issue debated tonight on The O'reilly Factor, neither Bill nor the other lawyer agrees with the firing and even the lawyer who did agree had nothing to say against the reporter who brought up this issue.
You still don't get it, do you? If the reporter called the mayor because he wanted to be a "journalist" and "protect the common good," then the firing is exactly what the reporter wanted. If the reporter wasn't doing this out of a sense of "public good," then all he was doing was muckracking. He was not reporting on a story - he was creating one. Certainly the reporter has the right to do what he did. The question is whether he was morally right. The fact the O'Reilly says that he was proves that the reporter was wrong.
---Popular ideas don't need protection!
Geez, this is tiresome. The ability to exchange ideas is what is protected - not the ideas themselves.
---The golden rule doesn't work.
Sure it does.
At least I admit it, you on the other hand insult me and then pretend that you're actually treating me the way you'd like to be treated.
I treat you the way you want others to be treated. I am not usually this caustic with people but you deserve it. It comes with your ideas that people should be insulted for fun, kicks, grins, and money.
The shoe doesn't fit so well on your feet does it?
I don't know what's your problem, maybe you want to live in some sort of Pleasantville fantasy where everything's pure and everyone smiles.
If you mean that I think the world would be a better place if people tried to make it better rather than people like who who take pleasure in causing harm to others, I am guilty. I like to make the world a better place. You, on the other hand, revel in hate.
Tell me, did you voted for Obama? I'll bet your boy in the White House is real good about the golden rule and all that bullshit.
Nice try, but what we have seen is Obama does not treat people the same. It is part and parcel of the "Chicago." He likes to tear down and destroy people for fun and then try to claim he is the victim.
He is a lot like you.
"There is a difference between good natured fun from which people can laugh at themselves. Hilton does not do that."
---Again, that's subjective. What is good natured? What is offensive? What is nice? What is mean? All of that is subjective.
"This is a difference between you and me. Just because someone CAN do something doesn't mean they SHOULD."
---Then you're an idealist.
"You still don't get it, do you? If the reporter called the mayor because he wanted to be a "journalist" and "protect the common good," then the firing is exactly what the reporter wanted."
---We judge ACTS, not intentions, not motivation, not anything subjective. I'm not a mind reader and neither are you, you don't know what the reporter wanted, maybe he wanted a scandal so his story would be read and he would get 15 minutes of fame.
"If the reporter wasn't doing this out of a sense of "public good," then all he was doing was muckracking. He was not reporting on a story - he was creating one."
---Or maybe he was digging to see if there was something else the city manager was hiding. He didn't create the story, he found the story. That's the problem of porn, eventually someone finds out.
"Certainly the reporter has the right to do what he did. The question is whether he was morally right."
---Popular ideas don't need protection!
"I treat you the way you want others to be treated. I am not usually this caustic with people but you deserve it. It comes with your ideas that people should be insulted for fun, kicks, grins, and money."
---But that's not the golden rule you claim to believe in. But that's ok, my own philosophy is "I give what I get."
"The shoe doesn't fit so well on your feet does it?"
---I can dish it and I can take it. You're the one preaching a golden rule you fail to practice. Principles mean nothing, it's what you do on your day to day that counts.
"I am guilty. I like to make the world a better place. You, on the other hand, revel in hate."
---I revel in freedom, that's something you don't understand. You're a sensitive type, you revel in idealism, hopes, dreams. You must be young, wait until your 34 and let me know if you're still as idealistic as you are today.
---Again, that's subjective. What is good natured? What is offensive? What is nice? What is mean? All of that is subjective.
You still don't get it do you? There is a difference - a difference that all normal people can see - between a joke and an attack on someone.
---Then you're an idealist.
You say that as if that is a bad thing. However, if you don't believe that, then you believe that there are no morals and no right or wrong.
---We judge ACTS, not intentions, not motivation, not anything subjective.
Two words to prove that as false: "mens rea."
I'm not a mind reader and neither are you, you don't know what the reporter wanted, maybe he wanted a scandal so his story would be read and he would get 15 minutes of fame.
There ya go. Nothing like muckraking to make it so you look better.
---Or maybe he was digging to see if there was something else the city manager was hiding.
Let's blow this one out of the water as well. Remember it was YOU who maintained that the City Manager was not a "public figure." If the reporter went after a "private citizen," then the reporter committed a gross invasion of privacy.
However, if the reporter was digging on a public figure, then the only reasons to do so are the ones I listed before. Neither are right morally.
---Popular ideas don't need protection!
This has nothing to do with the point I raised.
---But that's not the golden rule you claim to believe in. But that's ok, my own philosophy is "I give what I get."
I know it is not the golden rule. I never claimed it was. As I said, you have squirmed and hid and lied through these conversations. So you got what you deserve:
A total thrashing on the facts.
---I revel in freedom, that's something you don't understand.
You revel in freedom as long as it is you that is not being harmed or attacked. You see no responsibility to freedoms and no duty to protect those freedoms from those who would harm others while claiming "freedom."
You don't have a clue as to what the freedom advocated by Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, et al is all about.
You're a sensitive type, you revel in idealism, hopes, dreams.
Lets see.... hate verses working for a better world.
Like I said, your moral compass is skewed.
You must be young, wait until your 34 and let me know if you're still as idealistic as you are today.
Wait until you are my age (I am older than 35) and you see the attacks on freedoms by people such as yourself who cry "freedom" but don't have the maturity or understanding that with great freedoms come great responsibilities.
"You still don't get it do you? There is a difference - a difference that all normal people can see - between a joke and an attack on someone."
---I was watching the comedy tour of Chris Rock. I had to turn it off. I wasn't able to stomach his attacks, er, jokes, against John McCain for being old. So I guess we live in two different countries, in my America people can be mean but in your America they must be polite.
"You say that as if that is a bad thing. However, if you don't believe that, then you believe that there are no morals and no right or wrong."
---Being an idealist is a bad thing, you should be a realist and only then can you make suggestions for improvement. I do believe in morals, but I don't believe in imposing my morals. My favorite dictum is: "your freedom ends where my nose begins."
"Let's blow this one out of the water as well. Remember it was YOU who maintained that the City Manager was not a "public figure." If the reporter went after a "private citizen," then the reporter committed a gross invasion of privacy."
---Porn stars aren't private citizens, the city manager is a victim of his wife celebrity. However, you don't fire a guy for who he's married to, ever! You want to talk morals? Right and wrong? Well, it's clearly wrong to fire a guy for his association.
"However, if the reporter was digging on a public figure, then the only reasons to do so are the ones I listed before. Neither are right morally."
---Free speech has nothing to do with reasons, ethics, responsibility or anything like that. In fact, unlike lawyers, reporters don't have to pass a journalistic bar, they don't have to get certified, they don't even need to go to college. If you can write and someone else likes your writings, you can get the job.
"I know it is not the golden rule. I never claimed it was. As I said, you have squirmed and hid and lied through these conversations. So you got what you deserve:"
---Another example of you attacking the arguer rather than the argument. You're only making me more cynical and less likely to subscribe to your moral vision.
"You see no responsibility to freedoms and no duty to protect those freedoms from those who would harm others while claiming "freedom."
---So your argument is that muckraking hurts free speech? A sort of rotten apple spoils the bunch kind of analogy? Well, I see it differently. I think the marketplace of ideas needs a wide variety of products and choices. Unlike Canada, we don't put people in jail for saying offensive things or for being bad journalists.
"You don't have a clue as to what the freedom advocated by Locke, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, et al is all about."
---I'm not a history major, no.
"but don't have the maturity or understanding that with great freedoms come great responsibilities."
---Too much responsibility destroys freedom because it creates barriers and stumbling blocks. It's like working in an office where you have to be dressed a certain way, avoid certain topics and be the perfect cubicle slave. Some of us don't like to color inside the lines if you catch my drift.
So I guess we live in two different countries, in my America people can be mean but in your America they must be polite.
You still don't get it, do you? I keep thinking that no one can be this obtuse but you keep proving me wrong. There is a difference between what a person can do and what they should do. In my world, a person can be mean, but they shouldn't. In your world a person can be mean and you support them for it.
"Can" and "should" are not the same.
---Then you're an idealist.
Once again, you say that as if it were a bad thing. You seem to think it is better to drop to the lowest common denominator rather than to shoot for the highest and best we can achieve.
---Being an idealist is a bad thing, you should be a realist and only then can you make suggestions for improvement.
Being an idealist and a realist are not opposing points of view.
However, you don't fire a guy for who he's married to, ever! You want to talk morals? Right and wrong? Well, it's clearly wrong to fire a guy for his association.
However, you DO fire a guy for his inability to do the job. That is what this guy was fired for.
---Free speech has nothing to do with reasons, ethics, responsibility or anything like that.
Free speech has everything to do with reasons, ethics, responsibility etc. Only those on the left are so ignorant of the responsibility that goes with freedoms that they abuse them.
---Another example of you attacking the arguer rather than the argument. You're only making me more cynical and less likely to subscribe to your moral vision.
I am not attacking the arguer. I am doing what you want from me. I am treating you the way you treat people.
Remember you were the one that said it was a good then when Hilton attacked people because they might change their ways. Now you are finding out that it doesn't work. And now that you are finding that out, you are whining about being treated badly.
---So your argument is that muckraking hurts free speech?
No, I am arguing that muckraking hurts the moral fiber and civil disposition of people. Once again, it is the difference between what one should do and what one can do.
Well, I see it differently. I think the marketplace of ideas needs a wide variety of products and choices.
Being civil does not deter the exchange of ideas.
cont
cont
---I'm not a history major, no.
Yet you keep saying that you know what freedom is and what the freedoms and protections of freedoms the founding fathers meant. It is not a matter of being a "history major." It is a matter of understanding and knowledge rather than speaking from ignorance.
---Too much responsibility destroys freedom because it creates barriers and stumbling blocks.
That is funny. Really it is. When people learn to drive, they are given more responsibility. That results in more freedom for them.
It's like working in an office where you have to be dressed a certain way, avoid certain topics and be the perfect cubicle slave.
Or it is like an office where the guy with whom you are competing for a promotion constantly sabotages your work. After all, he has the freedom to do so. Or he sits there and bothers you so can't get any work done. After all, he is exercising his right to free speech, correct? Or perhaps the person that comes in for a job interview with frayed cut off jeans, sandals, messed up hair and smelling like dog manure.
He has the freedom to do that. It is not the responsible thing to do. But by doing the responsible thing, he may get the job, which allows him more freedom.
And before you even go there, do not say "what if the guy is a homeless person off the street?" I have hired a ton of people and have always taken circumstances into account. All responsible HR people do.
Some of us don't like to color inside the lines if you catch my drift.
Fine. Then when you abuse the freedoms others have fought and died for, don't blame them.
Blame your own selfish heart for saying that because you CAN be irresponsible and step all over freedoms, you SHOULD.
"In my world, a person can be mean, but they shouldn't. In your world a person can be mean and you support them for it."
---Yes, because I live in the real world. Haven't you ever heard "nice guys finish last"?
"You seem to think it is better to drop to the lowest common denominator rather than to shoot for the highest and best we can achieve."
---Say you work in an office and your entire department has been working 9 to 9 trying to win an account. Say your department wins that account, are you going to get a promotion? No. Will you get a raise? No. Will the boss take you out to dinner? No. So what's the point of always shooting for the best?
"However, you DO fire a guy for his inability to do the job. That is what this guy was fired for."
---That was the excuse they used. There are transexuals that work in public government, some of them as school teachers, cops, etc. Most people are freaked out by transexuals yet they don't always get fired from their jobs. You're telling me that this guy is more controversial than a transexual? You're telling me that a transexual can do his job but this guy can't?
"Free speech has everything to do with reasons, ethics, responsibility etc. Only those on the left are so ignorant of the responsibility that goes with freedoms that they abuse them."
---How can you say that when the left is trying to shut down righwing radio, get Lou Dobs fired, and eliminate every conservative/libertarian voice from the airwaves? All the left does is talk about what you can or cannot say. Colleges even have speech codes, verbal harassment is a crime, displaying a confederate flag can get you in trouble. Even southern colleges like the University of Alabama's "Old South" week faces groups trying to shut it down.
"No, I am arguing that muckraking hurts the moral fiber and civil disposition of people. Once again, it is the difference between what one should do and what one can do."
---Well, I lost faith in the moral fiber and civil disposition of people after they elected Obama. I lost faith in people like John McCain that even today refuses to attack Obama the way he should. Even Sarah Palin has disapointed me by quitting when she had the power to fight and be just as vicious as the media. Taking the high road doesn't always pay.
cont
cont
"Being civil does not deter the exchange of ideas."
---Maybe, but I'd rather see you fight for free speech first and then worry about civility rather than the other way around.
"That is funny. Really it is. When people learn to drive, they are given more responsibility. That results in more freedom for them."
---People don't need a license to speak and if the constitution was read correctly, they wouldn't need a license to carry a gun either. Vehicles aren't covered in the constitution so is expected that they be regulated. That doesn't mean everything has to be regulated.
"Or it is like an office where the guy with whom you are competing for a promotion constantly sabotages your work. After all, he has the freedom to do so. Or he sits there and bothers you so can't get any work done. After all, he is exercising his right to free speech, correct?"
---No, if a coworker plays his music too loud I can complain to him or call HR. The same with sabotage if you can catch it and prove it before it does real damage.
"Or perhaps the person that comes in for a job interview with frayed cut off jeans, sandals, messed up hair and smelling like dog manure."
---Well, vagrancy used to be a crime in this country and if you ask me, nobody has the right to smell bad. As for the other stuff, Crispin Porter allows their employees to wear shorts and flip flops. They work long hours but the office has pizza almost everyday, they enjoy a free dry-cleaning, an inside gym, and many other perks. They're also the best ad agency in the country, which proves that by giving their employees more freedom you can get a happier workforce which delivers greater results.
"He has the freedom to do that. It is not the responsible thing to do. But by doing the responsible thing, he may get the job, which allows him more freedom."
---I've never had any freedom at any of my jobs no matter what I did. Responsibility isn't always rewarding. I've never gotten complimented for coming on time, or working late, but screw up once and they'll remember you.
"I have hired a ton of people and have always taken circumstances into account. All responsible HR people do."
---You HR guys are a piece of work, at one company I got in trouble for taking the elevator to the 18th floor instead of taking it to the 17th floor and climbing a flight of stairs. And why was that rule there in the first place? Because the 18th floor had the creative department and the presidency, so they wanted to remind the creatives that they're not equals by making them climb a flight of stairs until 6pm.
"Fine. Then when you abuse the freedoms others have fought and died for, don't blame them."
---I don't abuse freedom, I defend it. You put limits on freedom, you talk about responsability, ethics. I am much more tolerant and forgiving. I don't want Cindy Sheehan to go to jail for sedition yet I want the freedom to call her a whore and a cunt.
Those who died for our freedoms died for the best and worst of us. They died for the right of Pat Buchanan and Perez Hilton to write mean things if they so choose, they died for the good journalist and the muckraker, for the soprano and the rapper, they died for the flag-waver and the flag-burner.
They did not die for civility, morality or ethics. They died for freedom and freedom in all its forms is what I embrace.
Criminal lawyers say they would rather see 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail.
It's the same with freedom, you have to be willing to put up with a lot of garbage to support freedom. Otherwise you're not really for freedom.
---Yes, because I live in the real world. Haven't you ever heard "nice guys finish last"?
So your view of the world is get yours and the hell with others. Yet when that priniciple is applied to you, you scream bloody murder.
Secondly, one can still be nice and civil without being a doormat.
And by the way, "nice guys finish last" was never said. It was attributed to Leo Durocher but he never made that quote directly.
Say your department wins that account, are you going to get a promotion? No.
Wrong answer. The answer is "maybe, maybe not."
Will you get a raise? No.
Wrong answer. The answer is "maybe, maybe not."
Will the boss take you out to dinner? No.
Wrong answer. The answer is "maybe, maybe not."
So what's the point of always shooting for the best?
When you become an employee of a company, there is an implied moral contract that they will pay you and you will do your best work. If you don't shoot for the best, you are breaking that contract.
Furthermore, when my employees won contests, or I got a bonus as a manager of that department, I gave it to the employees. Because of that, I had the best people wanting to transfer into my department. So we kept winning. Over and over and over. "Nice guys" finished first.
---That was the excuse they used.
That was the reason the city manager gave. You remember him, right? The guy who was fired? HE said that his ability to do the job properly was compromised.
You have a nasty habit of making stuff up when the facts are against you.
---How can you say that when the left is trying to shut down righwing radio,
I say it because it makes the point. Leftists like yourself concentrate so much on what was said that they don't see whether what was said was responsible or not. True conservatives know that with great freedoms come great responsibility.
---Well, I lost faith in the moral fiber and civil disposition of people after they elected Obama.
So you became just like that which you said you despise.
cont
cont
---Maybe,...
No, definitely.
---People don't need a license to speak and if the constitution was read correctly, they wouldn't need a license to carry a gun either.
Nice try at a dodge. This is not about licensing. It is about responsibility increasing as freedom increases. You don't address that, but that is to be expected from you.
---No, if a coworker plays his music too loud I can complain to him or call HR. The same with sabotage if you can catch it and prove it before it does real damage.
So you aren't for freedom without boundaries and responibility, are you?
---I've never had any freedom at any of my jobs no matter what I did.
Then quit. But with your stance that you don't have to put forth your best effort, it shows that you don't deserve the freedom you want in the workplace. Once again, you prove that with responsibilty comes more freedoms.
---I don't abuse freedom, I defend it.
You defend what you believe is "freedom." Yet we have already established that you don't know what the founding fathers meant by "freedoms." We have also established that you believe that your freedom outweighs the freedoms of others. You try and play the conservative card, but your stances are more to the left.
Those who died for our freedoms died for the best and worst of us.
Wow. What an unqualified ignorant statement that is.
They did not die for civility, morality or ethics.
You really need an education. You really do.
It's the same with freedom, you have to be willing to put up with a lot of garbage to support freedom. Otherwise you're not really for freedom.
Once again, you believe in "freedom" without responsibility. That is not what the founding fathers, the courts, and the Constitution supports.
Quite simply, your belief is wrong.
Wrong answer. The answer is "maybe, maybe not."
---I'm talking from experience, I've been at ad agencies where they make you kill yourself working for the fuckers and you get nothing in return.
"When you become an employee of a company, there is an implied moral contract that they will pay you and you will do your best work. If you don't shoot for the best, you are breaking that contract."
---Does the contract say that 3 times a week you're going to work 9 to 9, or 9 to 11pm? Or in some agencies, 9 to 3am with the expectation of showing up on time the next day? Is it ethical to force employees to stay at their desks at 12:00pm while the big shots have lunch in the conference room with the client? Seriously, some companies are begging to be unionized.
"Furthermore, when my employees won contests, or I got a bonus as a manager of that department, I gave it to the employees."
---You're a nice guy and I commend you for it. But so far I've only had one boss that was willing to share the spoils of war. The rest were a bunch of little Hitlers.
"I say it because it makes the point. Leftists like yourself concentrate so much on what was said that they don't see whether what was said was responsible or not. True conservatives know that with great freedoms come great responsibility."
---I am not a leftist, I am a libertarian with a libertine view of morality.
"So you became just like that which you said you despise."
---It was Ann Coulter that told republicans not to be so nice when debating liberals. Sometimes you have to do ugly things to win, remember when America used the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? We had to kill innocent civilians to save our troops. Now we have to confront the liberals with the same vitriol they use against us.
cont
cont
"So you aren't for freedom without boundaries and responibility, are you?"
---Boundaries are important, yes. It's like a nude beach, they post signs warning beach goers what goes on there before they enter. What I don't like is the people that try to ban nude beaches just because they hate the idea of nudity. I don't like the idea of tattoos and body modification (piercings, etc) yet I leave the tattoo parlors alone.
"We have also established that you believe that your freedom outweighs the freedoms of others. You try and play the conservative card, but your stances are more to the left."
---Nonsense, I have never attacked anyone's freedom, I never censor anyone or sign up with groups that fight against freedom. My freedom is just as important as the freedom of everyone else.
"Wow. What an unqualified ignorant statement that is."
---No it's not, it's absolutely brilliant. When a soldier fights for America he's defending everyone in America, the good, the bad and the ugly.
It's like being a doctor in the ER, you're treating whoever comes through that door whether they deserve it or not.
If Berkeley was invaded tomorrow our arm forces would be there fighting, not because the troop-hating Berkeley lefties deserve it but because it's a matter of principle.
Your idealism has clouded your judgment. You're like the people that would rather protect the flag from being burned instead of protecting what the flag represents. There are lots of things that offend you, yet you forget that nobody has the right not to be offended.
---I'm talking from experience, I've been at ad agencies where they make you kill yourself working for the fuckers and you get nothing in return.
You are talking from your experience. I am talking from mine. Because we differ on those experiences, the answer is "maybe, maybe not."
Secondly, you do get something in return - you get a paycheck.
---Does the contract say....
Clearly you do not understand the concept of a moral contract. Even so, if the working conditions do not suit you or are not to your liking, you are free to go elsewhere.
---I am not a leftist, I am a libertarian with a libertine view of morality.
You may think that, but you aren't.
---It was Ann Coulter that told republicans not to be so nice when debating liberals.
Look where it got us. The two major reasons that people voted against conservatives in the last election cycle was the fact that many were RINO's and the second reason given by conservatives was the level of rancor and hate.
We had to kill innocent civilians to save our troops.
This is another statement made out of ignorance from you. It is a line straight out of the leftist "I hate the military" playbook and you have bought into it. Please learn the subjects on which you offer opinion before making statements.
---Boundaries are important, yes.
Well, at least you have now admitted that "freedoms" do have limits.
---Nonsense, I have never attacked anyone's freedom, I never censor anyone or sign up with groups that fight against freedom.
Of course you do. You just don't realize that you do.
---No it's not, it's absolutely brilliant. When a soldier fights for America he's defending everyone in America, the good, the bad and the ugly.
No, its stupid and ignorant. It shows that you have never talked with a soldier or Marine. They fight to preserve what is best about this country.
Your idealism has clouded your judgment.
Truth and a command of facts is never clouded.
You're like the people that would rather protect the flag from being burned instead of protecting what the flag represents.
You mean a person can't do both? A person can't protect the flag and what it represents? Gee, that is news to me. (In case you missed the sarcasm, you have made another unqualified, ignorant statement here.)
There are lots of things that offend you, yet you forget that nobody has the right not to be offended.
Once again, you make a statement that does not fit the facts.
I question why you feel you must lie and be deceptive all the time?
"You are talking from your experience. I am talking from mine. Because we differ on those experiences, the answer is "maybe, maybe not."
---Alright, point taken.
"Secondly, you do get something in return - you get a paycheck."
---You think that gives an employer the right to demand you work from 9 am to 11pm or later with no additional compensation? See why I'm so cynical? You want responsibility when it comes to journalism, but where is your outrage against the abuses employees are subjected to everyday? Explain to me why America went from being a 9 to 5 country to a 9 to 6 (or later) country? Or go ahead and justify the discrimination single employees faced just because they don't have families and thus their free time is not considered important?
"Clearly you do not understand the concept of a moral contract. Even so, if the working conditions do not suit you or are not to your liking, you are free to go elsewhere."
---It's not so easy, most jobs require experience, you can't just go from one field to another. In this economy you're lucky to get an interview.
"Look where it got us. The two major reasons that people voted against conservatives in the last election cycle was the fact that many were RINO's and the second reason given by conservatives was the level of rancor and hate."
---It's the RINO republicans that complain about people like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin instead of understanding they are the heart of conservative ideology. Look at the Sotomayor scandal, mainstream republicans are going to nominate that racist just because they worry about offending hispanics. They have no guts, they're willing to sacrifice principles for political expediency. I on the other hand aren't afraid to say "sorry, but a racist doesn't belong in the Supreme Court." As far as I'm concerned, Sotomayor is David Duke with a tan, a dress, and 100 extra pounds.
"This is another statement made out of ignorance from you. It is a line straight out of the leftist "I hate the military" playbook and you have bought into it. Please learn the subjects on which you offer opinion before making statements."
---I watch The History Channel, I've seen documentaries about Truman. The atomic bomb saved almost a million American soldiers from having to storm the beaches of japan, the deaths would have been incalculable since every japanese citizen was going to fight against us. Remember when Hitler had the Hitler Youth defending Berlin? Hiro Hito was going to have women and even the elderly defending japan, that's a fact.
"You mean a person can't do both? A person can't protect the flag and what it represents? Gee, that is news to me. (In case you missed the sarcasm, you have made another unqualified, ignorant statement here.)"
---I remember when Bill Maher said "you can't tolerate intolerance." Hello! The whole point of being tolerant is tolerating things you find intolerant. You can't be tolerant and try to ban things you don't like! You can't say you support free speech and then ban expressions of free speech like flag burning? It is one thing to shoot protesters that start to riot because you cannot tolerate vandalism and crime. But if peaceful demonstrators want to burn a flag and they're not stopping traffic or causing any major problems, that should be allowed. Don't worship objects, worship what they represent. Fight hateful speech with more speech, not with more laws.
"I question why you feel you must lie and be deceptive all the time?"
---Personal accusations without proof, how predictable from you. But rather than accusing you of defamation, which is not protected by free speech, I will let it pass and wait for the moment to attack your next idea.
---You think that gives an employer the right to demand you work from 9 am to 11pm or later with no additional compensation?
Did you agree to that compensation package when you took the job? If so, then the employer is well within their legal rights.
This gets back to where you and I differ. I would never ask an employee to stay without additional compensation. That is not something that I think an employer SHOULD do. Yet the CAN do it.
You have said time and time again because someone CAN do something, what they SHOULD do is not relevant.
On this issue, since it is something that affects you, you don't recognize what the employer CAN do legally, but you want what they SHOULD do.
---It's not so easy, most jobs require experience, you can't just go from one field to another.
Of course, that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you still have the FREEDOM to change positions or leave the company. You see, by what you just said, you have proved my point that "freedom" comes with "consequences" and "responsibilities."
---I watch The History Channel, I've seen documentaries about Truman.
Thanks. That was the best laugh I have had all day. Next thing you'll try and tell me is that you watched HBO so that makes you an expert on making movies.
the deaths would have been incalculable since every japanese citizen was going to fight against us. Remember when Hitler had the Hitler Youth defending Berlin? Hiro Hito was going to have women and even the elderly defending japan, that's a fact.
Ooops!!
Guess you forgot that what I was replying to was the following comment by you: We had to kill innocent civilians to save our troops. Those "innocent" civilians you speak of were the ones you now say would going to fight the landings against Japan. Guess those civilians weren't so "innocent," were they? And by the way, if you think that only taking up arms would have made them "non-innocents," you are once again historically ignorant of the cities upon which the atomic bombs were dropped.
But if peaceful demonstrators want to burn a flag and they're not stopping traffic or causing any major problems, that should be allowed.
Legally is is allowed. Morally, there are those of us who would run in, swoop up the flag, and run away from the morons who are desecrating it.
Don't worship objects, worship what they represent.
You don't have a clue about what flags represent, do you?
---Personal accusations without proof, how predictable from you.
Nope. Here's proof. You wrote: "There are lots of things that offend you, yet you forget that nobody has the right not to be offended."
That statement is factually false.
Nothing I have ever said or written here can even remotely be construed to mean what you wrote.
You lied.
Pure and simple.
"Did you agree to that compensation package when you took the job? If so, then the employer is well within their legal rights."
---The compensation package NEVER said that crazy hours would be demanded almost every other day, or everyday in some cases. Funny how you believe in responsible free speech yet not in corporate responsibility towards their employees.
"This gets back to where you and I differ. I would never ask an employee to stay without additional compensation. That is not something that I think an employer SHOULD do. Yet the CAN do it."
---Or the employer will most likely tell you that if you don't want to do the job he'll find someone who will.
"Of course, that has NOTHING to do with the fact that you still have the FREEDOM to change positions or leave the company. You see, by what you just said, you have proved my point that "freedom" comes with "consequences" and "responsibilities.""
---Fine, you win that one.
"Thanks. That was the best laugh I have had all day. Next thing you'll try and tell me is that you watched HBO so that makes you an expert on making movies."
---I would never say that, in fact, even though I have the skills to make a music video and have done so for a class, I would never compare myself to the experts that do it everyday. And I never claimed to be a historian, however, the writers The History Channel uses tend to be historians, the ammount of research that goes into each program is mind blowing, and unless The History Channel makes an outrageous claim, I tend to believe them.
"Those "innocent" civilians you speak of were the ones you now say would going to fight the landings against Japan. Guess those civilians weren't so "innocent," were they? And by the way, if you think that only taking up arms would have made them "non-innocents," you are once again historically ignorant of the cities upon which the atomic bombs were dropped."
---You are innocent until proven guilty. If I see a neo-nazi parading do you think I'm going to shoot him because he has the potential of commiting a crime? Hiroshima and Nagasaky where industrial cities, they could have been bombed with conventional weapons but I understand Truman wanted to test the atomic bomb on a city that had not been bombed before.
"Legally is is allowed. Morally, there are those of us who would run in, swoop up the flag, and run away from the morons who are desecrating it."
---So you think theft is a proper course of action? You remind me of the people that take out gay books from libraries and never return them. In their desperation to protect people from "immorality" they become pretty immoral themselves. Like the books, that flag has a property owner, it was bought by someone and if that person decides to burn it, it is his property and as long as the burning doesn't present a fire hazzard to adjacent properties, no problem.
"You don't have a clue about what flags represent, do you?"
---Sure I do, they represent countries, political parties, states, social movements, corporations, etc. When you burn a flag or display the a flag upside down you're protesting against something.
I've seen anti-Israel protestors burn Israel flags, I've seen Fred Phelps literally walk all over the flag. Does it offend me? Yes. But I would be more offended if free speech was denied to protect a symbol.
Think of it this way, do you think everyone who wears a cross is a christian? Look at Madonna, she took a name that belongs to virgins and wore plenty of crosses. In the 80s she made a video where she seduces a saint. Offensive? Yes. But do we really need to legislate against that?
I don't value symbols, I've seen the scum of society show up to court in a suit and tie. I've seen crooked politicians wave the flag and say "God bless America."
But what the flag represents lives beyond mere cloth and thread. That's what you should be protecting itself or do I need to remind you that there are flag wavers who hate our freedoms?
---The compensation package NEVER said that crazy hours would be demanded almost every other day, or everyday in some cases.
I am sure that you asked the employer what hours would be expected, right?
Funny how you believe in responsible free speech yet not in corporate responsibility towards their employees.
Are you really that dense? How many times do I have to say this..... just because something CAN be done does not mean it SHOULD be done.
---Or the employer will most likely tell you that if you don't want to do the job he'll find someone who will.
"Freedom" has costs and responsibilities, just like I keep saying.
The History Channel uses tend to be historians, the ammount of research that goes into each program is mind blowing, and unless The History Channel makes an outrageous claim, I tend to believe them.
A second good laugh from you. Tell me, do you research any of the historians the History Channel uses?
---So you think theft is a proper course of action?
One cannot steal what belongs to everyone. There have been cases where people have tried to prosecute those who have taken flags as they are being desecrated and the courts have ALWAYS said that the flag belongs to all and a person can exercise their right to protect a flag that is being desecrated.
---You are innocent until proven guilty.
That's funny. It really is. In the context of this discussion, that's funny.
---Sure I do, they represent countries, political parties, states, social movements, corporations, etc. When you burn a flag or display the a flag upside down you're protesting against something.
I was right.
You truly don't know.
Oh, and by the way, your comment in the thread about the wine in Georgia being banned? The one where you say that liquor boards were the product of prohibition?
Factually wrong.
"I am sure that you asked the employer what hours would be expected, right?"
---The contract may say 9 to 6, but the reality is very different.
"A second good laugh from you. Tell me, do you research any of the historians the History Channel uses?"
---This is 2009. People use the internet, documentaries and other sources for their research aside from libraries, books, newspaper and microfiche. The History Channel also interviews history professors and other experts in the field they're covering.
"One cannot steal what belongs to everyone. There have been cases where people have tried to prosecute those who have taken flags as they are being desecrated and the courts have ALWAYS said that the flag belongs to all and a person can exercise their right to protect a flag that is being desecrated."
---So John Doe pays $10 for a flag and it belongs to everyone? Did everyone paid for his flag? No. John Doe paid, it's his flag. I've never heard of the courts affirming theft. Seriously, this is a case of you not liking flag burning and letting your dislike cloud your judgement. Freedom is not just for the things you like.
"Oh, and by the way, your comment in the thread about the wine in Georgia being banned? The one where you say that liquor boards were the product of prohibition?
Factually wrong."
---You should have said that in that thread. Even if my facts where wrong, it's true that the legacy of prohibition is still alive in this country. The ATF for example persecutes "moonshiners," those courageous citizens that want to make their own liquor without government interference and regulation.
And by the way, it wasn't Georgia that banned the wine logo, it was Alabama, look it up.
---The contract may say 9 to 6, but the reality is very different.
I guess you don't want to answer the question directly.
---This is 2009. People use the internet, documentaries and other sources for their research aside from libraries, books, newspaper and microfiche. The History Channel also interviews history professors and other experts in the field they're covering.
So the answer to the actual question asked is "no, I have never looked at the credentials of any of the historians in any documentary."
I've never heard of the courts affirming theft.
One cannot steal what one owns.
Seriously, this is a case of you not liking flag burning and letting your dislike cloud your judgement.
I'll take that to mean that you have no idea what you are talking about. Once again, what I and others would do is legal (the "can" part) and should do (the "should" part.)
Freedom is not just for the things you like.
"Freedom" does not mean "free from repercussion from ones actions or other people exercising their freedoms.
---You should have said that in that thread.
Why? You have shown a propensity to make stuff up in all the threads in which you participate. You make stuff up and never admit to it, so why go to another thread?
The ATF for example persecutes "moonshiners," those courageous citizens that want to make their own liquor without government interference and regulation.
You are friggin clueless. The reason the government goes after moonshiners is the number of people corn mash moonshine kills. I am not talking about just from drinking too much, I am talking about it killing from the ingredients.
Those people aren't courageous. Those people are tax evaders and killers.
And by the way, it wasn't Georgia that banned the wine logo, it was Alabama, look it up.
My apologies. I thought that you had the information on the genesis of liquor boards wrong. As I researched various states, the last one I checked was Georgia. I had Georgia on my mind as I was typing.
My apologies for highlighting your ignorance on the Liquor Boards in this thread.
Post a Comment