Dewser, I doubt Frank would think "anything" if he got that email, since it seems to play to his bias.

- Jack

 

Good point, Jack. What was I "thinking"?

 

What? It seems so simple to me. The man is threatening his employees with loss of employment if Obama wins reelection and trying to persuade them to not vote for Obama.

I don't begrudge him his success or particularly mind how he feels about the election.

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job?

 

this is what political correctness is doing to our country.

Basically what he is saying is:

if the company is less profitable, we all take a hit or I will elect not to be in business anymore. Basically i have enough money and i dont wish to come to work If i have to make less. why is this wrong?

 

Actually, iirc Ron Paul voiced concerns over a housing bubble as early as 2003. Nobody wanted to listen and here we are today. I don't know of one warning he has given that hasn't come true or is well on its way to coming true. But he got shut down by the media and the establishment GOP. Both sides care more about holding onto power than actually helping people.

 

There you go again Jack with words like, "seems".

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...en_654203.html

 

^^ That is deplorable, Frank.

Bottom line: A person should be able to vote any way he or she sees fit without fear of intimidation.

 

Frank, why do you persist in posting links to blogs as though they were carefully researched, independently verified news stories? We both know they may portray as much truth as an article in the National Enquirer. Do you actually believe everything you read that lends credence to your myopic worldview?

- Jack

 

And lest we forget.

http://townhall.com/video/seiu-pays-romney-protestors

 

Are you saying the video is fraudulent?

Methinks you just can't handle the truth, Jack.

 

So, any video you see (and which appears to support your position) is the "truth"? Perhaps you're just gullible, Frank. It would explain so many things about the theme of your posts.

- Jack

 

Just because something is not shown on ABCNBCCBSCNN doesn't mean it's false.

Ever heard of Acorn? Without it being reported on alternative news sites, we never would've known about their voter fraud.

Face it Jack, you don't like to see anything that runs counter to your worldview. You reject it immediately. And you have done so for all to see.

 

Frank, go back to what I said. I did not reject it out of hand. I simply pointed out that it MAY not be factual and that you tend to present "news" that is slanted this way as gospel. The story has a somewhat "sensational" aspect and I tend to be a tiny bit suspicious of stories that are portrayed that way. Oh, and you left out NPRPBSPRIBBC, which is where I go to get most of my information about world happenings. But, I know even they can sometimes screw up, so just because I see or hear something reported, I don't automatically believe it.

Now, think! If it's true that someone might succumb to monetary pressure to attend a "rally", or to wear a t-shirt, don't you suppose it's possible they might be willing to say most anything for a brief moment of "on-air" fame? And, if an intelligent, sane person really feared union reprisals for something, would he be willingly photographed blowing the whistle on noncompliance?

Now, regarding ACORN: I know you don't like Wikipedia, but they seem the most neutral on this subject of all the sites I visited in a quick search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN_2...os_controversy

There are plenty of right-wing blogs that lend their support to the indictment against ACORN and there are left-wing blogs that do just the opposite. I've found both. The simple fact is, independent investigation found NO evidence of criminal activity, and that the videos were heavily edited by the so-called "reporters" to create a false impression. The "story", by these discredited "reporters", destroyed ACORN.

A "reporter" playing by these rules could easily fabricate a story that would destroy you or me (or at least make our lives very unpleasant). I suspect it happens quite often. Thankfully, we are not juicy targets, so we get a pass.

This is what concerns me about the blogs and videos that are often posted, Frank. What is the agenda of the source? Is it the "truth", or is it just a "takedown" of someone for some other motive?

- Jack

 

So today you are suspicious of sensational stories.

Yesterday, you wanted to throw a man in jail because of an article you read on the internet.

 

Jack is a lost cause Dave.

He's going to blow a gasket election night when he sees the returns come in.