The article for which I posted a link was backed by the subject (Siegel) himself. Quite a difference.

Of course, you guys can't tell the difference between a man innocently encouraging his employees to make informed decisions while voting or one who is coercing them in a not-so-enigmatic way to vote, essentially, for their jobs.

 

If you don't like what the boss and/or the company is doing, you can find a different job.

If you don't like that the government is passing laws with a partizan majority, your SOL. If you don't like that the president is bypassing the legislative branch, our only direct connection to our government, enacting executive orders that further his agenda, you're SOL. If you don't like that teachers and professors are indoctrinating children in schools and colleges, other than with your own children, you're SOL. If you don't like that the president and his administration are fomenting resentment, envy, and class warfare, you're SOL.

While I certainly agree that people do things that are "disgusting" to us, like killing fellow service members, while yelling "Allahu Akbar", in a disgusting case of "work place violence", there is little we can do about private citizens, unless they are breaking the law.

 

The quotes yes, the title and editorial, no.
So when you read "I May Fire You if Obama Wins" Siegel never said that.
The 2nd line of the article, has the actual quote
"It said that if President Barack Obama wins re-election and raises Siegel's taxes, he will have to lay off workers and downsize his company - or even shut it down. "
You are correct, quite a difference ( in the context between the title and the actual quotes ).

1. Take one step back and think about it, Siegel has no way to know which candidate his employees vote for.

2. Even if all of the some odd thousands of his employees are US voters, they do not control the outcome of the election on their own.

I would have thought the 2 items above were common sense.

The employees could all vote for Romney and Obama could still win the election, and the senate and house can finish about the same as now, and nothing gets done ( including tax law changes ). That could mean everyone keeps their job.
Conversely Romney might win, the Senate and House could have majority Dem, and the tax changes are made, and he still has to scale back the business.

This is the 2nd email on this topic Siegel has had to send. The last time the outcome was he had to lay off employees.
Siegel is known for being a to the point person, his communications style follows Occam's razor. If you have seen any of his interviews or listen to him talk, it would be clear the communications style is how he is, to the point.
He is giving them advance notice of what could happen in the future if taxes go up and regulations impact the business.
Most companies keep RIF's to under 10%, so they do not have to give 60 day notice.
Siegel has no idea if it is going to be 2%, 5% or 25% of the company, but he is telling them now that changes could happen that will impact the future of the business.

Just because the guy is successful does not mean he cannot voice an opinion.
The Union leader in NYC back in 2009 was advocating for domestic terrorism by urging people to try to collapse the financial system by not paying on loans ( student, house, credit card, etc ).
His thought was if everyone does it at one time, there is nothing Wall Street can do about it, and they will lose all their money in the process.
He is still walking the streets today, nobody is calling for him to be in jail nor demonizing him for his opinion.
I Find that a bit strange, guess it is OK for him to do this, due to his net worth being lower...

 

No, I won't blow a gasket regardless of the outcome. In the words of Alexis de Tocqueville, "We get the government we deserve." Seems to me it's always been that way, and I suspect this trend will continue.

The Country will survive, I have faith in that.

- Jack

 

Not true at all. Now if he told them, "If you guys vote for Obama, I'm going to fire all you people." That would be coercing them to vote for their jobs.

He didn't do that. You and Jack keep chasing your tails over this and can't even see it!

 

I'm growing weary of all this bickering. No one seems willing to listen to reason.

So, in a spirit of bipartisanship, I offer this media article that I suspect you will all embrace: http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/r...69/#fbcomments It supports everything you have been saying.

If you've seen it already, consider yourselves ahead of those who haven't.

- Jack

 

Meaning: No one seems willing to come around to Jack's way of thinking (reason).

 

And that post ^ just reaffirms Jack's original comment. Basically, you'll bicker just for the sake of bickering.

I've agreed with quite a few points that have been posted...well...at least portions of them. When someone has what seems to be the right idea to me, I'll agree with them regardless of what ticket they punch in November.

What gets frustrating is the absolute hatred I see for Obama from "the right". Much of "the right" will defend to their death anyone who opposes anything to do concerning Obama....just because they oppose Obama!

We will continue to destruct until this utter polarization stops. Anybody remember what happened the last time there was this much "polarity" in this country?

 

Frank, the ONLY way we are going to get anything done and get out of this mess is by coming together toward the middle. You are the antithesis of that. You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but you are so far out in right field you have lost your concept of reality.

Before you start attacking me, I'm a conservative Republican. The only difference between you and me is I am willing to compromise.

40% of this country is conservative, 40% is liberal. This is a democracy, and if neither side is happy, that's what it has to be.

Back to the topic - Siegel broke no laws.

 

Nice article, Jack! Comical, yet quite true and a little disturbing all at the same time.

 

You're the one that said I am against compromise. Nice way to pre-qualify something by convicting someone without even speaking!

Obama did his damage when he had complete control of the government from 2009-2011, including a super majority in the senate. That's not compromise, at all.

Your figures are incorrect also. America is 41% conservative, 21% liberal: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gall...42-liberals-21

Don't just pull numbers out of thin air with nothing to back them up if you want credibility when 'attempting' to judge someone.

 

Frank, your own words (actions) 'convict' you. It's so obvious that you're against anyone, anything, or any idea that comes from anywhere but the GOP that it's, frankly, a little disturbing.

It's almost as if you skim over the meat of the issues at hand to fully focus on the letter after the subjects' name. If it's an "R", you're all in. If it's a "D". Well...you know...



Really? I guess the only place from which numbers should be pulled is a certified, Frank-approved, obviously slanted source?

 

Frank, if conservatives are really the majority, why do they persist in characterizing themselves as the downtrodden, noble minority? Why don't they just stay above the fray and let the "liberals" run off at the mouth until they run out of steam?

But you are right (correct) when you say the Democrats had complete control in 2009 and 2010. The trouble is, Democrats don't seem to be able to march in "lock step" like the Republicans. They persist in trying to think for themselves and this undermines any forward progress that they might make.

The Republicans had one solid goal: To limit President Obama to one term and to take back the Senate and House. By being obstructionist, they largely succeeded and may succeed entirely with the November elections. The Democrats had no such agenda, and they are paying the price for not learning how to work together.

- Jack

 

Frank, you know as well as I do that cnsnews.com is hardly an unbiased site. That article is also a year old.

 

Sorta but not quite. The Democrats seem to be made up of a bunch of fringe groups that are lazer focused on one singular issue. Pick one gay rights, enviro causes, anti-gun etc. Once they get into power they only focus on getting their own pet projects through not working as a team to accomplish the things they promised. The problem with pandering to these fringe groups is they alienate the people on the center. Just ask all of the now unemployed (D) Senators and Congressmen from the 2010 elections. They followed their party's bidding over that of their constituents and paid the price.