ArmitageShanks wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

L-188 wrote:

What complicates that a bit Aesma is that he is a sitting state legislator also. Companies can get it trouble if they fire people who make statements in their official capacity, which he was in this case, and then fire them because of that. Essentially it is punishing that elected official for representing the folks that elected him not the company line.

This is an interesting point. On one hand, he's likely violated UA's social media policy, which can be a terminable offense. On the other hand, he may have been speaking in his official capacity as a legislator. Where do you draw the line?

Say for example this wasn't about Sec. Clinton, but instead, he loudly voiced opposition to Obergefell v. Hodges. UA, like other carriers, came out strongly in favor of the ruling; would his statements in social media be an issue at that point, or not?

And lets ad to this...what about bumper stickers or t-shirts worn around town? Or giving money to anti-gay groups? Should employees be fired for that? Once we start where does it end?

This whole story is a non-issue. Firing the guy won't accomplish a thing other than the 8 minutes of self-congratulations some will feel that someone was silenced for what they said.

Exactly. A public lawmaker representing the people. If the Streisand effect doesn't help his career at UA, it will his legislative.

He is lead sponsor of WV house bill HB4724. The bill sounds like it is intended to reenact and amend §Chapter 61 of the Code of West Virginia for Crimes and their Punishment..

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity, definitely not if he is speaking as a Republican delegate. I suspect that the rules for a legislator in WV frowns on making death threats against someone via the media or social media. Someone would have to confirm WV law, but a few years ago a sitting Arizona legislator was beating the crap out of his girl friend on the side of the freeway and he tried to pull the same stunt that he couldn't be arrested/charged because the legislature was in session. Didn't hold water with the House Speaker who demanded his resignation and he later plead to a lesser charge.

910A wrote:

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity

So Senators and other members of Congress are not speaking in their official capacity when Congress isn't in session? C'mon, now...

L-188 wrote:

You liberals leftists are funny and complete hypocrites.

You are lynching a state senator of his day job because you don't like something he said.

I am regarded by many as a liberal leftist and in an earlier comment I wrote:

HGL wrote:

Let's keep things in perspective. What he wrote may be "unparliamentary" speech but whatever happened to "freedom of speech is absolute and indivisible?"

I don't agree with what he said. I think it was stupid simply because there is no basis for a trial, let alone an execution. But I strongly disagree with calls to punish him (other than at the ballot box) for what he said.

I don't believe that it affects his ability to be a pilot any more than being for or against abortion (should he comment on that?); being for or against arms control (should he be allowed to comment on that?); or being for or against medicare (is he allowed to comment on that?) He is an elected representative and if his constituents disagree with what he says, it is up to them to vote for somebody else. It is not up to UA or any other company to decide what elected representatives can or can not say, unless a person claims to be speaking in the capacity of the company or using company communications channels to do so.

910A wrote:

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity, definitely not if he is speaking as a Republican delegate. I suspect that the rules for a legislator in WV frowns on making death threats against someone via the media or social media. Someone would have to confirm WV law, but a few years ago a sitting Arizona legislator was beating the crap out of his girl friend on the side of the freeway and he tried to pull the same stunt that he couldn't be arrested/charged because the legislature was in session. Didn't hold water with the House Speaker who demanded his resignation and he later plead to a lesser charge.

Who made "death threats"? Seriously? I wonder who is posting the talking points these days....don't know which cable TV channel serves democratic dogma for breakfast, so I cannot do a pout or rant on them.

I suppose it's a symptom of today's society.....beat the person you don't agree with into submission, using poorly made-up labels or unfounded accusations - or worse. And go off on so many tangents that everything fits the ideology. Rather saddening to see a very bad division in America. Went from not good to bad to worse. And if Ms. D. Teflon does win, please don't get your hopes up that things will get better. Hazard a bet that they will be a darn sight worse. Unfortunately.

It is funny, though. It went from someone making an iffy statement to people calling for the "same thing" done to him - WITHOUT the trial he stated - clearly - that HRC was to recieve.

Interesting times.

YZF101 wrote:

910A wrote:

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity, definitely not if he is speaking as a Republican delegate. I suspect that the rules for a legislator in WV frowns on making death threats against someone via the media or social media. Someone would have to confirm WV law, but a few years ago a sitting Arizona legislator was beating the crap out of his girl friend on the side of the freeway and he tried to pull the same stunt that he couldn't be arrested/charged because the legislature was in session. Didn't hold water with the House Speaker who demanded his resignation and he later plead to a lesser charge.

Who made "death threats"? Seriously? I wonder who is posting the talking points these days....don't know which cable TV channel serves democratic dogma for breakfast, so I cannot do a pout or rant on them.

I suppose it's a symptom of today's society.....beat the person you don't agree with into submission, using poorly made-up labels or unfounded accusations - or worse. And go off on so many tangents that everything fits the ideology. Rather saddening to see a very bad division in America. Went from not good to bad to worse. And if Ms. D. Teflon does win, please don't get your hopes up that things will get better. Hazard a bet that they will be a darn sight worse. Unfortunately.

It is funny, though. It went from someone making an iffy statement to people calling for the "same thing" done to him - WITHOUT the trial he stated - clearly - that HRC was to recieve.

Interesting times.

He did make a death threat. When he said Hillary "should be hung on The Mall" in Washington. That there should be a trial (no reason for that, per the Republican appointed FBI director) and that she should be found guilty (again, no basis) and that she should be hung. This guy is making a ton of assumptions.

EA CO AS wrote:

910A wrote:

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity

So Senators and other members of Congress are not speaking in their official capacity when Congress isn't in session? C'mon, now...

Members of Congress who make statements are only held to them when they are Democrats. Otherwise, they are advocates of free speech and have every right to call anyone any names they want. Republicans can say what they want, when they want because First Amendment. Death threats and flawed logic have no standing.

We need to stop holding Democrats to this impossibly high standard. Lower the bar for Democrats. Or, raise the bar for Republicans. Either way, a one party country does not work. Two sides of the same coin is bad, but one party is worse.

910A wrote:

If the West Virginia legislature is not in session, then I suspect that he is not speaking in his official capacity, definitely not if he is speaking as a Republican delegate.

While it might be a legal technicality, in reality, if you are holding a public position, then you are speaking in your official capacity ALL the time. It's one of the catches of holding public office, you don't get a private life, your family doesn't get privacy and everything you say will be scrutinized. If you dare even sneeze or cough, someone will call into question your ability to perform your duties and will be demanding your resignation.

And it is even worse now with 24/7 media cycle and gotcha-politics.

ArmitageShanks wrote:

Not at all. I think speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be protected. Now I'm sure you'll say it is and its private businesses making a private decision but that is not right in a lot of these circumstances either.

So you are saying that companies should not be able to fire people for publicly praising mass murder, or even insulting the CEO?

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that.

seb146 wrote:

He did make a death threat.

A death threat is when you tell someone "I'll kill you". A person living under a death threat would be worried about walking out their door - or even staying home and gets a visit. That is why it's illegal to make death threats.

As a result of this guy's statement, HRC has no reason to believe that he intends her any harm. He never advocated for anything illegal to happen to her. There is no illegal threat involved.

DocLightning wrote:

So you are saying that companies should not be able to fire people for publicly praising mass murder, or even insulting the CEO?

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that.

Companies can have their own rules regarding the behavior of their employees. If they have a policy that they will fire anyone wearing pink socks, or criticizes company strategy, that's their business. Freedom of Speech is in regards to government prosecution only.

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He never advocated for anything illegal to happen to her.

Sure he did. He suggested a trial followed by a public execution in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. You know, all that flowery language about due process and such?

Dreadnought wrote:

DocLightning wrote:

So you are saying that companies should not be able to fire people for publicly praising mass murder, or even insulting the CEO?

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that.

Companies can have their own rules regarding the behavior of their employees. If they have a policy that they will fire anyone wearing pink socks, or criticizes company strategy, that's their business. Freedom of Speech is in regards to government prosecution only.

And when Dreaddy and I agree on something...

OA412 wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

seb146 wrote:

He never advocated for anything illegal to happen to her.

Sure he did. He suggested a trial followed by a public execution in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. You know, all that flowery language about due process and such?

A trial IS due process. Once again, NOTHING illegal was proposed.

How can a company regulate what a person says in their off time, about general issues?

The person voiced an opinion about a criminal justice matter that has nothing to do with work. I see nothing actionable there.

According to this article,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/techn ... utiny.html

"federal regulators are ordering employers to scale back policies that limit what workers can say online."

In addition, of course, "The National Labor Relations Board says workers have a right to discuss work conditions freely and without fear of retribution, whether the discussion takes place at the office or on Facebook."

I think it is a somewhat grey area if an employer can fire you for preferring one candidate over another on social media, or advocating for lawful punishments for people under investigation.

According to this,
http://molawyersmedia.com/2012/05/01/co ... you-fired/
Some states including New York do prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation. However, there is no federal ban on firing people for political affiliation reasons.

Flighty..Dreads...he's calling for an illegal execution for a trial that has not been approved to judge a possible crime that has not passed judicial process. But it's the first part, don't you guys get it? Turn off the Fox boys, public executions are ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you need me to send you an audio file with the vowels and consonants laid out in slow motion? Public hangings harken back to some of the darkest chapters in our history. This idiot should've shut his pie hole after the first seven words, but he couldn't reign in his idiocy and now he has to face the consequences. Or are you guys OK with any banned/illegal form of execution? Why not torture Hillary to death, drown her by water-boarding..cut off her head..throw her off a cliff...how about stoning her to death?

Try saying it together: puuubaalick ecksecuushunz rrr eeleeegull.

You get it now?

No, in my opinion much of the Bush Admin are still liable for capital crimes with no statute of limitations. The circumstances of their potential convictions, sentencing and executions are nuanced but it's not like a terroristic threat, it is a citizen opinion that capital crimes were committed.

I realize one sounds like the other, but that's all it is, a snappy phrase, not a threat.

wingman wrote:

Flighty..Dreads...he's calling for an illegal execution for a trial that has not been approved to judge a possible crime that has not passed judicial process. But it's the first part, don't you guys get it? Turn off the Fox boys, public executions are ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Do you need me to send you an audio file with the vowels and consonants laid out in slow motion? Public hangings harken back to some of the darkest chapters in our history. This idiot should've shut his pie hole after the first seven words, but he couldn't reign in his idiocy and now he has to face the consequences. Or are you guys OK with any banned/illegal form of execution? Why not torture Hillary to death, drown her by water-boarding..cut off her head..throw her off a cliff...how about stoning her to death?

Try saying it together: puuubaalick ecksecuushunz rrr eeleeegull.

You get it now?

LOL, you're worried about such tiny things. I wonder where you were when HRC when she was accused of serious crimes. Are you the kind of person who could watch HRC stab a child in the eye on the Democrat Convention stage and say, "Aw, she's just kidding around" while getting all upset at this guy.

Firstly, if it goes to trial it must have gone through the appropriate judicial process to get there - there is no other way to do it. About the public part, it's just a saying - like being hung from the yardarm - noone does that anymore. Just chill. No harm has been done, nor was it threatened.

Hmmm, what if someone made a similar death threat against the TSA or I dunno, maybe the pilot of their plane. Why do I think that many here would have been arguing in favor of the pilot who had that person removed, arrested, refused to fly that day, and wanted to ban that passenger for life for uttering such a threat?

Well I guess Repubs still don't place any value on words. People in positions of public power have said a lot of crazy shit in history that resulted in actual much crazier shit in reality. But I hear ya brother, if only Bush Jr. had been kidding around about nukulur weapons in Iraq and Cheney had just been joshing with his homies when he said deficits don't matter, or if the country had understood the joke about Mission Accomplished on the aircraft carrier, or this latest douchebag saying only white people invent stuff.

Your party embraces and cherishes stupidity like it's a virtue. Hell, you can't even be bothered to write original speeches anymore. What the hell happened to you guys?

DocLightning wrote:

ArmitageShanks wrote:

Not at all. I think speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be protected. Now I'm sure you'll say it is and its private businesses making a private decision but that is not right in a lot of these circumstances either.

So you are saying that companies should not be able to fire people for publicly praising mass murder, or even insulting the CEO?

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that.

The firing happens because people threaten the business and its customers or advertisers. It has nothing to do with denouncing what was done or said, its about appeasing and stopping the onslaught from those folks. Witch hunts for these types of stuff is not right. Its not justice or bringing about a solution to why someone feels the need to say such things.

Dreadnought wrote:

OA412 wrote:

Dreadnought wrote:

Sure he did. He suggested a trial followed by a public execution in violation of the 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution. You know, all that flowery language about due process and such?

A trial IS due process. Once again, NOTHING illegal was proposed.

But when he demanded the outcome of due process is a guilty verdict and to follow that with death, that can be construed as a death threat. In other words, he wanted a fixed trial so she could be executed. Not a fair trial but a trial where the outcome would result in her death. Never mind the facts or anything. Just frame her and execute her. That is what he was saying. If he would have said "Hillary needs to be found guilty" and stopped there, no one would have said anything.

Republicans just keep the rolling the Stupid Train down the tracks..get a load of this moron, former coach of a college football team whose very name celebrates immigration. I guess he must've hated every minute he was there, much less his black players. Well maybe the negroes were OK since they were brought here in chains. Honestly, these geriatric racist scumbags can't seem to crank out their idiotic statements fast enough:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/lou-holtz- ... html?nhp=1

wingman wrote:

Republicans just keep the rolling the Stupid Train down the tracks..get a load of this moron, former coach of a college football team whose very name celebrates immigration. I guess he must've hated every minute he was there, much less his black players. Well maybe the negroes were OK since they were brought here in chains. Honestly, these geriatric racist scumbags can't seem to crank out their idiotic statements fast enough:

On the other hand, maybe he had nothing against (legal) immigrants or black people. The reason that you can't get a grip on this is that you are caught up in your own prejudices.

Dreadnought wrote:

I wonder where you were when HRC when she was accused of serious crimes.

I accuse you, Dreadnought, of personally planning and executing the 9/11 attacks, high treason against the United States for sharing secret nuclear warhead blueprints with Vladimir Putin himself, assassinating JFK, being the architect of the Enron fraud, and jaywalking.

There, now YOU'VE been accused of serious crimes. It's worth bubkiss, but you've been accused of a serious crime.

What matters is being convicted of a serious crime. Or even indicted.

And yet over and over and over again, Mrs. Clinton has been accused of horrible things but never indicted or convicted. Nobody has been investigated as much as she has. And yet she's gotten off scot-free every time. I wonder why. Because if it's because she's guilty but she's managed to corrupt even GOP officials like the director of the FBI, well then she's damned good -- better than any politician in history -- and I want her as my President.

seb146 wrote:

"Hillary needs to be found guilty" and stopped there, no one would have said anything.

He expressed an opinion, maybe an unsound one, but nevertheless an opinion. He did not incite anyone to actually arrest her, he did not organise a kangaroo court. There was no lynch mob. His views may be ridiculous but it is not necessarily unlawful to express them.

If the problem is that he wanted to influence the outcome of a trial, wouldn't the words you quoted amount to the same? The presumption of guilt. Is it not the case that every time anyone calls for an arrest, they are presuming guilt? It is only the courts who must proceed from the presumption of innocence otherwise no one would ever be prosecuted.

Certainly, there have been plenty of people accusing George W Bush and Tony Blair of being war criminals and demanded that they be put on trial. No one has suggested that those calling for Bush and Blair be put on trial should lose their jobs. Yet, I would imagine that those calling for Bush and Blair to be tried believe that they are guilty and should be punished, otherwise why demand a trial? So why hasn't there been the same level of outrage?

HGL wrote:

seb146 wrote:

"Hillary needs to be found guilty" and stopped there, no one would have said anything.

He expressed an opinion, maybe an unsound one, but nevertheless an opinion. He did not incite anyone to actually arrest her, he did not organise a kangaroo court. There was no lynch mob. His views may be ridiculous but it is not necessarily unlawful to express them.

If the problem is that he wanted to influence the outcome of a trial, wouldn't the words you quoted amount to the same? The presumption of guilt. Is it not the case that every time anyone calls for an arrest, they are presuming guilt? It is only the courts who must proceed from the presumption of innocence otherwise no one would ever be prosecuted.

Certainly, there have been plenty of people accusing George W Bush and Tony Blair of being war criminals and demanded that they be put on trial. No one has suggested that those calling for Bush and Blair be put on trial should lose their jobs. Yet, I would imagine that those calling for Bush and Blair to be tried believe that they are guilty and should be punished, otherwise why demand a trial? So why hasn't there been the same level of outrage?

Let's just ignore the fact that, under Bush, there were only God knows how many who died for lies. Trillions were spent for lies. They were not even close to punished. In fact, some have suggested that they made us safer. No one is calling for a rigged tribunal to achieve only one outcome.

I don't know how much more clear I can put this:

The United pilot, and elected official, wants a rigged trial to ensure his outcome so Hillary can be executed. That is how I read his post. That is how many people read his post. He does not care about fairness or due process. He wants a specific outcome from a rigged trial. Why should that be celebrated?

DocLightning wrote:

And yet over and over and over again, Mrs. Clinton has been accused of horrible things but never indicted or convicted. Nobody has been investigated as much as she has. And yet she's gotten off scot-free every time. I wonder why.

Maybe its because good old Bill had lubricated her with much of his teflon?

seb146 wrote:

That is how I read his post.

Precisely. That is how you read it. I don't.

seb146 wrote:

Why should that be celebrated?

Has anyone in this thread suggested celebration of any kind? I certainly hadn't noticed.

HGL wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That is how I read his post.

Precisely. That is how you read it. I don't.

seb146 wrote:

Why should that be celebrated?

Has anyone in this thread suggested celebration of any kind? I certainly hadn't noticed.

Read his post. Word for word. Read it. Tell me he does not want a sham trial so the outcome can be execution. People are defending his freedom of speech. Yes, he has that freedom to a point. Calling for the execution of someone crosses a line. He can say he wants Hillary found guilty all day. I think he is wrong on that point, but he is certainly welcome to say that. It is his wanting her executed that people take issue with. And the right is willing to overlook that.

seb146 wrote:

HGL wrote:

seb146 wrote:

That is how I read his post.

Precisely. That is how you read it. I don't.

seb146 wrote:

Why should that be celebrated?

Has anyone in this thread suggested celebration of any kind? I certainly hadn't noticed.

Read his post. Word for word. Read it. Tell me he does not want a sham trial so the outcome can be execution. People are defending his freedom of speech. Yes, he has that freedom to a point. Calling for the execution of someone crosses a line. He can say he wants Hillary found guilty all day. I think he is wrong on that point, but he is certainly welcome to say that. It is his wanting her executed that people take issue with. And the right is willing to overlook that.

You're missing the important point. Saying someone should be shot before the trial is unacceptable. Very much so. Should be fired if he said that.

Saying someone should be punished after trial, in accordance with the law, is acceptable.

Flighty wrote:

seb146 wrote:

HGL wrote:

Precisely. That is how you read it. I don't.


Has anyone in this thread suggested celebration of any kind? I certainly hadn't noticed.

Read his post. Word for word. Read it. Tell me he does not want a sham trial so the outcome can be execution. People are defending his freedom of speech. Yes, he has that freedom to a point. Calling for the execution of someone crosses a line. He can say he wants Hillary found guilty all day. I think he is wrong on that point, but he is certainly welcome to say that. It is his wanting her executed that people take issue with. And the right is willing to overlook that.

You're missing the important point. Saying someone should be shot before the trial is unacceptable. Very much so. Should be fired if he said that.

Saying someone should be punished after trial, in accordance with the law, is acceptable.

No one is saying that. What I am saying is that this elected official does NOT want a fair trail. He wants a trail where the outcome is she is found guilty and hanged. Not due process. He wants a North Korea style tribunal, where opposition is found guilty and punished. Not based on facts or evidence, but on what he wants. I don't know how much clearer I can make it. He is not asking for due process and legal proceedings. He wants a specific, scripted trial in order to have a specific outcome.

That's the problem with his twit that I keep pointing out. He's not calling for HRC to be punished in accordance with the law. He's calling for her to be executed in public, a punishment which was last carried out in the 1930s and then prohibited by federal law. What he is clamoring for is not legal. It is illegal. Public hangings are against the law, you cannot do that any more, you would be in a lot of trouble for doing such a thing, which is illegal..in the United States, meaning it is against the law to do such a thing..that thing being to publicly execute someone, which is not legal..but instead illegal.

Goddamn...am I not writing this clearly?

his suspension doesn't surprise me or bother me. He should of saw this coming.

I've worked for 3 airlines and all three have made me put in a request to HR when i wanted to work for somebody else. It's standard practice. CO had this policy, I would imagine UA did as well.

It's called a code of ethics, they don't want you to work for someone they view as competition, or may have a conflict of interest with, or hold a job that embarrasses them. .

I would think being a politician would be a conflict of interest because you are passing laws that could help or hurt the company you work for. Also there is the fact that you don't want your employee's to be over political on social networks because it turns potential flyers off.

So, either he forgot to tell HR, that he was elected to political office, or HR really dropped the ball.

How do you not be over political when you are a politician? It's impossible.

ArmitageShanks wrote:

Not at all. I think speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be protected. Now I'm sure you'll say it is and its private businesses making a private decision but that is not right in a lot of these circumstances either.

How does that make any sense at all for the meaning behind the message? What are you trying to do other than silence someone's speech? Its OK for him to call for the death of someone as long as its within earshot below some arbitrary number of listeners? What is the cutoff for that number? Can he write an op/ed in the paper and be OK? What about talking about it in a support group or on a sidewalk with a sign?

Depends if it reflects badly on the company or not. And that's the company's decision to make.

Why should I allow my employees to tarnish the image of my company? If one of my employees starts tweeting racist tweets, why should I be forced to continue my association with him? Isn't that rather unfair on the business owner? Getting rid of him is not about silencing speech, it's about protecting the company's reputation. I don't want people thinking my company is the sort of place that employs racist a-holes.

There was a time when people with large mouths and small minds didn't feel the need to broadcast every piece of nonsense running through their head to half the world. They still have that option if they so choose.

Truth be known, this all gets down to the trust United can place in this guy's judgment.

I took a BA flight fro LHR to BOS on BA and had a chance to chat with the Captain, who was taking a break. He was telling me that right after he competed the final flight check for Command Pilot the examiner handed hi a piece of paper. It was a copy of the invoice for the 777 that BA paid to Boeing when they took possession of plane. He said it was a pretty clear indication of the trust BA placed in him when they put him in the left seat.

I have no problem with United telling their pilot that they have no faith in him anymore. I wouldn't be surprised if United's lawyers are not already working on his departure.

Ken777 wrote:

He was telling me that right after he competed the final flight check for Command Pilot the examiner handed hi a piece of paper. It was a copy of the invoice for the 777 that BA paid to Boeing when they took possession of plane. He said it was a pretty clear indication of the trust BA placed in him when they put him in the left seat.

I'd much rather he were told to walk around the cabin and sees the faces of the people that are putting their lives in his hands. Screw an inanimate hunk of metal, regardless of how much it cost.

While I don't think the pilot should be fired, I think it's disturbing that some of y'all are equating this with donating to some anti-gay group or opposing the same-sex marriage ruling. I've done both in the past - publicly, and with the knowledge of my employer. I was never reprimanded or fired. If, on the other hand, I proclaimed that homosexuals ought to be tried and hanged for sodomy, I'd expect to be fired. There is a difference between expressing a dissenting opinion, and calling for the death of individual(s).

A related, but not identical situation: my coworkers and I recently discuss the election over the lunch table. I know, we went there. Supporters of 3 candidates are present (Johnson, Trump, Clinton). No one has been fired or reprimanded for support of any candidate, because no one has called for the trial and execution of any candidate, and moreover, no one has attacked anyone else for supporting a different candidate. There is a difference between supporting candidate X, and harassing those who support candidates Y and Z. Supporting candidate X doesn't affect one's ability to do one's job. Harassing coworkers who support candidates Y or Z does, in so far as you need to work with those coworkers to get sh*t done and harassing them is not conducive to collaboration. This is not directly related to the UA case, of course; just a general comment.

DocLightning wrote:

ArmitageShanks wrote:

Not at all. I think speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be protected. Now I'm sure you'll say it is and its private businesses making a private decision but that is not right in a lot of these circumstances either.

So you are saying that companies should not be able to fire people for publicly praising mass murder, or even insulting the CEO?

Yeah, we're just gonna have to disagree on that.

Yeah, this idea of "protecting" speech from consequences reeks of SJW bullshit.

TheF15Ace wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

1) She didn't

2) Gaddafi got what he deserved

What did Gaddafi do to deserve to get hung? All he did was kill Al Qaeda and all the other terrorists that Hillary Clinton armed in Libya.

How about thousands of his own citizens he had slaughtered. And you want to bring up terrorism why not take a look at all the dealings your precious Gaddafi had with terrorist organisations.

America has done much more state sponsored terrorism than Gaddafi, you just call it 'protecting national interests'

Redd wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

What did Gaddafi do to deserve to get hung? All he did was kill Al Qaeda and all the other terrorists that Hillary Clinton armed in Libya.

How about thousands of his own citizens he had slaughtered. And you want to bring up terrorism why not take a look at all the dealings your precious Gaddafi had with terrorist organisations.

America has done much more state sponsored terrorism than Gaddafi, you just call it 'protecting national interests'

I will not say that America hands are completely clean when it comes to world events. But we did not let a murderous scumbag rule our country for more than 40 years and finance the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. Besides end of the day we did not kill Gaddafi, his own people did.

Btw I hope you wrote that post being a citizen of a country that has not shed a single drop of blood throughout your history.

blacksoviet wrote:

Trump knows how to make deals. He is a tough negotiator. You can't deny that.

By grabbing their pussies and/or penises?

TheF15Ace wrote:

Redd wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

How about thousands of his own citizens he had slaughtered. And you want to bring up terrorism why not take a look at all the dealings your precious Gaddafi had with terrorist organisations.

America has done much more state sponsored terrorism than Gaddafi, you just call it 'protecting national interests'

I will not say that America hands are completely clean when it comes to world events. But we did not let a murderous scumbag rule our country for more than 40 years and finance the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. Besides end of the day we did not kill Gaddafi, his own people did.

Btw I hope you wrote that post being a citizen of a country that has not shed a single drop of blood throughout your history.

Libya was still better off with Gaddafi, just like Iraq was with Saddam before the USA decided to spread democracy.

I'm a Canadian living in Poland. So as a Canadian we could be ashamed about the way we treated our Natives. As a Pole we have almost 1000 years of war in our history. Every country has blood on it's hands because every country has been ruled by power hungry leaders.

The USA has meddled in so many country's affairs and installed so many dictators to serve it's interests at the cost of millions of lives in the past 75 years that it does not have any right to claim superior ethics or morals.

My point being that the people of Libya were better off with Gaddafi. I don't think that's up for debate. Of course we'll see how things play out in the next decade or more but the middle east is a cluster f#ck in large part due to American interests. The world is dealing with the fallout, Europe even more so than the USA at the moment with the refugee crisis and the political fallout as a result.

Even though it was Libyans that killed Gaddafi it was a CIA coup. There's a film on youtube detailing the whole thing, described by CIA agents involved and America politicians. Not exactly a secret conspiracy.

Libya was part of the Arabian spring uprise. The problem with dictators is that they suppress part of the people's idea's, in the end that will come out, one way or another. Don't underestimate the power of the people. Libya is actually one example Obama's America was quite restrained in their response, like in Syria.

Not trying to defend the US, the US did a lot of stuff and intervened in a lot of countries which it had no business in doing so, especially in Latin- and South America. Iraq in 2003 was also highly illegal, the world protested, Iraq WMD program was under control, so no reason to start a war.

Redd wrote:

TheF15Ace wrote:

Redd wrote:

America has done much more state sponsored terrorism than Gaddafi, you just call it 'protecting national interests'

I will not say that America hands are completely clean when it comes to world events. But we did not let a murderous scumbag rule our country for more than 40 years and finance the deaths of innocent civilians abroad. Besides end of the day we did not kill Gaddafi, his own people did.

Btw I hope you wrote that post being a citizen of a country that has not shed a single drop of blood throughout your history.

Libya was still better off with Gaddafi, just like Iraq was with Saddam before the USA decided to spread democracy.

I'm a Canadian living in Poland. So as a Canadian we could be ashamed about the way we treated our Natives. As a Pole we have almost 1000 years of war in our history. Every country has blood on it's hands because every country has been ruled by power hungry leaders.

The USA has meddled in so many country's affairs and installed so many dictators to serve it's interests at the cost of millions of lives in the past 75 years that it does not have any right to claim superior ethics or morals.

My point being that the people of Libya were better off with Gaddafi. I don't think that's up for debate. Of course we'll see how things play out in the next decade or more but the middle east is a cluster f#ck in large part due to American interests. The world is dealing with the fallout, Europe even more so than the USA at the moment with the refugee crisis and the political fallout as a result.

Even though it was Libyans that killed Gaddafi it was a CIA coup. There's a film on youtube detailing the whole thing, described by CIA agents involved and America politicians. Not exactly a secret conspiracy.

A film on youtube. Why didn't you say so. I have seen the light, America bad.

I already said in my first post that I don't approve of everything my country has done. There have been quite a few unnecessary wars over the past 75 years but not all. Whether you see it that way or not some fights were worth fighting.

Secondly you can't say the people of Libya were better off under Gaddafi when he was bombing them with fighters.

And third, don't use the default line about Europe paying the price for American wars. Europe started this crap first with their colonialism and then propping up dictators to run their made up countries. If you want a more modern example look at the advanced weapons being sold to ME countries by Europeans (not that the US is any different). Just remember the French were the ones who were gung-ho about Libya, not us.

TheF15Ace wrote:

And third, don't use the default line about Europe paying the price for American wars. Europe started this crap first with their colonialism and then propping up dictators to run their made up countries. If you want a more modern example look at the advanced weapons being sold to ME countries by Europeans (not that the US is any different). Just remember the French were the ones who were gung-ho about Libya, not us.

Exactly. There was a great article this spring about the 100 year anniversary of the Sykes - Picot Agreement and how it's still screwing up the Middle East. GW Bush only made it worse, I'll grant you. Additionally, Obama took so much crap from the Republicans and his political enemies for his "Leading From Behind" strategy on Libya. Obama wanted nothing to do with it but with France chomping at the bit, and other NATO allies, he relented.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk ... iddle-east

America is far from perfect, but trying to blame the USA for the entire mess of the ME....naw, no way.

A film on youtube. Why didn't you say so. I have seen the light, America bad.

I already said in my first post that I don't approve of everything my country has done. There have been quite a few unnecessary wars over the past 75 years but not all. Whether you see it that way or not some fights were worth fighting.

Secondly you can't say the people of Libya were better off under Gaddafi when he was bombing them with fighters.

And third, don't use the default line about Europe paying the price for American wars. Europe started this crap first with their colonialism and then propping up dictators to run their made up countries. If you want a more modern example look at the advanced weapons being sold to ME countries by Europeans (not that the US is any different). Just remember the French were the ones who were gung-ho about Libya, not us.

Emoticon roll eye all you please, but .... Here is the *gasp* documentary on youtube where American political and CIA officials explain in detail how it had nothing to do with an uprising but an American 30 year old plot to get rid of Gaddafi. Very many details on how they did it, plotted it, executed it, who they used etc.. etc..... It was not an Arab Spring uprising romantically led by the proletariat, it was simply a CIA operation. Straight from the horses mouth's.

So yes I can say the people of Libya would have been better off, because if it wasn't for the CIA coup Gaddafi wouldn't have been bombing CIA led opponents attempting to overthrow him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHm4RhbZxw

PacificBeach88 wrote:

Hmmm, what if someone made a similar death threat against the TSA or I dunno, maybe the pilot of their plane.

There is no death threat, just like when you say, as you have said numerous times I believe, all Republicans and Trump supporters should be savagely killed, you are not threatening mass murder, you are just advocating it. At least this guy believes she is guilty of treason, a crime that actually can result in capital punishment, and it is towards one person, whereas you are advocating annihilating almost half the country, simply because they disagree with your politics. As Paula Jones would say, you are being "hypercritical"

seb146 wrote:

But when he demanded the outcome of due process is a guilty verdict and to follow that with death, that can be construed as a death threat. In other words, he wanted a fixed trial so she could be executed.

No, it can't. If you issue a death threat against someone the secret service is following around, the FBI or CIA or whoever is going to be knocking on, or more likely, beating down your door.

DocLightning wrote:

And yet over and over and over again, Mrs. Clinton has been accused of horrible things but never indicted or convicted. Nobody has been investigated as much as she has. And yet she's gotten off scot-free every time. I wonder why.

Maybe because she had sense enough to get her own private server and delete 30,000 emails from it even after she was subpoenaed to get rid off any hint of evidence (there is such a thing as a smart criminal). Oh wait I forgot, those emails were all about Chelsea's wedding.

I hope Trump knows about this guy. Since he likes to double down when he is criticized, perhaps he will up his game during tomorrow's debate and take back what he said about putting Hillary in jail, and call for her public execution instead. That would totally be worth watching! (the debate that is, not her execution, before some of you start accusing me of issuing death threats)

afcjets wrote:

Maybe because she had sense enough to get her own private server and delete 30,000 emails from it even after she was subpoenaed to get rid off any hint of evidence (there is such a thing as a smart criminal). Oh wait I forgot, those emails were all about Chelsea's wedding.

If deleting those E-mails was a crime, then why was she not charged for it? And what about Benghazi? They weren't able to show that she did anything wrong there. What about the 90+ people she's supposed to have killed? (And the same people accusing her of that claim she never created a single job...which one is it?)

DocLightning wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Maybe because she had sense enough to get her own private server and delete 30,000 emails from it even after she was subpoenaed to get rid off any hint of evidence (there is such a thing as a smart criminal). Oh wait I forgot, those emails were all about Chelsea's wedding.

If deleting those E-mails was a crime, then why was she not charged for it?

Maybe because it came out yesterday she was emailing Obama's alias on it, and Loretta Lynch didn't want to make her boss look bad. This came out yesterday but perhaps you don't know about it, I don't believe the Clinton News Network (CNN) reported it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/h ... fbi-228607

DocLightning wrote:

What about the 90+ people she's supposed to have killed? (And the same people accusing her of that claim she never created a single job...which one is it?)

lol I guess hitman jobs don't get counted in employment numbers, I have no clue whether or not she has had anyone bumped off but I think what she did regarding Travelgate as a brand new First Lady is almost as evil, and that is something I do believe. She had the long time White House Travel Director who worked for I believe 38 years for presidents of both parties (there is nothing inherently partisan about that position obviously), not only fired, but framed him for embezzlement and he was facing prison time, just so she could get her Hollywood friend a job without looking like a cold hearted selfish bitch. Thank God the man was exonorated, but she still ruined his life.