Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

wesh.com: Westgate CEO David Siegal Letter to Employees


Fergasun

Recommended Posts

It doesn't happen to me (or your) because we don't troll. Trolling is not the same as "aggressively defending our positions."

Even back in the day when this board was 80 percent conservative and I was one of the two or three active liberals, I never was called a troll.

what defines "trolling" as apart from "defending" in his case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what defines "trolling" as apart from "defending" in his case?

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[3] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[4] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how after being in business for over 40 years, going back to the tax rate of about 10 years ago is "Taxed to Death." Also, if you're worth over a 100 million dollars, why do you have to pull your kids out of private school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like how after being in business for over 40 years, going back to the tax rate of about 10 years ago is "Taxed to Death." Also, if you're worth over a 100 million dollars, why do you have to pull your kids out of private school?

To put a fifth solid gold bidet in your 90,000 square foot mansion? :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Next he'll hire people to protest outside a President Obama rally at 11$ an hour. SEIU Protesters Admit to Being Paid $11 an Hour to Protest Mitt

I just googled "SEIU Protesters Admit to Being Paid $11 an Hour to Protest Mitt"

I'm beginning to understand where Thiebear gets his ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just googled "SEIU Protesters Admit to Being Paid $11 an Hour to Protest Mitt"

I'm beginning to understand where Thiebear gets his ideas.

google search...

Fark.com

Ahhh i get it: Dailycaller at the top of the list returned. Breitbart in there also... good one.

Ignore the fact and go for the messenger.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247237-unions-dig-in-for-obama-despite-deep-disappointment-with-his-record

this better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

google search...

Fark.com

Ahhh i get it: Dailycaller at the top of the list returned. Breitbart in there also... good one.

Ignore the fact and go for the messenger.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247237-unions-dig-in-for-obama-despite-deep-disappointment-with-his-record

this better?

I don't see anything in that article about protesters being paid 11/hr. Not that I doubt that happens. I seem to remember Republicans shipping protesters to FL immediately after the 2000 election. What I do see in that article is this quote:

Labor has been repeatedly let down by Obama, who didn’t put his strength behind legislation that would have made it easier to organize unions and signed trade deals opposed by workers.

No respect for Siegal. I wonder how quick his gold-digging trophy wife would leave him if he quit earning.

Brooks Brothers Riot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's called a playaction. But you can't even get made at those jerkoffs. Nothing pissed me off more than that guy you know or work w/ that defends them while drowning in a quagmire of reality. The reality that the game is rigged. Yet their idealogy or blind alligiance to a political party who's theology does them more harm than help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in that article about protesters being paid 11/hr. Not that I doubt that happens. I seem to remember Republicans shipping protesters to FL immediately after the 2000 election.

The impression I get (and I'm pretty sure is correct) is that the union itself paid the protestors, who more than likely would have been happy to protest anyway. I see no connection to Obama or the democratic party other than a mutual dislike for Romney. So here's the difference....

The union paid willing union people for their time to make a statement. Siegal made an underhanded threat to everyone who works for him to vote in a way that is beneficial to him or they "could" be fired.

I'm not a fan of the union's tactics but they don't even come close to comparing to what Siegal did. DEFLECTION DENIED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He speaks (or equivocates:pfft:)

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/David-Siegel-Anti-Obama-email-wasn-t-a-threat-to-employees/-/1637132/16929310/-/5jsbkyz/-/index.html

David Siegel: Anti-Obama email wasn't a threat to employees

New taxes against CEO or company will force layoffs, Westgate head writes

Human resources experts tell Local 6 that because Westgate Resorts is a privately owned company it wasn't illegal to send out the email. But they also said Siegel could be exposing himself to discrimination lawsuits depending on the outcome of the election.:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in that article about protesters being paid 11/hr. Not that I doubt that happens. I seem to remember Republicans shipping protesters to FL immediately after the 2000 election. What I do see in that article is this quote:

No respect for Siegal. I wonder how quick his gold-digging trophy wife would leave him if he quit earning.

Brooks Brothers Riot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

The First link has protestors admitting to the pay.

The Second link has how hard the Union Leadership is working FOR the President even though they haven't received everything they've wanted.

One is an Asshat with a solid gold ball washer.

the others are acceptable because it promotes the same person you want to win.

you can switch it out both ways be it burgold or Twa or Myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The First link has protestors admitting to the pay.

The Second link has how hard the Union Leadership is working FOR the President even though they haven't received everything they've wanted.

One is an Asshat with a solid gold ball washer.

the others are acceptable because it promotes the same person you want to win.

you can switch it out both ways be it burgold or Twa or Myself.

One is the head of the company. You know, the one who can make hiring, firing, etc. decisions. The other is the head of the union, whose sole power (the union) is to protect the rights of the worker.

Yeah, their equivalent.

:silly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

google search...

Fark.com

Ahhh i get it: Dailycaller at the top of the list returned. Breitbart in there also... good one.

Ignore the fact and go for the messenger.

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247237-unions-dig-in-for-obama-despite-deep-disappointment-with-his-record

this better?

My first hits included The Blaze (Glenn Beck's site), sodahead, belief.net, the treeofliberty.com, the fake Examiner, and a WorldNetDaily spinoff. :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand, what the **** do these people have to complain about? They've had massive tax breaks and corporate profits have gone through the roof. The stock market has doubled since 2009. What else could they want? More tax break money to not spend on hiring?

I was at the Nats game yesterday, and there was a long line to get into the club section, which I've never seen before. But people start getting pissed off, and the guy in front of me goes "Makes sense in this city, they are always trying to screw the 1%"

Somehow the 1% has gone into victim mode? Being the top 1% of Americans means you are somehow being taken advantage of? I'm gonna set aside whether they need to pay more taxes.... they are "always getting screwed" now? Wow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I happen to agree with a lot of what he says.. However he's a douche for saying it to his employees and in the manner he delivered it was unprofessional at best.

This country has become WAAAY too worried about what other people have. I guess it's easier to demand someone else's wealth than make your own? Anyway that's probably for another thread

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country has become WAAAY too worried about what other people have. I guess it's easier to demand someone else's wealth than make your own? Anyway that's probably for another thread

Ummmmm no. I don't want to take someones wealth. What I want is for those who can afford it most with the least impact on their lives to pay their fare share of taxes. What I want is a sustainable economy, not one where the super rich end up with all of the money and everyone else is screwed.

Look at this chart and tell me that the top one percent have worked that much harder or smarter than everyone else. You cant because it simply isn't true. Difference between now and when there was greater equality is that the cards weren't stacked so favorably for the rich in the past. If anyone is taking what others have, it's the ultra rich taking from the less fortunate. They get tax breaks, inside information on the stock market, use lobbyist to gain favorable legislation... all for more and more profit. The biggest funders of the tea party are the Koch brothers who were BORN BILLIONAIRES and complain that poor people get too many breaks.

cbpp.income%20inequality.jpg

But hey, keep swallowing the party line. Those poor billionaires need your help. They need more tax breaks or they will have to start firing people.

And one day when you look around and discover they they have everything and you have nothing, remember this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...