Terry Lee is the owner of Cedar City, Utah based forensics company. He joins many other small business employers who are laying off employees to meet the increased labor cost associated with Obamacare. Determining which employees to let go is no easy task for a small business. They are not an invisible face on a spread sheet. They know their employees personally. There is a growing trend in determining who will be let go. Fire Obama supporters. They voted for him and the change he promised to bring. Who should feel the change more than those who asked for it philosophy seems to be growing momentum.
Lee was inspired by another Utah business owner, George Burnett, who runs a smoothie and juice bar. Burnett's policy is to ask liberal customers to pay one dollar more for their drink to cover Obamacare cost. Lee is no supporter of the Obama Administration. He saw the story of Burnett's one dollar policy in the Salt Lake Tribune. So impressed with Burnett's policy, Lee let the following comment:
"Love it. We had to let two employees go to cover new Obongocare costs and increased taxes. Found two Obongo supporters and gave them the news yesterday. They wanted the idiot in the White House, they reap the benefits."
U.S. employees are protected from firing based on race, color, religion, gender or national origin. Only five states California, New York, Connecticut, Colorado and Mississippi include political affiliation in that list. So in the other 45 states, you can be fired for any reason including supporting Obama. Lee states an employee's political leanings are a factor when hiring and firing.
Papa John's CEO John Schnatter warned Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act had a bigger price tag then the public bargained for. Every business will have an increase in cost from suppliers and manufacturers looking to recoup their cost. The incurred cost will be transferred to the consumer, client and customer on every product and service sold. The public will not support raising cost so to stay competitive businesses are cutting employees. Is this sound economics? At this point, sound economics seems to be taking second seat to a political statement. A CEO in Las Vegas fired 22 of his 114 employees singling out Obama supporters as a direct result of the reelection. "Elections have consequences," the CEO said.
Lee's use of "Obongocare" conjures a feel of racism and thereby minimizing any creditability he might have offered. According to Lee his business had slowed. His accountant told him he needed to cut cost to meet increased taxes and operating cost associated with the Affordable Healthcare Act. His foresenic business employs nine after the two part timers he just fired. That puts him well under the minimal 50 employee mandate. Lee deferred all questions concerning his increased cost to his accountant who could not be reached. Lee defends the firings in a statement to the Tribune. "They were Obama supporters. We just knew they were," Lee said. "I implied that sort of tongue and cheek [in the comments section] but there were other issues, too. They were not top performers."
Photo source: Terry Lee Forensics Facebook Page
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 222
Getting fired sucks. I was fired only once in my life when my employer was bought out and the new parent company did an immediate slash on payroll. I was low level management and saw it coming. It used to be said it's business nothing personal but that does not seem so true in this case.
Guess it might ease up when it's obvious as many employers of color are shedding staff too.
Any racism here is in your mind... Not Terry Lee's.
You know what should be added to job applications now? Who did you vote for? lol
vote tempering should have been vote tampering.and I should have been In.
Just own up to it. The first step towards solving the problem is to acknowledge its existence. Denial never works.
Face the facts.
He injects racism into EVERYTHING. ONLY a racist would do that. As a result his comments are WORTHLESS and not worth the effort reading.
That is really too bad because like everyone else he has knowledge to share, but when we need to filter out the tons of GARBAGE to find a RARE nugget, then he is not worth our time.
"GREAT MINDS discuss IDEAS, average minds discuss things, SMALL MINDS discuss people" - Eleanor Roosevelt.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (Henry VI, part 2 - William Shakespeare) Even barrack room lawyers like Rory.
Everything comes down to race for you Rory, you're sick. And boring.
And that is why with everyone you know on the right nobody gives a hoot. Because they have little contact or common ground with visible minorities, and that's the way they like it. The idea of blacks, hispanics and other non-whites is fine with them, so long as they don't have to see, hear or talk with them. But when one is elected POTUS then he must be a fake American, a Muslim, a socialist, a communist, a fascist or any number of other incompatible insults that they feel empowered to use since they have been shamed away from using the word they want to use.
I may indeed be the one Gather commenter who openly discusses race and racism the most. And the reason for this is that I will not let racism go undercover. I will not let coded racism hide in broad daylight. I will not ignore the racist overtones of much of the right wing criticism of Obama.
As I have often remarked here there is plenty of criticism of Obama and his administration that is true and correct, and plenty of other criticism of him that is fair even if incorrect. But most of the criticism of Obama that right wingers employ is racist in nature. It is based more on his colour than his policies.
Yes, yes, yes, they also don't like his policies. But that is not why they pretend he was born in Kenya. That is not why they call him Obammy (mammy), or Obongo (congo), or Barry Soetero, or many of the other multitude of insults they hurl at him. That is not why you see the contradictory accusations of socialism and fascism levied against him. That is not why they began their criticism on or before January 21st, 2009, before he had the opportunity to enact any of his policies.
The reason for all that is racism.
Deny it all you want. Accuse me of being the racist for bringing it up all you want. Ensure each other all you want that it is me and not you.
We all know you are whistling past the graveyard. We all know that you do hate Obama for having the nerve to come up to the big house and be the massah. I know it and, what is more, you know it.
Let us know when you wish to discuss policy as a neutral color instead of using anyone's skin color as a defense. Until then all you do is demean the Office of the President while using racism to extinguish open debate.
Of course it's racism, Rory. A quick Google search makes it obvious.
Twitter user Chimpelle Obongo - "I'm free WHITE and 21. I'm not a racist. N*GG*RS are a sub-species of apes, and are therefore, not human."
Stormfront member Cherry G, back in 2008 - "I think I'm gonna vote for Obongo for President. I think having this creature in the White House will do more to wake up fence sitting Whites than anything else we can do."
White Nationalist blog "Down With Jugears" post headline - HAC On Obongo's "Re-Election" (HAC refers to Harold A. Covington, a white supremacist activist who wants to create a "sovereign, independent white homeland in the Pacific Northwest".)
A New Nation News forum post title - Obongo urges Congress to ban military-style assault weapons. The post includes frequent references to ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) and refers to President Obama as the HNIC (Head N*gg*r in Chief).
And it just goes on and on.
Sure it does, Sue. I can see that so clearly by reading Mr. Lee's comments, as well as posted by members of Stormfront, New Nation News, etc. Not racist at all.
What Lee meant is what I said he meant, and the racists in Stormfront and other White Nationalist posts used it for their racist agenda. Then people like you and Rory show the White Natonalists and racists who are changing what Lee intended with the term, Obongocare, and using it to draw your conclusion that Lee, and everyone else not on board with Obamacare, is not taken with it only because they're racist.
From your examples above:
White Nationalist blog "Down With Jugears" post headline - HAC On Obongo's "Re-Election" (HAC refers to Harold A. Covington, a white supremacist activist who wants to create a "sovereign, independent white homeland in the Pacific Northwest".)
A New Nation News forum post title - Obongo urges Congress to ban military-style assault weapons. The post includes frequent references to ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government) and refers to President Obama as the HNIC (Head N*gg*r in Chief).
Those things are what you would expect from racist blogs and that they took what Lee said and made it what they wanted it to be is no reflection on Lee and what his message was intended to be no matter how much you, Rory and others like you wish it were.
Did he appoint you his spokesperson or interpreter? If you've got evidence to back up your claim that he meant it that way, present it. Until then, I'll look at the way the word is commonly used, as a racist insult, by racist people associated with racist organizations, and interpret Mr. Lee's intended meaning in the same way.
The racist blogs didn't take what Mr. Lee said and change the meanings. They've been using the term for a long time. Since at least 2008.
My point was that your examples of whatever from those racist blogs had no meaning here at all. Yes, they have been saying those kinds of things for many years so why now attribute them to something Lee said or bring them to this post at all?
All those white supremacists websites didn't borrow the term "Obongo" from Lee. In all likelihood that transferance went in the other direction.
The "logic" of saying "People with racist minds will see racism when nothing of the sort was intended, changing the entire meaning too." would be pretty hard to defend. You are claiming that racists are the most sensitive to racism. That is oxymoronic, or at lest plain moronic. Someone who had been subject to racism would likely be the most sensitive to it, not someone who lived and breathed racist thinking. In fact, the racist would likely be the last to recognize it, the last to pick up on statements that cross the line, the last to know where the line is.
But that is what you have me for. To show you where it is and just how far across it you are standing.
To say that people with racist minds will see racism when none is intended doesn't necessarily mean that those people themselves are necessarily all racist any more than it means that people who see filthy connotations in whatever people say means that they're all child molesters or rapists either. What it means is that there are people who associate certain words, phrases, people, things, with other specific words, phrases, people and things no matter what they may really be associated with because that is the one-track their mind is on. There isn't any other possiblity for them to think that someone could mean anything else only because they only think along those lines. You've proven that you're one of those people, whether you yourself is racist or not.
A person specifically looking to make what he said not racist, like you and numerous other commenters here, might want to provide some evidence to back up your claims about his intentions. I can't imagine why you'd think I would acknowledge that there's "a strong possibility" that your interpretation is correct, when the most common usage of the term is clearly racist. To quote Sagan, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." You've offered none.
The examples illustrate the most common usage of the term. It's not like The American Heritage Dictionary is a helpful reference in this particular instance.
It's also kind of interesting that the guy owns a juice bar. Maybe he smokes a bong himself and what he said was sort of an inside joke. You just can't be sure and neither can you be sure that it was a racist term unless that is the only track on which your mind works. Obviously, it is so I'm just wasting my time introducing other possiblities to minds that are completely closed to other valid ideas, or minds that apparently know more about Terry Lee than the rest of the public.
And yet you're so sure that your interpretation is correct that you said "What Lee meant is what I said he meant". Is that meant to show how open-minded you are?
"It's also kind of interesting that the guy owns a juice bar."
He doesn't. That's a different guy.
I've never said anything even remotely like that, so I have no idea how you've decided that that's the conclusion that I've drawn. I suppose, like your explanation about what you think happens when people smoke bongs, you've just made it up to fit the little story you're trying to tell.
"It's also kind of interesting that the guy owns a juice bar. Maybe he smokes a bong himself..."
LOL! So here you are complaining that people like Rory and me will see racism when people use racist language (without, according to you, intending to be racist) because "there are people who associate certain words, phrases, people, things, with other specific words, phrases, people and things no matter what they may really be associated with because that is the one-track their mind is on", and you apparently associate owning a juice bar with smoking a bong? That's hilarious!
In any event, if I can't be sure, you can't either, and my explanation that bong smoking is notorious for thinking up silly ideas and his substitution of letters is the reason for the term is far more convincing to me than you or anyone else saying he's a racist becaus...oh, and why is that, anyway? Oh, that's right, you have no reason except that Obama is part Black.
"There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities."
Colin Powell
Yes, I'm sure your own interpretation is more convincing to you, but since you've offered no evidence to back up your claim, it's not at all convincing to me. Even the juice bar thing didn't work out, since it turned out that was a different guy.
So I'm going to stick with the evidence that indicates that the term is commonly used as a racist term. By racists. Specifically, by white supremacist racists who do in fact use it as a racist, insulting way to refer to President Obama because he's black.
I will refrain, however, from speculating on what percentage of those racist white supremacists may or may not own juice bars, be "into natural things" and like to smoke pot.
The word means fixated on race to me, not just "white" people that treat "black" people badly or whatever . . so yes, to me there seem to be racists whose particular means of expressing their race fetish, is in projecting onto others and calling them racists. It may not be indicative of being among the crazy folks, but it sure does make me wonder at times ; )
It was a bloodbath, Sue. I almost couldn't watch. :)
Furthermore, threatening a person job depending on how they vote or think who they voted for, unbelievable. This on selling a smoothie or a few more pizza for a few more pennies.
If your point involves making such false accusations, I don't think you're likely to be successful at making it. I don't associate everything unequivocally with race. I associate slurs and insults used by racists with racism because that's how those terms are most commonly used.
I have provided numerous examples (and can provide many more) of the term "obongo" obviously being used as a racist insult. If you have examples of it being used in reference to people being "stoned out of their minds", go ahead and post them and I'll be happy to take a look.
This is also not the first time that you've shown me that you are not just familiar with white supremacist blogs like Stormfront, but that you are an avid reader of them. I certainly did not know that the term was associated with those racists until you pointed it out, and it could have easily been a term I might have thought of myself for the reasons I cited so unless I know that someone else is familiar with those white supremacist sites that use that term and that is from where they learned of it, I am not going to accuse them of racism until I know for a fact that is what they meant.
Yes you did. "...some people who are bent on associating everything unequivocally with race, like you and Rory..." Until you provide evidence that Rory and I both associate every single thing, without ever offering any possibility for doubt, misunderstanding or ambiguity, then it's a false accusation.
"This is also not the first time that you've shown me that you are not just familiar with white supremacist blogs like Stormfront, but that you are an avid reader of them."
If by "shown me" you mean "I made it all up in my head", then okay. Otherwise, since you've demonstrated in a previous comment that you know how to do a Google search, then this is BS as well.
"I certainly did not know that the term was associated with those racists until you pointed it out..."
Glad I could provide you with a little previously-unknown information.
"...it could have easily been a term I might have thought of myself for the reasons I cited..."
Because you own a juice bar and like to get high? ;-)
"...so unless I know that someone else is familiar with those white supremacist sites that use that term and that is from where they learned of it, I am not going to accuse them of racism until I know for a fact that is what they meant."
Whatever floats your boat, Sue. I haven't asked you to or expect you to accuse anybody of racism. I hope you understand that while I mentioned those websites because it's easy to do a Google search and verify their veracity and accuracy, use of "Obongo" as a racist slur also happens on social networking sites (I referred to a Twitter account as an example), in forwarded emails, in YouTube videos, and probably even in actual, meatspace, interpersonal interactions. So it's not essential for a person to be aware of those white supremacist sites and for them to learn the term from their for them to use it and mean it in a racist manner.
No, I don't have to provide any such evidence because I already said you proved it yourselves right here, and there are plenty of places where you clearly and unambiguously state that you think this guy is a racist.
"Everything" meant everything associated with Obama, and that was understood that I didn't mean every single thing as in all things at all times and in all places because if that's what it meant then it would also include that you thought each other were racist. Don't be so technical that you get daffy about it.
By "shown" me, I meant that when you were accusing Ron Paul of racism, you also pointed to StormFront and pulled out their several endorsements of him to "prove" that he was a racist candidate. The only time I ever even hear about that site is when you're quoting it. And I don't care about FB or any of these other "social" sites because I had never seen the term used there before either. These sites are rife with MAWr0ns and I don't read much of what anyone on them has to say. As I said, I might have made up that term for the reason I mentioned, never even knowing it was used as a racial slur. Not everyone follows Facebook and Twitter, Will. It might be your world, but it isn't everyone's. As I said, until I know for a fact that he used the term Obongocare for reasons other than how I said I think he associated it, I refuse to accuse him of racism. People like you and Rory may think unequivocally otherwise, and might unequivocally accuse him without knowing that for a fact, though. Mightn't you?
Oh well, hell, if you said we proved it ourselves, then that makes it true. Oh wait, no it doesn't. It's an unproven accusation.
""Everything" meant everything associated with Obama, and that was understood that I didn't mean every single thing as in all things at all times and in all places..."
Then you shouldn't have used the word everything when you made your unproven accusation.
"By "shown" me, I meant that when you were accusing Ron Paul of racism, you also pointed to StormFront and pulled out their several endorsements of him to "prove" that he was a racist candidate."
I've found several discussions where I've talked about both Ron Paul and Stormfront, but I haven't found one where I used comments from there to "prove" that Ron Paul is racist. Refresh my memory, Sue. Got any links?
"And I don't care about FB or any of these other "social" sites because I had never seen the term used there before either."
Whether you care about them or not, and whether you've seen it used there or not, the term is used there, and so it's not essential for a person to be aware of the particular white supremacist websites I mentioned in order for them to learn the term or for them to use it and mean it in a racist manner.
" As I said, until I know for a fact that he used the term Obongocare for reasons other than how I said I think he associated it, I refuse to accuse him of racism."
And as I said, I haven't asked you to, nor to I expect you to, accuse anybody of racism.
"People like you and Rory may think unequivocally otherwise, and might unequivocally accuse him without knowing that for a fact, though. Mightn't you?"
Given that, as far as I'm aware, the most common usage of the term "Obongo" is as a racist insult, I will continue to believe that Mr. Lee used it and intended it to be interpreted in such a manner. If evidence indicating otherwise is provided, I'll certainly take it into consideration. So far, I haven't seen any.
However, in the commentary on Marilyn's post, here,you did just that.
Although, this is another post I hadn't viewed until now, here's a good example too.
This is exactly the kind of thing you were saying to me in the discussions we had, only you also happened to include links to StormFront to show those white supremacists who were supporting him, further corroborating your point and"proving" his racism. The question, "Why do Rand and Ron Paul attract so many WHite Supremacists?" was answered by you "in short" with this: "he attracts them because he represents their views more than other policitians, and because he wants their donations and their votes." If you think he represents their views then you must think he's racist, but a few quotes taken out of context to unequivocally prove that is so is nothing but what I said is indicative of what you do best. That's how you go about proving someone is racist. In essence, it's no different from what you're attempting to do here.
That it's common usage in places you hang out and in "social networking" blogs you read for Obongo to be a racist insult (he used obongocare, and not obongo, anyway which is different in my explanation of why I think it might not have been racist) it's because that is where you hang out and the kind of garbage you read, but not everyone lives in Will's world. If you care to draw narrow conclusions from your narrow world's input to you about life, thinking your bird's eye view of the world at large is so different from anyone else's on here with their own anecdotal stories they think prove things, I can't help you. But to quote one of your expressions, "whatever floats your boat."
So that's another unsupported accusation you've made against me. Do we need some kind of score card to keep track of them?
"However, in the commentary on Marilyn's post, here,you did just that."
In that commentary I unequivocally indicated that Ron Paul is a racist? I'm not even sure that adverb can be used with that verb in a meaningful way, but I'm guessing you could come up with something. And maybe it's meant as some sort of attempt to soften your earlier accusation that I was "accusing" Ron Paul of racism and using Stormfront endorsements to "prove" that he was a racist.
You didn't provide a specific quote used to back up your accusation that I "unequivocally indicated that Ron Paul is a racist, and I made several comments in that discussion, including a fairly long one, so I'm going to try to guess what you might be talking about. Maybe it's where I say "And if classifying people by race is, as Ron Paul asserts, racism, then surely it's clear that he was expressing racist views when he wrote..." and then I quote some nasty, racist statements from one of Ron Paul's newsletters.
If so, I think it's clear that I didn't "unequivocally" indicate (if such a thing can be done) that Ron Paul is a racist. "Unequivocally" means "in a way that is clear and unambiguous; in a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions". The statement I made about Ron Paul was a conditional statement. As in "If A, then B." "And if classifying people by race is, as Ron Paul asserts, racism, then surely it's clear that he was expressing racist views when he wrote..." No unequivocal indication.
"Although, this is another post I hadn't viewed until now, here's a good example too."
This is a good example of me unequivocally indicating that Ron Paul is a racist? I said that he had appealed to white supremacist groups by associating with various neo-Confederate groups, the Council of Conservative Citizens, and by including numerous racist comments in his newsletters.
"If you think he represents their views then you must think he's racist..."
Oh, I must think he's racist because you say so, Sue? That's your evidence to support your claims that I unequivocally indicate, accuse, and "go about proving someone [in this case, Ron Paul] is racist"? How about "he attracts them because he represents their views more than other politicians" maybe because he shares their racist views, or maybe he doesn't and just says and does things that make it seem like he shares their racist views, pandering to them in an effort to get their votes and their campaign donations? Is it possible that that's what I think?
In any case, nowhere in that comment did I accuse Ron Paul of being a racist. I don't think I unequivocally indicated (I'm not sure, because I don't really understand how those two words go together in a meaningful way) that he is a racist. And I didn't quote any comments from Stormfront endorsing him to "prove" that Ron Paul was a racist candidate (the unsupported accusation you made against me in reference to Stormfront and Ron Paul).
"That it's common usage in places you hang out and in "social networking" blogs you read for Obongo to be a racist insult..."
And yet another unsupported accusation. I don't "hang out" in those places, Sue. I simply Googled the term and they were in the search results. I don't think that visiting sites to collect information to present factual evidence to back up statements made in online discussions (something I've been doing for many, many years) counts as "hanging out".
"(he used obongocare, and not obongo, anyway which is different in my explanation of why I think it might not have been racist)"
He used "Obongocare" and he used "Obongo". Go back and read the quote again. It includes "Found two Obongo supporters and gave them the news yesterday."
" If you care to draw narrow conclusions from your narrow world's input to you about life, thinking your bird's eye view of the world at large is so different from anyone else's on here with their own anecdotal stories they think prove things, I can't help you."
My understanding that the most common use of the term "Obongo" is as a racist slur comes from Google searches and other research. If anybody (including you) wants to provide real, actual evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to take a look. So far, nobody (including you) has done so. And you mightn't have noticed, but I didn't ask for your help, Sue.
Wil B. Jan 18, 2008, 4:20pm EST
Quoting another commentator: " Wil, I find it extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters or that he was not aware of what was being put out in his name. In either case, this makes this man the wrong person to be our leader."
You response with my bolded emphasis and name of commentator exed out:
"I totally agree, xxx." [that he's racist] And that's about as clear and unambiguous (unequivocal) as clear and unambiguous (unequivocal)gets.
But then I can see how you can say that your statement agreeing unequivocally that Ron Paul is racist becomes a bit cloudy because juxtaposed is first an ambiguity with the words, "either way," and right after that comes an almost completely contradictory statement that you think maybe he isn't racist, but what he did was evidence of instead a purely mercenary endeavor, and one to gain political advantage which you also say you think is even worse than racism:
"Either way, it doesn't look good for Ron Paul. Personally, I think it was a strategy to make money and build support, but I don't think that's any better, and in some way may be worse, than if he actually held those beliefs himself."
So according to this, I would say unequivocally that it really doesn't matter what you say or what you have said because no matter how clear and unambiguously you make a statement of how you feel about something, you don't have to search very far to find that you don't know what the hell you really think.
First you agree totally that he holds the racist views expressed in the newsletter and that he was aware of that content, and then you say what you "personally" think, something I suppose in your mind dispensed you from having to give any sound reasoning just because it's "personal" though it's shared with the world. (yeah, that's pretty ambiguous) hahaha Anyone reading that can see that you're just grasping at straws to make what you want to believe the truth whether it is or it isn't.
For the third and final time, Will, just because other people use the term "obongo" on the Internet as a racist term, it doesn't mean that everyone has seen that. It is also not the exact term that this man used to describe the healthcare bill. So unless you can prove that he was aware of the usage of that term, "obongo," and had it in his mind to use it the way he had seen it previously, you have no idea whether or not it was the original thought I proposed it could have been, having nothing whatsoever to do with racism except, once again, in your "personal" thoughts about it. That's not to say that those "personal" thoughts of yours that don't need substantiation according to you because they're so generously shared with all of us, and no longer personal, aren't appreciated.
But hey, you found a quote where I said that I totally agree that Ron Paul is racist. Oh wait. No I didn't. You put that part about him being racist in brackets because they're your words, not mine.
I totally agreed that it was "extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters or that he was not aware of what was being put out in his name" and that "in either case, this makes this man [Ron Paul] the wrong person to be our leader" (as in POTUS).
"But then I can see how you can say that your statement agreeing unequivocally that Ron Paul is racist..."
I didn't agree, unequivocally or otherwise, that Ron Paul is racist. You're just making that up, Sue. I didn't happen. The words aren't there, which is why you had to put them in yourself.
"First you agree totally that he holds the racist views..."
Again, it didn't happen. You're making it up.
"For the third and final time..."
I hope so, Sue. I really don't see this conversation going anywhere, with you making all those unsupported accusations against me, claiming I've said things that I obviously didn't, etc.
It's possible that the guy is completely and totally clueless about the term being used as a racist insult. Since that usage is the most common, I will interpret his usage in that manner. If somebody has evidence that he was using it in another way, then I'm happy to take a look at it. So far, nobody has. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, I haven't seen any.
]
You said you agreed totally, Will, with what that commentator said. I only put the words in there to make it more succint, but the words are quoted exactly that you said you agreed with.
I guess we agree on this much: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, I haven't seen any."
If by "pointed out" you mean "made up in my own mind", then okay. Otherwise, this isn't true. I didn't change my mind.
"You said you agreed totally, Will, with what that commentator said. I only put the words in there to make it more succint, but the words are quoted exactly that you said you agreed with."
And none of the words that you quoted exactly, and that I said that I agreed with, were "Ron Paul is racist." Juan didn't say that Ron Paul was racist, and I didn't agree that Ron Paul was racist. I agreed that it was "extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters or that he was not aware of what was being put out in his name" and that "in either case, this makes this man [Ron Paul] the wrong person to be our leader" (as in POTUS). The words you put in there were things that I didn't say, and your claim that I said, or agreed, that Ron Paul is racist is simply and totally false. And it is one of several similarly-false accusations you've made against me, Sue.
Since you seem to have no more to offer with regard to Mr. Lee's comments, are you going to continue with the false accusations against me, or are we done here?
If by "pointed out", you mean "made up", then okay. Otherwise, this isn't true. I didn't change my mind.
"You said you agreed totally, Will, with what that commentator said. I only put the words in there to make it more succint, but the words are quoted exactly that you said you agreed with."
Yes, I said I totally agree with what Juan (the commentator) said. And none of what Juan said included "Ron Paul is a racist". I agreed that it was "extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters or that he was not aware of what was being put out in his name" and that "in either case, this makes this man [Ron Paul] the wrong person to be our leader" (as in POTUS). That's what Juan (the commentator) said, and that's what I agreed with. What I never said is "I totally agree, Juan, that he's [referring to Ron Paul] racist." You just made that up. It's completely untrue and just one of several false accusations you've made against me.
Now, since you don't seem to have anything else to offer about what Mr. Lee said, are you going to keep on with the false accusations against me or are we done here?
Now, if I were to say, as you did, that "I totally agree," it would mean that I were totally agreeing with everything he said in that statement. That means I would be saying I think it's extremely hard to believe (a way of saying that I do not believe, unless I am prone to believing things that are extremely hard to believe, giving me not much credibility) that Ron Paul did and does presently hold racist and anti-Semitic views. That would mean I think he's a racist unless I also think you can hold racist and anti-Semitic views and not be racist.
Is that the reason you're saying you didn't agree with that commentator that Ron Paul is racist? You do think you can say you agree that he has racist views, but that doesn't mean that he himself is racist? That's interesting.
What I found most interesting, actually, even though it hasn't anything to do with what we're discussing here is how I've always seen you as very socialist, anti-capitalist, but if someone up to this point were to have asked me to guess how I think you would have answered one of those would you rather questions like, would you rather racism or capitalism, up until I found that comment of yours, I would have guessed you'd have preferred capitalism, albeit ever so slightly. But I guess not now that I know better:
"Either way, it doesn't look good for Ron Paul. Personally, I think it was a strategy to make money and build support, but I don't think that's any better, and in some way may be worse, than if he actually held those beliefs himself."
I don't know, Will; you tell me. Are we done yet?
"I don't know, Will; you tell me. Are we done yet?"
Apparently not since you're continuing to accuse me of saying something I didn't say, plus whatever this "very socialist, anti-capitalist" crap is meant to be about. It looks like you've run out of steam on Lee's "Obongo" comments, and now you're just making stuff up and falsely accusing me of it. I have no idea how long you plan to continue with it.
Why should I answer your question when it is based on a false accusation, Sue? One of many during the course of this discussion.
First you accused me (and Rory) of being "bent on associating everything unequivocally with race." Evidence to back up your accusation: none.
Then you accused me of being "not just familiar with white supremacist blogs like Stormfront, but that you are an avid reader of them". Evidence to back up your accusation: none.
Then you accused me of "accusing Ron Paul of racism" when I "also pointed to StormFront and pulled out their several endorsements of him to "prove" that he was a racist candidate". Evidence to back up your accusation: none.
And you've accused me of "clearly and unambiguously (yes, that would be unequivocally, Will)" calling Ron Paul a racist." Evidence to back up your accusation: none.
"I asked whether you think you can hold racist views and not be racist. "
Yes you did. And before that, you falsely accused me of calling Ron Paul a racist. Maybe after we finish discussing that false accusation, I'll answer your question.
"So, no, the commentator did not come right out and say that Ron Paul is a racist...."
This is meant to be evidence of me clearly, unambiguously, unequivocally calling Ron Paul a racist, Sue? I'm glad that you at least manage to go so far as to admit that Juan (the commentator) didn't, you know, "come right out and say that Ron Paul was a racist". That's a start, I guess.
But because I agreed with what Juan did say (not what you admit he didn't say, not with what you think he meant, or whatever), you've accused me of clearly, unambiguously, unequivocally calling Ron Paul a racist. That's seriously bizarre, Sue.
"...but he did say that he finds it extremely hard to believe that he doesn't have racist views."
Yes. He said he finds it "extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters, or that he was not aware of what was being put out in his name."
And I agreed. I agree. I find it extremely hard to believe those things.
"I want to know how someone can think it's unbelievable that a person does not have racist views without also believing the person is racist. "
Then you might try asking somebody who thinks that.
"Obvioiusly, you think that's possible..."
Now you're insisting that I think it's possible for someone to "think it's unbelievable that a person does not have racist views without also believe the person is racist"? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.
Juan said that he found it extremely hard to believe "that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters" and I agreed. Neither he, nor I, said anything about anyone thinking that it's unbelievable that a person does not have racist views without also believing the person is a racist. Neither of us said anything even remotely like that.
I agreed (and still agree) that it is hard to believe that Ron Paul did not and does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters. I agreed (and still agree) that it is hard to believe that Ron Paul was not aware of what was being put out in his name.
I do not agree that someone saying that they find it hard to believe that Ron Paul did not and does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters is the same as saying that they believe that Ron Paul must hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters. I even offered another possible explanation -- that he didn't actually hold those beliefs and that it was a strategy to make money and build support.
"...you wouldn't be saying that his statement doesn't say to you that Ron Paul is racist"
I'm saying that Juan's statement doesn't say, to me that Ron Paul is racist because Juan didn't say that Ron Paul is racist.. He also didn't say that Ron Paul has racist views. And neither did I. Yet here you are accusing me of clearly, unambiguously, unequivocally calling Ron Paul a racist. Evidence to back up your accusation: none.
If somebody were to provide clear, unambiguous, undeniable evidence that Ron Paul held the anti-Semitic and and racist views expressed in his newsletters, I wouldn't be surprised.
On the other hand, if somebody were to provide clear, unambiguous, undeniable evidence that Ron Paul didn't hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters, but made it seem like he did in order to pander to those who did hold those views, and to make money and build support, that wouldn't surprise me either.
"Why should I answer your question when it is based on a false accusation, Sue?
Why should I answer your question when it is based on a false accusation, Sue?" I'm sorry, but I fnd this coffee-spitting hysterical.
So can you imagine that Wil is an attorney in court and he's defending his client against a murder charge of which he and his client are contending he is being falsely accused? The prosecutor asks Wil's 'client where he was on the night the murder was committed because he knows he has solid evidence that places Wil's client at the murder scene at the time of the murder. Wil pipes up, "I object, Your Honor, that question is based on the false accusation that my client is a murderer." hhahahahahahahahahaha
I'll be back later, I need to recover from this.
Go ahead and attack me for this comment. As a friend of the King family, all attacks will be view for the hypocrisy they represent.
So I see how in the rest of that last comment you've "choreographed" yourself into dizzying pirouettes because you refuse to acknowledge that you can't possibly agree that someone holds racist views without a belief that the person is also racist.
Your only recourse is to accuse me of falsely accusing you of falsely accusing people of being rascist without good cause, and we see the nonsense that has produced. So, now others have brought in some other ideas here that I'll leave you with. It was fun, though. Thanks.
Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz Jan 21, 2013, 12:06pm EST
So, Wil, the point was that I said you and Rory accuse people of being racist without cause and I mentioned that you had done that with Ron Paul in a similar way that you're doing it here with this person's obongocare statement. I also said that you used in the past with me white supremacist statements from Stormfront to prove that Ron Paul is racist. You want to make people think you don't accuse people of being racist when they aren't. So I found a statement that shows that you accused Ron Paul of being racist, though I cannot find the specific discussions we had right now.
Except that Wil just proved categorically that you did not find statements of his that showed any of the things you allege and that you had to add your own words to back up your claims.
Also your earlier analogy about the murder trial was wonky. A better analogy in a courtroom would be if a lawyer asked: "When did you stop beating your wife." when in fact there was no evidence that one had ever beaten their wife.
No, my courtroom story works just fine and I could have used any question at all because there would be no question that was not based on that accusation. (What an I doing wasting my time explaining beyond your pay grade? It's a holiday, for pete's sake,)
A more appropriate comparison might be where the prosecutor started her questioning by accusing my innocent client of always murdering people everywhere, and then trying to narrow it down with more specific, but equally unproven, accusations after that.
Which I would think (and hope) might result in that prosecutor not only being laughed out of the courtroom, but disbarred, held in contempt of court and (if it were possible, but I'm thinking probably not) in contempt of the entire legal system and process.
Rory's example of the "When did you stop beating your wife?" question is a good one. The question is based on the unproven accusation of wife-beating. Your question is based on the unproven accusation that I accused Ron Paul of holding racist views.
"So, Wil, the point was that I said you and Rory accuse people of being racist without cause..."
No, what you said was that Rory and I are "bent on associating everything unequivocally with race". Then when I challenged your accusation, you backpedaled, saying that "'[e]verything' meant everything associated with Obama, and that was understood that I didn't mean every single thing as in all things at all times and in all places..." Which also isn't true, and for which you also have offered no evidence (nor can I imagine any way that you possibly could. Then you started in with various other false accusations, one after another, with no evidence to support any of them. Including all this Ron Paul crap, where among other things you've accused me of clearly, unambiguously, unequivocally calling Ron Paul a racist. Evidence to support the accusation: none.
"So I found a statement that shows that you accused Ron Paul of being racist, though I cannot find the specific discussions we had right now."
You found a statement that shows that I accused Ron Paul of being racist? Where? If you found it, why haven't you quoted it or posted a link to it or something?
"It's a holiday, for pete's sake"
Ah, so it is.
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
-- Ron Paul Political Report, Feb 1990
No, the point of that courtroom story is that questions such as the one I asked you would have to be based on accusations, Wil, and they would probably be characterized as false accusations by the defendant. My idea of closed caption for the "gist of the joke impaired" is looking more realistic all the time.
When you quote Ron Paul or anyone from a source, you need to link that source. I have no idea whether or not that came from one of his newsletters during the time he was not writing them. But since you saw fit to quote it without context or a link to a source, it would seem to me that it's just another example of you painting Ron Paul as a racist. So thanks for the extra corroboration of my point.
Good. Pretty much everything you've said after your first false accusation against Rory and me has been a load of bullshit anyway.
"...after I've clearly shown how you did..."
Again, only if "clearly shown" means "make it up".
"No, the point of that courtroom story is..."
Is that your question was ridiculous and inappropriate because it was based on a false accusation. You accused me of saying that Ron Paul is a racist. You've offered no evidence to back up that accusation. Because I didn't say it. If I had, you wouldn't need to screw around asking stupid questions, you could simply quote me, and it would be there for all to see. But you haven't. Because you can't. Because I didn't say what you've accused me of saying.
"When you quote Ron Paul or anyone from a source, you need to link that source."
Really? I need to link to that source? Why would I need to do that, Sue? I can link to that source, and if people are unsure if it's a legitimate quote they might appreciate if I did link to that source to save them the terrible trouble of having to type words into a search box and find it for themselves, but none of that indicates to me that I need to link to that source. Especially not because you, after throwing out false accusations throughout this discussion and providing nothing to back them up, says that I need to do so.
"I have no idea whether or not that came from one of his newsletters during the time he was not writing them. "
I have no idea what you mean when you refer to the time Ron Paul wasn't writing his newsletters. Is that just something that you made up, or do you have evidence that there was some time when he wasn't writing his newsletters. Since you saw fit not to provide a link to a source, it would seem to me that it's just another example of you saying something without having any evidence to back it up.
"...it would seem to me that it's just another example of you painting Ron Paul as a racist."
Is that because you think only a racist would say that, Sue?
LOL! Sadly, probably not. So much typing, so little communication.
Why the hell are you trying to play dumb about the newsletter authorship controversy? You know very well what I mean. The title of your own post to which I already sourced and linked for my evidence of the fact that you agreed with the commentator that Ron Paul is racist, is proof alone that you know what I'm talking about. There were a number of years when he left Washington and went back into the private practice of medicine while his newsletter was written by someone else, and you know that; just about everyone who's ever followed Ron Paul, if only just pre-election 2012, knows that so why would you say I made it up? And why, once again, would you say that you have no idea what I mean?
I suspect that you will continue to say you have, though.
No you haven't. You're making that up. I never said Ron Paul is a racist. Every time you say that I did, you're lying.
"...of course, yes, that comment that you landed here with no linked source would be racist all by itself, but I have no idea in what context he meant it if he even wrote it because you provided none."
And you can't Google it, so you insist that I need to post a link?
"There were a number of years when he left Washington and went back into the private practice of medicine while his newsletter was written by someone else, and you know that..."
I damned sure do not know that, Sue. Why do you keep saying things that aren't true? Why do you keep telling lies and making false accusations? I said in one of the comments that I suspected that Paul's long-time friend, adviser, chief-of-staff, etc. Lew Rockwell had written them and that Paul was covering for him. But I don't know that Ron Paul didn't write them all himself.
"And why, once again, would you say that you have no idea what I mean?"
Because I have no idea what you mean when you refer to the time Ron Paul wasn't writing his newsletters. Do you have some sort of list showing which issues or articles were written by Paul and which ones weren't? Can you tell by the month or the year it was written? Do you have a secret decoder ring or something?
You've repeatedly made the accusation, but it's clearly false. Juan (the commentator) did not say that Ron Paul had racist views, and you did not offer any direct quote where he said that.
" You people love to call people racist..."
Yet another unsupported, false accusation.
"...now that I'm saying that you called someone racist it's suddenly like some kind of insult to you."
Because I haven't actually called someone racist in the instances where you've falsely claimed I that I have.
This is the 2nd consecutive morning you've awakened me with a coffee-spitter. So it's incumbent on me to find the source of a quote you provide to make Ron Paul look racist, but when I say that you people love to call people racists and it's common knowledge that anyone who doesn't like Obama's policies has been called racist for that alone, you want me to provide sources with examples. That's really funny, Wil. How do you come up with this material? Have you presented it to comedy writers? You might also want to include a copy of yours and Rory's discussion about reality if you ever end up doing that.
Commentator: "Wil, I find it extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters..."
That means he never thought Ron Paul didn't hold racist views and he doesn't now. The only thing I can say that might make me wrong about your agreement with him is that you just agreed without knowing to what you were agreeing. I guess I gave you too much credit that you knew what you were doing. So sorry I overestimated you. I'd promise never to overestimate you again, but I can't be sure I wouldn't give most people as muich credit as it would take to know with what they were agreeing.
Like I said, that whole post of yours is all about who wrote the news letters and I didn''t bother to read the whole thing, but if there isn't something in that post of yours that states that he was not in Washington DC for a period of years when he says he did not author those newsletters then you've left out a major reason why it's believable.
"In 1984, Ron Paul made an unsuccessful bid in the US Senate race against Phil Gramm, which lead to Tom Delay succeeding him in the House. He went back to his private practice full-time." "In 1997, Ron Paul returned to Congress to represent the 14th Congressional District in Texas..." That's when he returned to DC and it was during that interim of time he was not in Washington that the newsletters contained the controversially racial statements which is why you wrote a post about it. I'm glad I could finally enlighten you to something you should have known and included in your story when you wrote the story 5 years ago.
That's true. And the reality is that Juan did not say that Ron Paul had racist views, and you did not offer any direct quote where he said that.
"Wil, I find it extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters..."
See, nowhere in that statement does he say that Ron Paul holds racist views.
"That means he never thought Ron Paul didn't hold racist views and he doesn't now.
That's not what he said.
"So it's incumbent on me to find the source of a quote you provide to make Ron Paul look racist, but when I say that you people love to call people racists and it's common knowledge that anyone who doesn't like Obama's policies has been called racist for that alone, you want me to provide sources with examples."
I provided a quote. I didn't make any claims about who wrote it. I didn't make any accusations about the author. I didn't comment about it in any way. I just included the quote. And a citation. After making a reasonable effort to verify its accuracy and authenticity.
On the other hand, you've made numerous accusations about me. Should I list them all again, so that they're all in one place? Accusations about me. I don't know who you're referring to when you say "you people". Do you mean Juan, Rory and me? Or are you talking about some larger group of unnamed people? And as far as your comment about anyone who doesn't like Obama's policies being called racist for that alone, unless you're insisting that I was the one calling them racist, I don't see what that has to do with me.
"...if there isn't something in that post of yours that states that he was not in Washington DC for a period of years when he says he did not author those newsletters then you've left out a major reason why it's believable."
I don't see what him being in Washington DC or not being in Washington DC has to do with his newsletters, or how it offers any evidence about the authorship of the newsletters in general or of any particular articles.
Well, when someone, namely you, enters a quote in his comment box exactly in the way I am copying it here below, it wouldn't be clear to most people that you were not at least strongly implying that Ron Paul wrote it.
"Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."
-- Ron Paul Political Report, Feb 1990
I'm glad we cleared up that you meant to make no claim of authorship there, Wil. However, also, since you made a point of asking me whether or not I thought the person who wrote that would be racist, I didn't see any point for you to have quoted it at all if you were just saying it was an anonymous quote. In fact, that would make my other point that it's a racist view, and unless the context were such that it showed a meaning not evident out of context, it would only be someone who is also racist that would hold that view. Once again, however, I'm glad you haven't attributed that quote to anyone in particular as I apparently, mistakenly thought you had.
If you don't understand that going back to TX in 1984 to resume a full time medical practice in TX , a state about 1500 miles away from DC, might very well preclude attention to a political newsletter that has no bearing on his current profession, then it's how you think about someone's attention and devotion to his career, in part. Keep in mind that in 1984 up until the mid-nineties, the Internet and email were not widely used. It's not as if this newsletter would have as easily been approved by him before publication. Since he started that newsletter, it seems he merely turned over its operation without divorcing his name from it. In hindsight, that was probably a mistake because there are people who are very quick to incriminate those they don't like, and not for necessarily any legitimate reason, so if people want to say that he's guilty of racist statements, it's less likely that they would give him any benefit of doubt. It's much more likely that they would use these newsletters to incriminate him even if there is some doubt because that's what they want to do. I think he made a poor decision not to keep close tabs on it, especially if the reason he did not remove his name as editor was in case he might return again to politics and would rather have it remain in circulation to pick up where he left off at some point in the future.
When you found out it was so, you changed your tune. Only when you found out it was true did you contend that it wouldn't have any bearing on his lack of attention to the newsletter. If you really thought that, you would or should have stated earlier that it wasn't true to your knowledge and even if it were true it would not make a difference. You most likely wouldn't have made such an issue of it not being true if you hadn't thought it would make a difference.
Were you one of those kids who often got caught with his hands in the cookie jar, Wil?
Juan didn't say that Ron Paul had racist views.
"However, also, since you made a point of asking me whether or not I thought the person who wrote that would be racist, I didn't see any point for you to have quoted it at all if you were just saying it was an anonymous quote."
I asked you whether or not you thought the person who wrote it after you said that it seemed to you that I posted it to paint Ron Paul as a racist. And again, when I posted it, I didn't say that Ron Paul wrote it, nor did I say that whoever wrote it was a racist. You did. I didn't.
"In fact, that would make my other point that it's a racist view, and unless the context were such that it showed a meaning not evident out of context, it would only be someone who is also racist that would hold that view."
If you're saying that calling MLK Day "Hate Whitey Day" is a racist view, and that you would assume it was meant that way unless someone offered you evidence of it being used in a non-racist way in a different context, then that seems pretty sensible to me. That's what I've done with the usage of the term "Obongo".
"If you don't understand that going back to TX in 1984 to resume a full time medical practice in TX , a state about 1500 miles away from DC, might very well preclude attention to a political newsletter that has no bearing on his current profession..."
They weren't any sort of "inside the Beltway" newsletters, Sue. Have you read any of them? Do you have evidence that they were being written in DC? I've never seen anything about that. The copyright notice on the Ron Paul Survival Report (November 15, 1994, Vol X, No. 11) says it's produced by Ron Paul & Associates, Inc. Houston, Texas.
"Keep in mind that in 1984 up until the mid-nineties, the Internet and email were not widely used. It's not as if this newsletter would have as easily been approved by him before publication."
Well, that might make sense if there were evidence that the newsletters were being produced, or the articles were being written in some far-flung corner of the world, but I've never seen such evidence. And also if, say, fax machines weren't in widespread use at the time.
" Since he started that newsletter, it seems he merely turned over its operation without divorcing his name from it."
Maybe, but I doubt it.
"... I mistakenly assumed you knew he had..."
Now you're mistakenly assuming that I didn't know about his various periods of "non-presence in the District of Columbia." What I didn't (and still don't) know is how there's a connection between the times he wasn't in DC (because he'd lost his seat in Congress) and the times he supposedly wasn't writing his newsletters.
"When you found out it was so, you changed your tune."
My tune hasn't changed. And neither has yours. You're still making stuff up and making false accusations.
Direct from commentator quote: "I find it extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul did not or does not hold the anti-Semitic and racist views expressed in his newsletters..."
Okay, so in your mind (at this moment for your purposes, at least) saying that it's extremely hard to believe that another didn't and doesn't have racist views is not also saying they're racist. Fine, fine, fine. You still did not give me an example of racist views someone might hold without the person also being racist.
I would imagine the reason a person's name was attached to the quote (because it was in the title of the newsletter), is because the publisher wanted to imply that the person wrote it. I would also imagine that's why many of the articles were written in the first person, and some issues of the newsletter (like the Dec. 1990 issue) included things like "My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year."
Since Ron Paul's wife's name is Carol, I wouldn't be surprised if most readers thought it was written by Ron Paul himself. Whether it was or wasn't, we may never know. What we do know is that it was Ron Paul's name on the newsletters, and that Ron Paul was the president of Ron Paul & Associates, Inc., his buddy Lew Rockwell was vice president, his wife carol was secretary, his daughter Lori was treasurer, and that they were pulling in a nice chunk of change. In any case, I posted the quote and a citation, without comment.
" You still did not give me an example of racist views someone might hold without the person also being racist."
Because I never said anything about people holding racist views without being racist. That, again, was your thing. Not mine.
It's just like you didn't "say" Ron Paul is racist, but you agreed with the person who said it's extremely hard to believe that Ron Paul didn't and doesn't have racist views. I ask for an example of racist views someone might hold without being racist and you say you haven't given me any because you never said anything about people holding racist views without being racist. What a foolish answer! I never said you did say such a thing, and you wouldn't because it makes the point. I'm done with you now.
I put it there because it served as a citation for the quote.
"I ask for an example of racist views someone might hold without being racist and you say you haven't given me any because you never said anything about people holding racist views without being racist. What a foolish answer! I never said you did say such a thing, and you wouldn't because it makes the point."
You're asking the question and then getting shitty about it when I didn't answer makes the point that you're just making stuff up and throwing around false accusations, against myself, Rory, and Juan.
"I'm done with you now."
Good. Your wandering around in rhetorical circles spouting false accusations has been as tiresome as it's been ridiculous.
Whether or not there are examples of people holding racist views without being a racist is irrelevant, Sue. Neither Juan nor I accused Ron Paul of having racist views. You have repeatedly and falsely accused us of doing so, but it simply isn't true.
"I'm done with you now."
Obviously.
And while there might be circumstances where it seems sensible to give a person the benefit of the doubt, I don't think bragging about firing people for supporting a particular political candidate is likely to be one of them.
If they do allow for such action I sincerely hope that all you employers who would abuse your power over your staff in this manner are brought before the courts and forced to compensate those wrongfully dismissed in a way that will reward them and punish you. If the punishment is strong enough to actually force your business to fold then, good. Serve you right.
If you try to get something for nothing, you will often get nothing for something.
- mmerlinn
They would destroy you or I or anyone they oppose in a heartbeat...and without hesitation.
Spanky, I am not a hypocrite because you accuse me of doing things. I would be a hypocrite if I actually did things I criticize others for. But, in the real world, a person's is responsible for what they do not for what others accuse them of on zero evidence. You may be confused after long hours watching Fox News or listening to Limbaugh and concluding that making wild-eyed accusations against others amounts to "proof".
That's the same Teresa Wagner who then sued the university for discrimination, won, and now works there as Associate Director of the Writing Resource Center? That must be very upsetting to those who think an employer should be able to legally hire and fire people for any reason or no no reason.
If Ms. Wagner, who had worked for an anti-choice group that fights against the constitutionally-protected right to have an abortion, and advocates forcing women to remain pregnant against their will (National Right to Life Committee), and for an anti-gay hate group (the Family Research Council), was successful in suing the university for discrimination, maybe these workers should lawyer up and do the same.
Renee, is it true that where you live, in New Zealand, it's illegal for an employer to discriminates against an employee because of race, color, ethnic or national origins, sex, (including pregnancy or childbirth status), age, disability, religious or ethical belief, involvement in union activities, sexual orientation, employment status or for political opinion?
I hope you'll think it's just as good if these employees successfully sue Mr. Lee for his obviously-discriminatory employment practices.
It's a real shame that workers in the United States don't enjoy the same protections against discrimination that you receive there in New Zealand, don't you think?
More like the Circle Jerk of Inanity, but whatever floats your boat.
Sometimes you have to be sneaky anymore, we need to apply the same tactics and idea the left uses.
NO...it is not. But then, we all knew that the "healthcare" monstrosity was a lie, and that "sound economics" was the LAST thing that it was.
Any American who believed that this fool could ADD 40 Million to the healthcare rolls for FREE is an idiot...and obviously a Nobama supporter.
Let them feel the pain, and suffer the consequences. Even IF the Economic Lesson is above their pointy heads.
Soon, they'll find out who PROVIDES the JOBS in this Country...and they'll be left to BEGGING them.
You are dreaming. Irresponsible people never get it. They BLAME someone else.
I hear that some of irresponsible even BLAME the government, or the president, or this or that regulatory agency rather that take responsibility for their own failure to maintain a thriving business.
And Jesus just came in kicked over the tables of the merchants and money changers outside the Temple.
Brother can you spare a dime. I got mine and I'm not sharing.
"You're fired" and it makes you feel so good because I saw you smile when the news about President Obama was on the radio.
Now you must swear that you didn't vote for that....blank, blank... in the last election or go through torture.
By the way you know what? You just look like someone who would vote for that ...blank, blank.....you're fried too.
Right-wing mentality for you, real compassion and so-called Christian values........
This sort of garbage is really no surprise. And how do they know you voted any way.
Law suit pending, wrongful firing and that's right, DISCRIMINATION.
And they still can't figure out why they loss. Oh really now, they are just going to fire you from an $8.00 an hr. job because of what? And the Attorney General of the United States is Mr. Eric Holder. Keep on drinking the kool-aid. Don't you just Love it !!
Take TWO.
On TV. several states have this law because if we choose to quit our job, we can do so at will with no notice, so the employer has the same right to fire at will and if someone were to look at what they sign, its written on our applications in this state...
I am real glad that I live in an at will state . This will be fun. There are only a few Obamanites working for me but they have been real vocal about their support for him so they make this easy.
Excellent comment, Richard. And, to be clear, the word these rightwingnuts would insert in the place of the "blank blank" you used is nigger. None of them have the guts to come out and say it or write it, but they are all thinking it. I couldn't care less if they deny it, I know it, you know it and they certainly know it.
That noted, I give my point here to Mark-John for brevity, clarity, and especially humour;-]
He Truly does believe what he believes.
I have no doubt that Rory would change his mind right along with him. Rory, you toe the line.
Every time you draw some conclusion about me or my character from any of my comments, Renee, I am left wondering about your basic English comprehension skills. Clearly you are way off the mark, every time.
Here's some advice from Scottish poet Robert Burns.
O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion:
What airs in dress an' gait wad lea'e us,
An' ev'n devotion!
And to save you making some stupid crack like "Is that English?" no it's eighteenth century Scottish dialect.
Rory, if when you look in the mirror you see an intelligent, articulate, level headed, reasonable guy looking back at you, GET A NEW MIRROR.
"You can tell a lot about a man by the quality of his enemies." ~ Doctor Who!
(He's English, BTW.)
Not that any of you are folks who I would consider enemies. I really don't consider anyone my enemy, but if I had a list of such none of you would likely make the cut. But I do find your low opinion of me to be rather uplifting.
Fire employees for no cause and feel that haven's gate is open to them. I'm waiting for the Rapture to take these right-wing and so called 700 Club members away from this planet.
I wonder if they'll be wearing white robes or hooded cloaks. The master of capitalism at its best, the example of community concern and a loving compassion heart for consumers and their employees. The health of workers and the families, as they'll tell you, they really don't give a ...blah. But you better bring that fetus into the world.
We're not ;]
The rest of them are oblivious. Completely unaware of the rights they violate by mistreating others, completely ignorant of the moral transgressions their bile leads them to commit. And why is that? Why are they oblivious?
Because they are amoral at their heart. They are unable to perceive the difference between right and wrong. This is why they can proclaim to be Christians while acting in direct contravention of all the teachings of Christ. Because they don't understand moral teachings. They don't understand morality. It, like the line they cross, is invisible to them.
I know that you are a Girl of soft and Hopeful Heart. You've not suspended your disbelief of me of this in the past, but I will try once again:
Those that believe as they do are the most stupifying to us because they actually believe as they do. It IS NOT "ignorance;" they (o.k., I will concede, MOST;) really quite DO believe in Marxism, Communism, Fascism. They knew precisely what they voted FOR, and they were FOR it. Remember, Sweetheart, for those VERY FEW who have been duped: it is the responsibility of every GOOD American, as the Founders have charged us, that the only requirement of a Patriot and American is to know Our Country, our Declaration, our Bill of Rights, our Constitution. And to protect our Great Experiment, and our very Ideals as THEY have laid them.
Are you released by the Arresting Officer when you've proclaimed your ignorance of the Law?
As difficult as it may seem to believe, we, as People, are no longer one-in-the-same. We are Patriots, Renee; they are Fascists. They wear our Clothes, they breathe our Air, they shop our Stores...but we do NOT have the same desires.
They desire Fascism.
They desire to be Controlled.
They loathe Individual Freedom.
They desire "equality of outcome."
They desire to rid the World of The Constitution.
We desire Freedom and Personal Responsibility.
They loathe us what We believe.
I'm sorry. It seems that it cannot be so...that it is but one HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING between Lovers.
It is not.
The Dreamers of Marx still live. The Beliefs of Europe/Eastern Europe, the Socialism that has failed them throughout History; the beliefs that have caused nothing but Misery and Death and Suffering...have taken root in our Nation.
Our Great Country has Divided.
That is the Right thing.
Of course, you are completely wrong about what the left/progressive/liberal faction believes in. Not surprisingly. Clearly you do not actually comprehend what the commonly held beliefs of the democratic (small d) left are. Likely you cannot comprehend, as indicated by your confusion between socialism, communism and fascism. Probably why you are blind to the fascism inherent in the Tea Party movement, controlled as it is by the Koch brothers for their own corporatist interests.
But you did get right that we actually do believe the things we believe. You are way off the mark about what we believe, but correct that we do really believe the things we do.
You are also wrong that we loathe those of you on the right, though probably some of us do. For the most part, however, we do not. We loathe the things you stand for and defend, but not you as individuals. Rather we tend to feel sorry for you, being such self-defeating dupes.
You claim to stand for freedom and "personal responsibility", but you fight tooth and nail to serve the interests of your corporate masters who want not only to control you but to own you outright, as property. You do this with every breathe you draw by supporting every policy you espouse.
You are right, however, that this is not one huge misunderstanding between lovers. Rather it is a case of open-minded, compassionate, educated, observant people striving mightily to build a society in which there is equality of opportunity (not of outcome) and fairness and a commitment to not abandon entirely those who fail to seize their opportunities successfully against a closed-minded, judgemental, ignorant, willfully blind herd married to the idea that there was once a perfect past towards which they want to drag society back. Of course, that past never existed and they would drag us back to feudalism.
You do know that the voices in your head are not real, right? Right?
Despicable. Repugnant.
Put your money where your heart is.
Decided being a D/B/A and using independent contractors was the way to go. I do believe I made the right decision.
I am sure you did make the correct decision. You are not shackled by the slavery rules that would be your lot had you not made that decision. Until laws are passed FORCING you which independent contractors that you must hire, you will not need to put up with any of the BS concerning who you hire or who you fire.
Of course Rory would say what I do is racist.
Rory M. Jan 19, 2013, 3:08pm EST
Why would I say that? There was nothing concerning race in your remark.
Wow, now that surprised me. Maybe there is hope for you.
Obama doesn't realize or care his legacy will come at the cost of so many others, and that price is what his legacy will turn out to be, not his stated intent. The unemployment from those determined to do what they have to to keep their lifework, their business, their name, afloat. The bankruptcy from those who comply in fact and spirit to a bill that's fundamentally flawed and destructive.
The government in place thinks it owns the People, it can compel them to keep the promises it makes with legal theft. Here's the fruit. It's only begun.
Which is only what you said, with the best comment on this whole ridiculous board.
Why would any producer, after six months, a year of being told they're parasites, they didn't build anything, put out for these clowns.
Now the plaintive calls for "respect for people with opposing opinions"!? Concern for small businesses!?
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Consumers also have the choice of using their purchasing power to influence the behaviour of companies they feel are doing wrong. So threatening to withhold their commerce from business who advertise on broadcasts they don't like also crosses no lines.
Employers do have obligations both legal and moral to those they employ. So using the power of the employer to punish private political opinion crosses many lines.
Obviously.
What will you make? Fertilizer?
The other thing, aside from the trashy racism issue that nearly always dominates here, is that, no, those laws don't really protect anyone from anything. Age is another thing you left out in your litany, but when an employer fires someone for any of those reasons or doesn't hire for any of those reasons, it's almost imposslbe to prove that it is the reason he or she was fired or wasn't hired. This is why they call a little sampling of those "undesirables" in companies tokens. They represent fair hiring practices when, in fact, if the hiring practices were fair there would be several more of this type of employee.
So all things considered equal, even though the undesirables that fall into those categories you listed can be fired or never hired in the first place, they are often still much better employees, or would be if given the opportunity, than many of those not falling into those categories of employees that remain for years despite lack of any reasonable productivity. You'll find, however, that the laws are just window dressing without any substance when people try to prove them in court.
I don't know if you saw it, but in one of Renee's comments she provided us with the example of Teresa Wagner, who won her case even though she wasn't in one of the states with laws that include political affiliation as a reason for unlawful termination.
Other examples include Mary Jo Davis, who won her lawsuit against Pullman Memorial Hospital for illegally firing her because she was a lesbian, Frank Mahoney Burroughs, who won his lawsuit against AutoZone for illegally discriminating against him for being a Sikh, Vandy Beth Glenn who won her lawsuit against the Georgia General Assembly for illegally firing her for being transgender, and Brandi Cochran who won her lawsuit against the producers of The Price is Right for illegally firing her for being pregnant.
Even in "at-will" states, there are many circumstances in which a termination can be found to be illegal. So while I agree that there are far too many instances in which victims of employment discrimination don't get the help and/or protection they need, I also think it's important to acknowledge the instances where the law does protect people, and does help them in situations where an employer has illegally discriminated against them.
I don't know a lot of the details of Teresa Wagner's case, but maybe her victory offers some hope that these people fired by Terry Lee might win a similar lawsuit.
And in the second place, this is a big reason that in most cases these kinds of suits go nowhere and don't even get started. "Political discrimination is difficult to prove because employers can generally point to multiple other factors they can say their decision was based on..." And you can substitute political discrimination with age, race, gender discrimination, etc. because they can always find something else to blame. I don't see any update to that story of the trial that ended in November so I guess she won on the appeal according to what you're saying, but she lost the trial. Have you found a more current article about the oucome of this case?
I agree that in many cases it's very hard to prove the discrimination. Further up in the comments there's someone bragging about how his friend finds "loopholes" to circumvent the law when he's discriminating against prospective renters he considers "undesirables". And at the end of the day, the law generally can't help you if you can't produce evidence to back up your claims. But, as the examples I've provided indicate, sometimes the laws do provide protection against illegal discrimination and dismissal, even in at-will states.
"Have you found a more current article about the oucome of this case?"
No, I haven't. As I said, I don't know a lot of details about it, and I admit that I thought it was all over and that she'd won. But maybe not, and it's still an ongoing thing.
In that lesbian discrimination case, for instance, that's because it's a hot topic, but if she had just been a straight woman trying to prove gender discrimination, it most likely wouldn't have ever been brought to court. And it's pretty much the same for the transgender case. It's something out of the ordinary so there are not thousands of suits that have a potential to be filed. For age discrimination alone, the number of legitimate lawsuits that could be filed if states that had those laws enforced them, and if the litigants had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, they'd have to open up dozens of new court facilities and practically start appointing the clerks to be judges.
I agree that the law often offers little protection for workers who've been fired due to such discrimination.
I agree that in far too many cases, there's no solid evidence to prove that the reason for termination was illegal discrimination. That sucks, but I understand that the legal system can't help you if you can't provide sufficient evidence to back up your claims.
I agree that gender and age discrimination (and racial discrimination, even though you didn't mention it, and I'm aware that my doing so may lead to another accusation that I am bent on associating everything unequivocally with race) are huge problems, and that it's highly unlikely that the judicial system would ever be able to handle all their cases, if they were ever filed.
I think it's a bummer that anti-discrimination laws don't provide protection against every instance where somebody fires an otherwise-suitable employee because of discrimination, whether it's based on gender, age, race, sexual preference, disability, political views, etc. Law or no law, I think it's a bummer that people will fire otherwise-suitable employees because of discrimination like that. I think it's good that, despite the objections of "free market capitalists", there are laws that at least try to protect people from crap like that.
And I think it's good that, even though the laws don't help every victim of such discrimination, it helps some. Like Mary Jo David and Frank Mahoney Burroughs. And I hope that they might help some of these people who are reportedly being fired for their political views by people like Terry Lee.
(My "etc." in my comment included racist discrimination as well as religious discrimination without naming them. So don't feel that I left out your favorite subject there because I did not.)
Ah. That's good. I thought maybe you were moving toward the notion that since they're "largely ineffective", they might as well be done away with. I'm glad that's not the case.
I understand that some people oppose the notion of anti-discrimination laws that apply to the private sector. I thought you might be heading in that direction. I'm glad to see (if I understand you correctly) that you weren't, and that we agree on the need for laws against discrimination in the workplace.
Thank you for your interest in Terry Lee Forensics.
If you have reached this site due to the erroneous newspaper article originating in the Salt Lake Tribune, here are some interesting facts regarding the article:
1. I am the sole-proprietor of this business and I have no employees.
2. For a number of years I have been performing digital forensics as a sole operator Private Investigator in the state of Utah.
3. I have decided to expand operations outside the state of Utah by starting this company.
4. I have no employees.
5. I would never fire anyone based on how they vote. Voting in this country is a right we should all be proud to exercise.
6. I do not use any accounting services, yet.
I realize we all tend to believe the printed word, however, sometimes things are not as they appear.
I sent in inquiry to the journalist from the Salt Lake Tribune. I did not see any retraction, apology, update or correction to the original story. I will let you know if he responds.