Ron Paul 2012 Containment Thread

[pvn]

Originally Posted by DVaut1

ITT libertarians get baited into defending David Duke's POV on how to define racism, next chapter of the latest How Libertarians Win Friends and Influence People edition imo

good lord, this baloney again

Originally Posted by pvn

Oh, I see fly is up to the old lunch counter gambit again.

1) yak incessantly about lunch counters until some n00b takes the bait
2) jump up and down "lol marketing problem, all you guys care about is making sure you can can have white only lunch counters!!!"
3) profit

You find a couple of bozos that are willing to roll around in the mud with you and suddenly it's the DEFININIG CHARACTERISTIC of RPbots/libertards/whatever group of the week.

Dvaut, wtf happened to you, you used to be a good poster, now you're abusing statistics to make dumb points about drunk driving, using fly's bag of tricks, etc instead of making decent posts.

[seattlelou]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Because he doesn't have a VP, secretary of defense and deputy secretary of defense who fantasized about invading Iraq ever since Desert Storm. Also he's not a half-wit.

And he didn't invade Libya, which is kind of the point.

Man nobody needed to invade Libya. I think the Iraq war was a mistake (i know not revolutionary thought but I am and R) but we didn't go there alone, 25 countries sent troops. It is revisionist to think this was Bush fetishism.

[Brons]

Yeah, those other countries were just pushing Bush hard on invading Iraq. The pressure from Poland was getting to him and eventually he caved even though he was convinced it was a bad idea.

[TomCollins]

Originally Posted by zikzak

You criticize lawsuits as being the problem.

You advocate individual employment contracts.

Your solution for breach of contract is a lawsuit.

Do I have this correct?

I'm not advocating any solution. People can decide what protections they need. One solution might be contracts in employment. It might not be common or it might be very common. It might look similar today or might be very different. I cannot predict such things nor do I want to even try.

Originally Posted by Vecernicek

Snaggle, are you saying that in this scenario, if the cook's position was easier to fill, you would fire the male, even though he said her accusation was untrue and she had no proof?

I don't think the only criteria is easier to fill. You have to look at what is more likely to be true, and the costs of keeping each person based on it being true and the costs based on it being false.

If the accusation is true, and you keep the guy, he could very likely continue this behavior on other employees and you have to deal with it down the line again. If you keep the woman, then maybe it stops, maybe she gets offended by something else later and just gets easily offended (it really depends on what the accusation is. There's a difference between a coworker groping you and a coworker telling you that you look hot). But you also remove the chance of him doing it again to someone else. The more serious the accusation against the guy, the more benefit there is in firing him (assuming its true).

If the accusation is false, and you keep the guy, business continues as normal as you have removed someone who will create trouble for you. If the accusation is false and you get rid of the guy, you have given more power to a troublemaker who will lie to get her way with the threat of lawsuits. This could be quite expensive to deal with in the future.

It's a really tough call, and while who is easier to replace may come into play. The right play, if you were allowed to actually talk about the issue, would be to see if you could convince one of them to voluntarily leave (help them move to another restaurant). The example here, where there is no evidence, with an improved legal system where it wouldn't be so expensive to defend yourself as an employer, might be to do nothing. That seems like the most fair situation where no one can prove anything and there is no history from either employee.

The other weird thing, is the waitress could be sexually harassed daily from customers yet somehow that would not need special protections, but somehow if they happen to be employed by the same person, it does. I don't understand the difference.

[seattlelou]

Originally Posted by Brons

Yeah, those other countries were just pushing Bush hard on invading Iraq. The pressure from Poland was getting to him and eventually he caved even though he was convinced it was a bad idea.

I think the truth lies somewhere between your post and Suzzer's.

[DMACM]

I dont approve of steam's actions but they didn't occur in libertopia they occurred in the current united states. If it were me in his position is like to believe is make every effort to figure out who was telling the truth as either sexual harassment or slander is very serious. The law here accomplished two things.

1. Steam couldn't really wait it out to get more evidence. To do so he risks a lawsuit for subjecting her to a hostile environment after she reported it.

2. He had to lie about the reasons for firing her or risk a lawsuit.

Arguably the law created incentives here that hurt the waitress. Real harassment shouldn't be able to go undetected for long. Imagine if he fired a waitress then another came forward at thatpoint it would be obvious. Maybe steam doesn't care about women or something and I'm sure misagony would exist in a free market but you can't neccessarily legislate every problem away.

[the steam]

Originally Posted by TomCollins

If the accusation is false, and you keep the guy, business continues as normal as you have removed someone who will create trouble for you. If the accusation is false and you get rid of the guy, you have given more power to a troublemaker who will lie to get her way with the threat of lawsuits. This could be quite expensive to deal with in the future.

Bingo!! It's all about getting rid of troublemakers. Both times I had to do this it was over very minor things,but it showed me alot about what kind of person the accusers were,not the type of person you want to employ. For all you guys saying unfair to females I've fired at least 20 males for inappropriate behavior towards females.

[DMACM]

Steam,
If the accusations were mild then I'm more understanding of your decisions. I think most people have the experience thay the way sexual harassment laws have played out in the real world is to create a sense of fear and paranoia that any remotely suggestive sexual comments might be misconstrued and result in problems.

[LirvA]

Originally Posted by NeBlis

WAT?

There are a metric ****ton of non-smoking places in Chicago and there were in CA before the ban. Smoking bans are way way up on the list of idiotic crap that the government has no business in that markets solve with no problem at all.

This is how the government sickness infects society. You don't like something that only effects you when you choose to let it so you praise the government getting involved. Disgusting

Completely agree.

I am a former smoker, quit probably 6 or 7 years ago. I absolutely ****ing hate cigarettes, they make me ****ing naseous, I hate that when I go to bars to play pool or poker or see music or play music (about to start) I have to breath the ****ing **** in, get the god damn **** embedded in all my clothes, even socks and underwear and my ****ing hair, it's absolutely disgusting. But the government has no business telling people what they can and can't allow in their property, and if someone like myself doesn't like it they can just deal with it or not go to those establishments. Unfortunately there's no smoke free places around here afaik.

****ing hate cigarettes.

[Vecernicek]

Originally Posted by snagglepuss

ver,

in the framework of steams example where:

-both sides are making different claims
-there is neither proof of either side
-a decision must be made to fire one or the other to avoid strife/lawsuits/reduced productivity
-one side is more easily replaced than the other

then i have to say i would not be surprised for the better business decision to be to fire the more easily replaced position. which would be the outcome for corporations seeking to maximize shareholder returns.

do you disagree with any of that?

The bolded seems like something you've added to it (not in any dishonest way, I just didn't think I read that someone had to be fired earlier).

In any case, I'm not a business owner, but I'd like to think that if I was I would have a better solution in place to handle sexual harassment then just making up reasons to fire people.

[Fermion5]

Originally Posted by Fermion5

Rep. Steve King rips Ron Paul, hints at late endorsement in attempt to stop him.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blasted Ron Paul's foreign policy views Friday in an interview with The Hill and hinted that he might endorse someone else in order to try and stop Paul from winning the Iowa caucuses.

King, a conservative kingmaker in Iowa, said Paul's foreign policy views are dangerous and have not received enough scrutiny. He said Paul once told him he wants to bring home all American troops.

"What Ron Paul supporters need to think about if they think they can elect him as president, a commander in chief can order all of the armed forces back to the United States," he told The Hill. "That means no presence anywhere on the globe — our enemies can fill that vacuum with very little resources, and I am very troubled by that.

"I don't think that’s a worthwhile price to pay to get the good things Ron Paul talks about, like deficit reduction. I don't think that's worth sacrificing our national security."

King, who has not endorsed, said that Paul's strong position in the state might make him more likely to back another candidate. He spoke positively about both Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

But wait, there's more!

King Warns GOP: If Paul Wins, ‘Iranian Nuclear Missiles in Cuba’

"If we had a commander-in-chief who pulled back military operations and brought it all back to the United States, and took a position that we would not intervene in foreign conflicts and only if attacked on our shores, there would be a huge power vacuum.”

“That giant sucking sound would draw in the Chinese, the Russians, Hugo Chavez, and others up into our shores and into the Caribbean,” King says, speculating on a Paul administration. “To paint an image of what I think it looks like under a Ron Paul presidency, it would be Iranian nuclear missiles placed in Cuba and Katyusha rockets in Tijuana. Neither of those situations would bother Ron Paul and that’s a calamity, that’s catastrophic.”

[Fermion5]

Ron Paul interview with Bloomberg TV 12/30/11

[Klinker]

Originally Posted by the steam

Bingo!! It's all about getting rid of troublemakers. Both times I had to do this it was over very minor things,but it showed me alot about what kind of person the accusers were,not the type of person you want to employ. For all you guys saying unfair to females I've fired at least 20 males for inappropriate behavior towards females.

What business are you in, and how large is it, that you've had to fire 20 males?

That number of firings is so large for a specific gender, behavior and business that it defies statistics and credulity.

[the steam]

Originally Posted by Klinker

What business are you in, and how large is it, that you've had to fire 20 males?

That number of firings is so large for a specific gender, behavior and business that it defies statistics and credulity.

I own restaurants/bars,and that's over probably a 7 year period. I'm down to only employing about 30 people now,I owned 3 places 2 years ago and the number was around 100 but I've sold 2 since.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Brons

Yeah, those other countries were just pushing Bush hard on invading Iraq. The pressure from Poland was getting to him and eventually he caved even though he was convinced it was a bad idea.

I forget who went to the UN with the yellow cake and centrifuge test tubes. Was that Australia?