Steam Flyer

Blumenauer owes Sondland an apology

Recommended Posts

IMHO, of course

Tidbit from the Sondland testimony, he has protesters picketing his hotels in Oregon.

This was at least partially due to Rep. Blumenauer calling him out as complicit (there's that word again) in the whole Ukraine scandal, a big donor to Trump, etc etc. I did not hear/read what Blumenauer said specifically so I cannot address who much exaggeration and hyperbole was used, but apparently after Sondland's anti-Trump testimony he then tweeted "welcome to the resistance" to the ambassador.

These picketers may not quite rise to the level of being brownshirt window-breakers but this is going over the line IMHO. The employees and customers of a business have no responsibility for the business owners' politics. They're the ones being punished by this.

- DSK

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this any different than the people that some applauded in here who accosted Republican members when they were at a restaurant with their families?    The calls for those places that served those reps to be boycotted?   The backlash against Chik Fil A?   

I agree with you BTW - I think that the desire to destroy anything and everything associated with something we politically disagree with is wrong, regardless of who's doing it to who. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Is this any different than the people that some applauded in here who accosted Republican members when they were at a restaurant with their families?    The calls for those places that served those reps to be boycotted?   The backlash against Chik Fil A?   

I agree with you BTW - I think that the desire to destroy anything and everything associated with something we politically disagree with is wrong, regardless of who's doing it to who. 

 

Well, one difference is that if (just to give the best example first) Trump walks into a restaurant and one of the wait staff says "Oh did you think you were going to get food here that we haven't all pissed on?" that would be direct. I got no problem with that, although with Secret Service hovering obviously you have to be very careful making sudden moves or potential threatening statements to the President.

Dollars are a form of vote, hell the Supreme Court has officially ruled that dollars are a form of political speech (??!?!?) so obviously it's OK to not buy stuff from people you disagree with. It's a bit of a finer line to not sell to people you disagree with, as a business.

There's a long history of using the boycott to exert political pressure. I think there are some cases where it's appropriate, but this is a long long way from that. It's similar to Trump tweeting unpleasantness about other people testifying.

- DSK

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I think that the desire to destroy anything and everything associated with something we politically disagree with is wrong, regardless of who's doing it to who. 

 

Boycotts are as old as businesses

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Boycotts are as old as businesses

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?   I dunno - I think that time spent hatin' is wasted - and that too many folks are spending way too much time looking for reasons TO hate, rather than moving to an extreme response only after more rational and reasonable attempts to come to an understanding have been exhausted.  But, WTH do I know?  i'm just some anonymous jackass spouting an opinion on an internet forum - I can only control me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?  

Unless of course it's a conservative group boycotting a liberal place.

Sondland is like Trump - a consumer brand asshole who didn't realize his personal politic brand was out of step with his market. Tough shit, bitches, you preach the politics of divisive hate, you reap the rewards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?   I dunno - I think that time spent hatin' is wasted - and that too many folks are spending way too much time looking for reasons TO hate, rather than moving to an extreme response only after more rational and reasonable attempts to come to an understanding have been exhausted.  But, WTH do I know?  i'm just some anonymous jackass spouting an opinion on an internet forum - I can only control me.  

Boycotts for political reasons are perfectly acceptable.  I for one would boycott a business that made cakes for Westbrook Batist Church.  You probably wouldn’t because you  think there are good people on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Unless of course it's a conservative group boycotting a liberal place.

 Sondland is like Trump - a consumer brand asshole who didn't realize his personal politic brand was out of step with his market. Tough shit, bitches, you preach the politics of divisive hate, you reap the rewards.

Of course darlin' whatever you say.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Of course darlin' whatever you say.   

Yeah, I remember all of the righties willing to look past people kneeling before football games too. So was our President.

it's about right for Trump "businessmen" to not understand that affluent urban west coast consumers (the kind of people who pay $200+ for a hotel room) hate trump, or at least realize he's toxic outside of the MAGAverse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?   I dunno - I think that time spent hatin' is wasted - and that too many folks are spending way too much time looking for reasons TO hate, rather than moving to an extreme response only after more rational and reasonable attempts to come to an understanding have been exhausted.  But, WTH do I know?  i'm just some anonymous jackass spouting an opinion on an internet forum - I can only control me.  

just pointing out that there's nothing even remotely new about any of this.  not giving money to people you disagree with is as old as giving money, and advocating for others to support your causes is older than money.  there's only one new thing about all of it, which is instantaneous mass communication. but it's just an amplifier, not a change in activity.

 

hatred is always a wasted thought

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

just pointing out that there's nothing even remotely new about any of this.  not giving money to people you disagree with is as old as giving money, and advocating for others to support your causes is older than money.  there's only one new thing about all of it, which is instantaneous mass communication. but it's just an amplifier, not a change in activity.

 

hatred is always a wasted thought

Yup - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it was a new phenomenon - the only thing I think is new is what you referenced - the mass amplification to a crowd that''s increasingly ready to vilify.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it was a new phenomenon - the only thing I think is new is what you referenced - the mass amplification to a crowd that''s increasingly ready to vilify.  

Go speak to right to lifers picketing, bombing and shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - sorry if I gave the impression that I thought it was a new phenomenon - the only thing I think is new is what you referenced - the mass amplification to a crowd that''s increasingly ready to vilify.  

The effect is bigger, regardless, a boycott is almost always a tiny fraction of people for a small period of time.  Long term targeted campaigns are different, and I would argue are a powerful and necessary right for those living in a market economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Go speak to right to lifers picketing, bombing and shooting up Planned Parenthood clinics

Guy isn't saying it should be banned, just that he doesn't like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Is this any different than the people that some applauded in here who accosted Republican members when they were at a restaurant with their families?    The calls for those places that served those reps to be boycotted?   The backlash against Chik Fil A?   

I agree with you BTW - I think that the desire to destroy anything and everything associated with something we politically disagree with is wrong, regardless of who's doing it to who. 

 

I'm happy to be able to choose to spend my money where I see fit. 

But I can't be bothered to picket. That's stupid.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Boycotts are as old as businesses

Boycotts are different from picket lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:
2 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Boycotts are as old as businesses

Boycotts are different from picket lines.

And there are times / circumstances where it's appropriate; although one issue is that a picket can easily turn into vandalism or a riot.

One of the circumstances that I think make it inappropriate in this case is that Rep. Blumenauer made some false accusations to whip up sentiment  AND it's occurring during Sondland's testimony. In fact partisan Democrats ought to be very angry about it, because Trump's lawyer(s) could suggest, with reason and precedent on their side, that all Sondland's testimony is now inadmissable because it's tainted.

Booing a politician at a ballgame? Boycotting a product you don't like or is produced by means you are against or a business who supports politics you don't agree with... I'd say that's the sound of freedom

Based on deceit? No

Motivated by a politician against a political opponent? Treading very VERY close to the same line that Trump has crossed. Should Democrats boycott Republican owned or Republican-supporting businesses? That's in a grey area but I'd be against it on the grounds that it's far too easy to turn bad.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stayed at Hotel Murano, one of Sondland's places, in Tacoma a couple of times but I boycotted it a few weeks ago. Frankly, it had everything to do with the fact that they had jacked up the price to $350 a night. I know Tacoma is expensive now, but still, that's a quid pro quo that I will not participate in.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Motivated by a politician against a political opponent? Treading very VERY close to the same line that Trump has crossed. Should Democrats boycott Republican owned or Republican-supporting businesses? That's in a grey area but I'd be against it on the grounds that it's far too easy to turn bad.

- DSK

It's not a grey area.

It smacks of Kristallnacht.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, lasal said:

I've stayed at Hotel Murano, one of Sondland's places, in Tacoma a couple of times but I boycotted it a few weeks ago. Frankly, it had everything to do with the fact that they had jacked up the price to $350 a night. I know Tacoma is expensive now, but still, that's a quid pro quo that I will not participate in.

Tacoma?

Expensive?

The last time I was there it was pretty close to crack central.

Lots of refrigerators and dead cars in yards etc.

That was a while back, admittedly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SloopJonB said:

Tacoma?

Expensive?

The last time I was there it was pretty close to crack central.

Lots of refrigerators and dead cars in yards etc.

That was a while back, admittedly.

I think Tacoma is really nice now. Amazing transformation. And I would categorize it as pretty expensive now. I saw some houses I liked and with a water view, they are pricey.

This is a bit silly, but I think of Tacoma as a mini San Francisco due to the steep streets and water front areas. And the sketchy spots here and there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Trump's lawyer(s) could suggest, with reason and precedent on their side, that all Sondland's testimony is now inadmissable because it's tainted.

 

What precedent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

The employees and customers of a business have no responsibility for the business owners' politics. They're the ones being punished by this.

 

They are being punished by having to listen to people express their first amendment rights?  As long as no one is being intimidated or touched, that's the risk of leaving your house in a (purportedly) free country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

They are being punished by having to listen to people express their first amendment rights?  As long as no one is being intimidated or touched, that's the risk of leaving your house in a (purportedly) free country.

Agreed.... as long as... one thing, Blumenauer did not do any of incitement to violence that often accompanies these affairs

It's the risk and hazard of living in a free country but what I'm saying is: this was ill-judged and undeserved. With rights come obligations.

I'm an engineer, you're a lawyer- you tell me, can a witness' testimony be challenged or thrown out if it's obvious they were under duress? I was under the impression that this is not common but is a basic principle.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

can a witness' testimony be challenged or thrown out if it's obvious they were under duress? I was under the impression that this is not common but is a basic principle.

- DSK

First, to answer your legal question, it's exceedingly rare for there to be duress on the witness stand because the witness is safely in court.  If a judge suspects a witness is under actual duress (which doesn't mean what you think it does) or a party alleges duress, the judge may interview the witness privately and find out what's going on.

 

Duress is pressure exerted on a person to coerce that person to perform an act they would not ordinarily perform.  It requires a specific threat to a person's safety, property, or to the safety or property of someone important to the person under duress intended to change the person's testimony.  it does not need to be specifically stated.  For instance "Do us a favor and investigate Joe Biden" would not put someone a ukrainian under duress in the performance of their governmental duties, unless in another conversation that person is told "If you don't do it, we'll let Russia take over your country."

As for the actual initial thesis of this thread, I'd suggest you research the news you hear about before getting bent out of shape, because like duress, it's not what you think it is. The boycott happened in October and is not about what you wrote.  The only thing I found Blumenauer do recently was tweet "Welcome to the Resistance" to Sondland after he drove the bus over the Trump admin. 

Here's what I found in 2 seconds:

In October, Blumenauer called for a boycott of Provenance Hotels, where Sondland served as CEO. Blumenauer said Americans should boycott Provenance properties—including six hotels in downtown Portland—until Sondland testified in a congressional impeachment inquiry.

So was Blumanauer's greeting sincere?

"I think that's probably up for interpretation," says his spokesman, Sean Ryan. "I can't speak to his intention."

Ryan tells WW that Blumanauer quietly dropped his call for a boycott weeks ago, after Sondland agreed to testify.

"From his point of view, this has been over for weeks. The minute [Sondland] testified, it was a done deal. He's moved on."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MR.CLEAN said:

First, to answer your legal question, it's exceedingly rare for there to be duress on the witness stand because the witness is safely in court.  If a judge suspects a witness is under actual duress (which doesn't mean what you think it does) or a party alleges duress, the judge may interview the witness privately and find out what's going on.

 

Duress is pressure exerted on a person to coerce that person to perform an act they would not ordinarily perform.  It requires a specific threat to a person's safety, property, or to the safety or property of someone important to the person under duress intended to change the person's testimony.  it does not need to be specifically stated.  For instance "Do us a favor and investigate Joe Biden" would not put someone a ukrainian under duress in the performance of their governmental duties, unless in another conversation that person is told "If you don't do it, we'll let Russia take over your country."

As for the actual initial thesis of this thread, I'd suggest you research the news you hear about before getting bent out of shape, because like duress, it's not what you think it is. The boycott happened in October and is not about what you wrote.  The only thing I found Blumenauer do recently was tweet "Welcome to the Resistance" to Sondland after he drove the bus over the Trump admin. 

Here's what I found in 2 seconds:

In October, Blumenauer called for a boycott of Provenance Hotels, where Sondland served as CEO. Blumenauer said Americans should boycott Provenance properties—including six hotels in downtown Portland—until Sondland testified in a congressional impeachment inquiry.

So was Blumanauer's greeting sincere?

"I think that's probably up for interpretation," says his spokesman, Sean Ryan. "I can't speak to his intention."

Ryan tells WW that Blumanauer quietly dropped his call for a boycott weeks ago, after Sondland agreed to testify.

"From his point of view, this has been over for weeks. The minute [Sondland] testified, it was a done deal. He's moved on."

 

"Under duress" is clearly the wrong phrase, sorry. Besides it always makes me think of the Groucho Marx's comeback "Under her dress? That's bad???"

Thank you for the clarification

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

"Under duress" is clearly the wrong phrase, sorry. Besides it always makes me think of the Groucho Marx's comeback "Under her dress? That's bad???"

Thank you for the clarification

- DSK

No problem.  Lots of us are only exposed to law via dramas or court tv shows, that's why no lawyers can figure out why Devin Nunes is up there saying shit that has no relationship to his case.  Not a lot of law classes at an agricultural school.  Gym Jordan may be a squeaky, whiny, indignant asshole but at least he has some legal strategy thanks to his stellar education at Capital Law School.

The thing about direct witness testimony is that as long as it is relevant to any part of the case, it is generally admissible.  If it is unreliable, because, say, the witness is being harassed by the public, or has a motivation to lie for some reason (even if it is a good motivation), then the fact finder is free to assign low credibility to that witness.  In this case, Sondland's reversal of previous testimony makes him a liar (shocker), which means the congresspeople should question whether any of his testimony is the truth.  But just because he is a liar doesn't mean he is not telling the truth.

"Tainted" evidence is very specific, and means evidence that was obtained illegally, or evidence that came solely from other evidence that was obtained illegally ("fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine).  So if a cop breaks into your house without a warrant and finds something illegal, that evidence is tainted and should be excluded by a court.  If the evidence they find at the house - say a book with addresses of cash drops - is not used in court but it leads to other evidence that is obtained otherwise legally, that other evidence can also be excluded under the doctrine as tainted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my assumption watching the hearings is that yes they follow procedural rules but the Trumpublicans are going to bitch about everything because they're whiny bitches, it's their brand. They can ramble about anything until their time is up.

Jordan ran into a brick wall today trying to interrupt a witness to contradict him and his time ran out and he -still- kept trying.

Sondland came across as trying to clear things up and avoid getting tagged for lying to investigators. Was he "turned" and giving the Democrats what they wanted? I don't think so.

I also still think that Blumenauer urging a picket of Sondland's hotels is a dick move. Free country sure, and one is free to be a dick. And call it what it is, too.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Yeah, I remember all of the righties willing to look past people kneeling before football games too. So was our President.

it's about right for Trump "businessmen" to not understand that affluent urban west coast consumers (the kind of people who pay $200+ for a hotel room) hate trump, or at least realize he's toxic outside of the MAGAverse.

What's that about? I used to live here 3 days a week. I'm a midwest farmer who does marketing and advertising.
Don't generalize.

image.thumb.png.2822f6be2e25ebe77d7eef86d3e54275.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

 

I also still think that Blumenauer urging a picket of Sondland's hotels is a dick move. Free country sure, and one is free to be a dick. And call it what it is, too.

- DSK

And I think it's absolutely fair to call for a boycott of any business whose owner enables the kind of corruption, cruelty and outright crime perpetuated by the current administration and its many disgraced alumni.  Frankly I would boycott a business whose owner bought an ambassadorship just on the principle that  rich people should absolutely positively not be able to buy positions with the government even if they are eminently qualified, which Gordon Sondland definitely is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

And I think it's absolutely fair to call for a boycott of any business whose owner enables the kind of corruption, cruelty and outright crime perpetuated by the current administration and its many disgraced alumni.  Frankly I would boycott a business whose owner bought an ambassadorship just on the principle that  rich people should absolutely positively not be able to buy positions with the government even if they are eminently qualified, which Gordon Sondland definitely is not.

 

So, you want to move towards partisanizing all businesses in the US? Two parallel economies for Trumpublicans and Democrats? How long before that spirals down into violence?

I agree with you that it's a necessary freedom. I don't agree that it's a good idea in this particular case.

I also agree that Sondland and guys like him should not be able to buy an ambassadorship, but that's been going on for a long time under both parties (yeah, it's worse under Trump). If it makes you happy, he was skating on the edge of the same cliff that Cohen, Stone, etc etc, fell off, and IMHO had one of those AA-OO-GA moments with the eyes bulging out and life flashing before your eyes. If he didn't think Trump was too much of a viper to be in bed with before, he does now. And I hope the lesson is not lost on others

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

So, you want to move towards partisanizing all businesses in the US? 

Why would you think that?

I wrote above that a small fraction of people will ever boycott something, and even in the age of the all-invasive internet, this is still true.  This does not mean I want two separate economic systems.  In fact I prefer having business owners tell the world who they are, because it means I have to make less choices at the store or on a trip. 

People who are figureheads of companies are ambassadors for their brand. If they want to get everyone's money, they should probably not do the bidding of ulra-divisive political figures.  If they want the respect of the general public as a worthy person to spend your money on, they should not purchase important government posts when actual qualified, educated, experienced people are out there.  What a fucking joke. 

Oh, and if you want to be political and you are the publicly facing owner of a retail business, sell it or suck it up, snowflake.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

What's that about? I used to live here 3 days a week. I'm a midwest farmer who does marketing and advertising.
Don't generalize.

image.thumb.png.2822f6be2e25ebe77d7eef86d3e54275.png

Hey, I've stayed in that 3rd room.  It wasn't all that great.  Temperature control sucked.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely if the boss is a liar and a cheat and takes actions against the interests of the Nation then sure - book a room in another building. That is not about politics... it is about ethics

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:

First, to answer your legal question, it's exceedingly rare for there to be duress on the witness stand because the witness is safely in court.  If a judge suspects a witness is under actual duress (which doesn't mean what you think it does) or a party alleges duress, the judge may interview the witness privately and find out what's going on.

 

Duress is pressure exerted on a person to coerce that person to perform an act they would not ordinarily perform.  It requires a specific threat to a person's safety, property, or to the safety or property of someone important to the person under duress intended to change the person's testimony.  it does not need to be specifically stated.  For instance "Do us a favor and investigate Joe Biden" would not put someone a ukrainian under duress in the performance of their governmental duties, unless in another conversation that person is told "If you don't do it, we'll let Russia take over your country."

Think Frank Pentangeli and his brother in The Godfather. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, dylan winter said:

surely if the boss is a liar and a cheat and takes actions against the interests of the Nation then sure - book a room in another building. That is not about politics... it is about ethics

That's what the Trump supporters here fail to grasp. To them it's all about Right & Left.

To the intelligent people it's about Right & Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the comments on the Woodlark Hotel.

It's "optimistic". :lol:

An optimistic hotel - maybe it thinks it'll have a high occupancy rate.

Advertising copywriters are about the only people who can approach a Trumpian level of bullshit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dylan winter said:

surely if the boss is a liar and a cheat and takes actions against the interests of the Nation then sure - book a room in another building. That is not about politics... it is about ethics

 

Except when it's about petty politics and intimidating witnesses..... that was kinda my point.

Freedom to protest and picket and demonstrate etc etc is a great liberty. With rights come responsibilities.

We are on a road to destruction and one way to step on the gas is to cheer for stomping on Trumpublican-owned businesses. Because sure as shit, the brown shirt will then come out in force to stomp on faggot Demtard owned businesses, and the economy is already wobbling anyway.

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Except when it's about petty politics and intimidating witnesses..... that was kinda my point.

Freedom to protest and picket and demonstrate etc etc is a great liberty. With rights come responsibilities.

We are on a road to destruction and one way to step on the gas is to cheer for stomping on Trumpublican-owned businesses. Because sure as shit, the brown shirt will then come out in force to stomp on faggot Demtard owned businesses, and the economy is already wobbling anyway.

- DSK

The concern about turnaround behavior oughta make most thinking people pause a moment, and consider whether or not the form of protest they intend will achieve what they want, while also thinking about how it might be turned around against them, and whether or not they'd still feel like that was a valid form of protest.    

I'm nobody special, but, I think it works a lot better if folks who disagree first try to understand WHY they disagree, rather than starting out looking for ways to destroy the people they disagree with.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The concern about turnaround behavior oughta make most thinking people pause a moment, and consider whether or not the form of protest they intend will achieve what they want, while also thinking about how it might be turned around against them, and whether or not they'd still feel like that was a valid form of protest.    

I'm nobody special, but, I think it works a lot better if folks who disagree first try to understand WHY they disagree, rather than starting out looking for ways to destroy the people they disagree with.  

A quaint old-fashioned notion.... I like it!

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Except when it's about petty politics and intimidating witnesses..... that was kinda my point.

Freedom to protest and picket and demonstrate etc etc is a great liberty. With rights come responsibilities.

We are on a road to destruction and one way to step on the gas is to cheer for stomping on Trumpublican-owned businesses. Because sure as shit, the brown shirt will then come out in force to stomp on faggot Demtard owned businesses, and the economy is already wobbling anyway.

- DSK

this was more than mere politics

 

this was telling lies, stopping govt approved aide, cheating on elections and acting against the interests of your nation

this is not about union representation on company boards, or pre-checks on buying guns or  oil pipelines. this was about undermining your democracy

 

conflating booking a room in another hotel with being a brownshirt is a tad rich

 

 

 

D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 6:52 AM, dylan winter said:

this was more than mere politics

 

this was telling lies, stopping govt approved aide, cheating on elections and acting against the interests of your nation

this is not about union representation on company boards, or pre-checks on buying guns or  oil pipelines. this was about undermining your democracy

 

conflating booking a room in another hotel with being a brownshirt is a tad rich

 

 

 

D

An individual refusing to book a room because of a personal decision, sure.

A company directing that nobody is to do business with a hotel chain because of some social principle or point, OK, with caveats.

A group of people peacefully picketing but not obstructing free passage, sure.

A group of people using their personal opinions/wishes as a reason/excuse to obstruct and prevent people going about their business, no.

Mind you I'm damn sure that you disagree with me on that last point, just as long as the opinion/political point is one that you favour.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

A company directing that nobody is to do business with a hotel chain because of some social principle or point, OK, with caveats.

When there as an employee of company A, or that their staff is never to book there, even for personal purposes?

The former is fine, the latter is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

An individual refusing to book a room because of a personal decision, sure.

A company directing that nobody is to do business with a hotel chain because of some social principle or point, OK, with caveats.

A group of people peacefully picketing but not obstructing free passage, sure.

A group of people using their personal opinions/wishes as a reason/excuse to obstruct and prevent people going about their business, no.

Mind you I'm damn sure that you disagree with me on that last point, just as long as the opinion/political point is one that you favour.

FKT

why imagine what I think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 2:31 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?   I dunno - I think that time spent hatin' is wasted - and that too many folks are spending way too much time looking for reasons TO hate, rather than moving to an extreme response only after more rational and reasonable attempts to come to an understanding have been exhausted.  But, WTH do I know?  i'm just some anonymous jackass spouting an opinion on an internet forum - I can only control me.  

yeah I agree, It's one thing to directly boycott employers for things like using child labour or shitty employment practices or business ethics but it's just not on to punish companies for selling to people we don't like..unless they're Cuban or Iranian.

 

should I use purple? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, dylan winter said:

why imagine what I think?

Your opportunity to clarify your stance and decision to avoid doing so is as expected.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

When there as an employee of company A, or that their staff is never to book there, even for personal purposes?

The former is fine, the latter is not.

Agree, I wasn't clear enough on that point.

I've little doubt that people like Dylan and Meli are all supportive of the Extinction Revolution types who disrupt traffic and block people going about their business, while being utterly outraged about the 'Right to Life' types who block entrance to Planned Parenthood clinics.

Same behaviour in both cases.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 10:31 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No argument - but, the cry to boycott a place because someone you politically disagree with shops/eats/likes the place?   I dunno - I think that time spent hatin' is wasted - and that too many folks are spending way too much time looking for reasons TO hate, rather than moving to an extreme response only after more rational and reasonable attempts to come to an understanding have been exhausted.  But, WTH do I know?  i'm just some anonymous jackass spouting an opinion on an internet forum - I can only control me.  

Ambassador Sondland rather gleefully lied under oath on before Congress-  at least twice.

I call your attention to one Roger Stone, recently convicted for a similar crime. Do you think any of your fellow sailors hanging around this joint would get a free pass to suddenly recall his testimony under oath was incorrect? Smug Mr. Sondland earned the right to have his business boycotted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, saxdog said:

Ambassador Sondland rather gleefully lied under oath on before Congress-  at least twice.

I call your attention to one Roger Stone, recently convicted for a similar crime. Do you think any of your fellow sailors hanging around this joint would get a free pass to suddenly recall his testimony under oath was incorrect? Smug Mr. Sondland earned the right to have his business boycotted.

So did former Senator and Attorney General Jeff B. Sessions.

And I did not get the impression that Sondland was smug, I got the impression that he heard the echo of iron bars clanging in his near future.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He looks kinda smug to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Agree, I wasn't clear enough on that point.

I've little doubt that people like Dylan and Meli are all supportive of the Extinction Revolution types who disrupt traffic and block people going about their business, while being utterly outraged about the 'Right to Life' types who block entrance to Planned Parenthood clinics.

Same behaviour in both cases.

FKT

 please stop inventing what other people think and  the  attacking them for it

it is a very thin form of argument

better to attack them for  what they have written rather than what you believe they think

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2019 at 7:35 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Tough shit, bitches, you preach the politics of divisive hate, you reap the rewards.

Oh, the irony of that.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 2:53 AM, austin1972 said:
On 11/21/2019 at 7:41 PM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

it's about right for Trump "businessmen" to not understand that affluent urban west coast consumers (the kind of people who pay $200+ for a hotel room) hate trump, or at least realize he's toxic outside of the MAGAverse.

What's that about? I used to live here 3 days a week. I'm a midwest farmer who does marketing and advertising.
Don't generalize.

Mismouled fucklet "generalizing" and judging???  Perish the thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now