It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

GoFundMe for Bicyclist who Flipped Off Trump Motorcade Raises $100,000...

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Sorry. I typed that post from memory and found the source later. I didn't mean to misrepresent it; I just remembered it wrong. But my point still stands. Those people got half a million dollars for being intolerant bigots. So I see no issue with this lady raising $100,000 for being fired for something stupid.




posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So with that same logic, do you defend the Nazi Alt-Right guy who was off-duty, not in company uniform, not representing his workplace at all, who got fired for being at the Charlotte rally?

I hope not, but using your logic, he shouldn't have been fired.

See, it's okay for people to be fired if they do something on their own time in a public way that eventually reflects poorly on the company. In fact, that happens all of the time.

And for what it's worth, executives also step down all of the time for a poor choice done in public, even if off the clock.

She may have not been fired for any particular company police--that remains to be seen...do you have a link to the company's policy?--but she was fired for her actions that eventually reflected poorly on the company who is hired by the very government whose president she was flipping off.

 


a reply to: Krazysh0t

Like I said in my initial comment on here, I don't care what these people do with their money, but I certainly don't want any of these people shoveling money her way to be the ones who complain about the affordability of everyday 'necessities' in life if they're willing to support her poor, childish decision that resulted in her firing.


edit on 16-11-2017 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

"Covered Social Media Activity that contains discriminatory, obscene malicious or threatening content"

Flipping the bird is considered obscene and I fully back her right to her first amendment, but like I said her company was smart to part ways with her.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Firing her is on the company. My problem with the company is that they likely weren't consistent with their social media policies. This topic is about rewarding her $100,000 from a crowdfunding site for supporting her actions though. I don't have any issue with that. Just like I wouldn't have any issues with a bunch of bigots funding that guy you just mentioned earlier for having been fired. It's those people's money let them do with it what they please.
edit on 16-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Did you read my whole post or did you just zero in on that one part and not read the rest? Because I posted a few quotes for a reason.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Like I said in my initial comment on here, I don't care what these people do with their money, but I certainly don't want any of these people shoveling money her way to be the ones who complain about the affordability of everyday 'necessities' in life if they're willing to support her poor, childish decision that resulted in her firing.


You do know that she wasn't even aware that the picture was being taken right?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She flipped off the president in a picture that appeared nationwide (prob worldwide). The vp got in an arguement on an internet profile. Two completely diff cases.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: olaru12

Well you didn't build that anyway so....


Right, I started out with nothing and still got most of it left.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She flipped off the president in a picture that appeared nationwide (prob worldwide). The vp got in an arguement on an internet profile. Two completely diff cases.

So flipping off the president anonymously and having your picture taken without your knowledge and later your identity in the photo is doxxed is unacceptable behavior, but literally cussing at someone on social media with your account linking you to your company is A-Ok? WOW! I'm going to call you Mr. Double Standards from now on.

How exactly is calling someone a "#ing libtard" not creating a hostile work environment but flipping someone off is?
edit on 16-11-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
To be honest, If I knew I had a Trump supporter on my payroll, I'd tell them to pack their Sh** and GTFO. I don't trust cultist!!

It's my business, I pay the bills, workman's comp, taxes and run it the way I damn well please.

You got a problem with that?

Sheesh...calm down.

If you use someone's political ideology as a means to hire or fire them, I don't care...but the federal government might.

I wonder, have you ever bitched or moaned over any of these businesses refusing to cater gay weddings, or bake wedding cakes for a gay couple, or don't allow transgender people to use the bathroom of their choice, or any of that? That's a serious question, because it touches on the same issues.

I'm actually a proponent of businesses being able to hire whomever they deem the most qualified candidate for the job free of government intrusion, as well as being able to refuse service to anyone without government intrusion. Of course, that's not how it is in our nation, so whether or not I personally have a problem with how you run your business is irrelevant.

Regardless of all of this, though, please don't tell me that you think Trump supporters are the only "cultists" out there.

Again...take some deep breaths and relax. "You got a problem with that?" isn't exactly an intimidating thing to read on the internet, but it really makes to you seem overly emotional in what should be a relatively calm discussion.

Unless you're a cultist, I suppose.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Then we agree--people can do with their money what they will, just not with protections against criticism and judgment.


originally posted by: Krazysh0t
You do know that she wasn't even aware that the picture was being taken right?

You do know that's irrelevant, right?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
You do know that's irrelevant, right?


Just saying that should be taken into consideration, though the business is the one who should have taken that into consideration. Unfortunately, I think she was politically scapegoated instead while the company hid behind its social media policy.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's really easy to see the difference. The point is she did stupid things and won stupid prizes. Not to mention she's going to have to pay a ton of taxes on that money anyways. Rule of thumb is act right even when you think no one is watching.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Again...take some deep breaths and relax. "You got a problem with that?" isn't exactly an intimidating thing to read on the internet, but it really makes to you seem overly emotional in what should be a relatively calm discussion.


Read my signature, then maybe you'll understand. Where do you think you fit in with that picture?



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

She flipped off the president in a picture that appeared nationwide (prob worldwide). The vp got in an arguement on an internet profile. Two completely diff cases.

So flipping off the president anonymously and having your picture taken without your knowledge and later your identity in the photo is doxxed is unacceptable behavior, but literally cussing at someone on social media with your account linking you to your company is A-Ok? WOW! I'm going to call you Mr. Double Standards from now on.

How exactly is calling someone a "#ing libtard" not creating a hostile work environment but flipping someone off is?


Even if she did flip off the president anonymously, and have her picture taken without her knowledge, you're missing a big part of the story (did you read the OP?):




Briskman posted the photo on her Facebook and Twitter pages



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: avgguy

Lol. I can't take you seriously anymore if you think that calling someone a "#ing libtard" is acceptable work conversation.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Neither of which are linked to her company. But like I said, the company is politically scapegoating her. Good for her to raise money for this company being a collection of dickbags.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's possible, but I don't think that the company is "hiding" behind anything--they don't want the negative publicity from this childish actions of one of their employees (paid for by our tax dollars through government contracts), so the severed ties, probably out of fear of not getting more contracts, too.

I don't think that it was necessarily political except as the politics of winning gov't contracts is concerned.



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not acceptable, but there is clear evidence in her act. Sorry that's the truth. When you get photographed being an idiot and offending a potential 50% of the population you risk alienating 50% of your customers. That's business



posted on Nov, 16 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not acceptable, but there is clear evidence in her act. Sorry that's the truth. When you get photographed being an idiot and offending a potential 50% of the population you risk alienating 50% of your customers. That's business

There is clearer evidence that director behaved far worse and got off with a lesser punishment. Meanwhile, this lady that the company literally had to do detective work to out her on the photo gets the book thrown at her and you don't see a problem? Heh. You probably do think it is ok to call your co-workers #ing libtards. It's plain as day there is a double standard here. Also, if you haven't noticed. I'm not arguing that the company isn't allowed to fire her.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join