Major Retailer Urges Workers To Take 'Civics Course' With Anti-Obama Content

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Side note - I wonder if the Unions and their anti-Romney/Pro-Obama stuff intimidate anyone?

As a proud union member...

www.sagaftra.org...

I have never been asked to support any candidate, never intimidated and never even asked my political affiliation.

Demonize unions if you must but it's painting with a broad brush; don't you think?

Union members cover a broad spectrum of folks, not just liberal democrats; but we realize in unity there is strength, regardless of our political leanings.

Remember, Clint Eastwood is a member of our Union as was Ronald Reagan.

reply to post by Grimpachi


So your response is memes and such?
Good hell.
On topic, you have issue with a Private Company offering a non-mandatory class that explains the evils of 0bama, yet have no problem with Public schools pushing the idea that 0bama is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Sure sure Mr. Biased, sure sure.

Originally posted by MsAphrodite
Do you have any idea the crap they dish out in the public schools, and on the taxpayers dime?

Do you? I'm really asking.
As a Swede I'd like to know if creationism is back in the curriculum? Or should we all say 'intelligent design' now?
Did gunslinging Jesus ride a dinosaur?
Are teachers paid to say 'trickle down' works? Are gays from satan?


www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Summerian


No, creationism is not in the curriculum, and neither is intelligent design. They teach basic biology, and evolution, but they don't teach evolution as a creation myth, they just teach it as a part of science. I don't think the schools bother with teaching "creation" in any form these days. Why should they? It isn't their role to teach the kids the meaning of life, it is their role to teach them how life survives and evolves and adapts and interacts with the environment.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I would as well but if the class is full of propaganda and it influences voters then I have a problem with it being forced on people by implying there job is on the line if they do not.

reply to post by macman


On topic yes as I said I have a problem with holding ones job hostage till they take a propaganda class that influences their vote as opposed to a singular school possibly influencing children not voting.


If this were a thread about Obama it would be 20 pages deep with 100 flags already so spare me the Bias rhetoric please.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
On topic yes as I said I have a problem with holding ones job hostage till they take a propaganda class that influences their vote as opposed to a singular school possibly influencing children not voting.

Now that is disgusting.
Your statement is wildly incorrect. The course is offered as optional, meaning (Drum roll) NOT MANDATORY.
Plus, any person not agreeing can work else where or just not take the course. The business is a private entity. PRIVATE. No Person is forced via the Govt to go and work there.
No job is held hostage, as again, it is optional.
Optional in participating in, optional in working there, optional in the public going to the business as well.

Yet, so long as public schools, which are funded with tax dollars, are pushing the rah rah crap of 0bama, you are ok with that.

So again, so long as the course or teachings are pro-0bama, you have no issue with it.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If this were a thread about Obama it would be 20 pages deep with 100 flags already so spare me the Bias rhetoric please

As per my first post:

I see this as a form of brainwashing or indoctrination with more than just an insinuation that if they do not take the course there career will go nowhere or go away. IMO.

I find it tasteless to say the least.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
As per my first post:

I see this as a form of brainwashing or indoctrination with more than just an insinuation that if they do not take the course there career will go nowhere or go away. IMO.

I find it tasteless to say the least.

But it is ok within the public school systems.
Or if it favors 0bama.
Duly noted.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
As per my first post:

I see this as a form of brainwashing or indoctrination with more than just an insinuation that if they do not take the course there career will go nowhere or go away. IMO.

I find it tasteless to say the least.

Plus the fact that no where has anyone stated they would or have lost a job or been stifled within the company.

reply to post by macman


I guess you have no problem with this. Talk about Bias.

those who hope for promotions may feel pressure to do so, since it is clear that management is paying attention to who is or isn't taking the at-home classes, which are conducted on the employees' own time

What do you think happens to employees that are flagged from promotion? Do you think they may be the first to go when a company is laying people off? Not in unions I know but that isn’t the case here.

BTW perhaps you missed the part where I put IMO. IMO stand for in my opinion. I know we have had problems in the past because you failed to understand things so I thought I would spell it out for you.

Originally posted by Grimpachi

I guess you have no problem with this. Talk about Bias.

those who hope for promotions may feel pressure to do so, since it is clear that management is paying attention to who is or isn't taking the at-home classes, which are conducted on the employees' own time

What do you think happens to employees that are flagged from promotion? Do you think they may be the first to go when a company is laying people off? Not in unions I know but that isn’t the case here.

So a semantics driven article from a far left wing blog states something, which is not backed up by fact from a source or employee. Nice.
And yes, I do have a bias. A bias towards private companies being allowed to offer such courses, regardless who it favors.
Now, having PUBLIC schools funded via taxes should not be doing so. Teachers are there to instruct Children on reading, writing, arithmetic and science. Not Pro 0bama or Romney crap.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
BTW perhaps you missed the part where I put IMO. IMO stand for in my opinion. I know we have had problems in the past because you failed to understand things so I thought I would spell it out for you.

Yes, I did get that.
Maybe spend less time looking down on people and trying to be cute with condescension, and more time maybe just reading what others retort with.
I get it that you believe you are the superior intellect here. How nice. It is noted as well.

reply to post by macman


Do you even know what logical fallacies are because you keep using them? If you want to debate then debate and stop using them.

The ad hominem ("to the man") fallacy is so common that hardly a day goes by that I don't see someone committing it. This is the basic building block of learning about logical fallacies, so we're starting with a slow pitch right down the middle. If you can't get past this one, you might want to talk to the registrar about skipping the rest of class.

What is it?

"To the man" isn't a terribly descriptive translation, but the full name is "argumentum ad hominem." In other words, arguing against the person making the statement, rather than the statement itself. In modern day, this manifests itself as dismissing information from any source, be it a debate partner, politician, TV network, radio station, Web site, or otherwise. Often this dismissal will point to a particular bias from the source, claiming that it cannot be trusted.

Why is it invalid?

Bias doesn't trump facts. If a biased individual makes a factually correct statement, his or her bias does not make the statement factually incorrect. It's important to look at the statements presented on their own merits. It's entirely possible that bias did influence the statement. Someone could have cherry-picked facts, skewed data, or even just be flat-out lying. But those are all critiques of the statement, not the person. To avoid this fallacy, look at the points presented -- even when it's a source you dislike -- and concede or critique those points themselves.

Feel free to make your snarky comments about how biased the source is, but save it for after you've shredded the argument on its own.

. If you do not like the source then disprove it. Plus a simple search will find other sources.

The secound part of you reply is a mixture of fallacies.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Again, the source did not state they interviewed any employees and was generic in nature for a reason.
There, by any search, has been no reports to the DOL or any Govt Agency in relation to employment, from employees stating anything of the sort.
This is an opinion piece from a left wing site. The only non-opinion parts are stating that there is a course, it is completely voluntary and from whom it was developed by.
The author provides no instance of ever having interviewed any employee, as this would be included to the extent of "An unnamed source", "John was interviewed and stated....." or "Current Employee states".
It is total semantics.


When one source credits from the other, it does not equal to multiple sources.

Now, again, since you like to deflect and attack, let me restate my point.

You, Grimpachi, have issue with a Privately Owned Company, where no one person i forced to work there and/or participate in or with, in offering a voluntary course that paints 0bama in a bad light.

Yet, you, Grimpachi, have no issue with Public School Children, where people are forced to participate in, funded by tax dollars, where the learning is to be preparing for College, with teachers having children learn and sing pro-obama songs and arguing with students when they don't agree with 0bama.

Just to set it straight, please, by all means, while looking down your nose at me, enlighten me if this is correct or incorrect. Because I must be SO dumb as to not have gotten your stance correctly while you spoke at me with such large words and intellectual sentence structure.

reply to post by macman


Sorry I wasn’t trying to use big words it’s just how my thoughts come out.
Did they need to interview anyone? Did the source get the facts straight? That is what is important the facts not what opinion they chose to use. Since you believe opinion is what matters it is my opinion that if a person were to speak out against this and go on record that would endanger their job. Does that make sense to you?

You keep trying to deflect to a school in NJ which I have said that I see a difference between those who can vote being influenced and those who cannot. If you wish to debate whether it was right for them to do so that is a separate issue which I have repeatedly said I will discuss in the appropriate thread but its only purpose here is to take focus off the topic at hand. You have also asserted that my position on NJ is something it is not and have perpetrated this as fact in this thread.

I agree that multiple sources repeating the same line may not be as good as them all doing separate stories but you have not refuted the information with anything that discredits it as untrue.

BTW the last post you made was the best one so far- STAR.

Originally posted by Grimpachi


Did they need to interview anyone? Did the source get the facts straight? That is what is important the facts not what opinion they chose to use. Since you believe opinion is what matters it is my opinion that if a person were to speak out against this and go on record that would endanger their job. Does that make sense to you?

Yes, makes sense but there is no proof of this occurring in this situation. So, back to what ifs and maybes.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
You keep trying to deflect to a school in NJ which I have said that I see a difference between those who can vote being influenced and those who cannot. If you wish to debate whether it was right for them to do so that is a separate issue which I have repeatedly said I will discuss in the appropriate thread but its only purpose here is to take focus off the topic at hand. You have also asserted that my position on NJ is something it is not and have perpetrated this as fact in this thread.

Then please enlighten me.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
I agree that multiple sources repeating the same line may as god as them all doing separate stories but you have not refuted the information with anything that discredits it as untrue.

What proof, look at how it was written and what lacks. Very easy to spot where things were not included.

Originally posted by Grimpachi
BTW the last post you made was the best one so far- STAR.

Ok then.

reply to post by macman

Good no ifs then. Are you of the opinion that there needs to be workers opinions included in the article for it to be relevant.
I did look at how it was written and I am not sure what you are referring to when you say it lacks something unless you are talking about a personal interview as you implied which I do not agree.

Then please enlighten me.

Ok I replied in the appropriate thread where we can discuss that. The link is on page 2 and 3 posts down.