Am I missing something or is the focus on whether Obama immediately called it terrorism or delayed calling it terrorism meaningless? Right after the fact, it seemed like the focus should be on the loss of a good man. From everything I read, he was a great American and a great friend to Libya...and his death was/is a big loss. Even if Obama didn't immediately call it terrorism, I don't see what meaning you can ascribe to that. Because he didn't immediately scream "terrorism", that means he is soft? He DID immediately say that we'd go after the killers and that seems like the most important part to me.
In my company we pay based on performance. I couldn't give a gerbil's shit if that person is black, white, male, female, straight, gay, what have you. Why is it the business of the government to ensure people are paid equally? It's in the interest of companies to find the best employees possible and then to pay to keep them.
Why have laws for minimum wage and kids working . . . kids are cheaper and can be as productive if not more productive given thier pay. I am now in a dog eat dog mode. Check your sympathy at the door.
First, four people died. Not just one. However, focusing on Ambassador Stevens, why didn't we protect him after he repeatedly asked for more security? Why was he in Benghazi on September 11th? It's a big deal because the Obama Administration screwed the pooch on this one and then tried to cover it up. In Washington, it's always the cover up that gets you.
You are assuming all companies act like this when the idea of good old boys club and getting promoted for who you know and associate with still goes on to this day. Being gay will hurt you in certain business as not everybody is blind to these things.
I'm not particularly in favor of minimum wage laws. As for child labor laws, I think we should help people that can't help themselves. I don't see women as being unable to protect themselves. In fact, I think it's insulting to imply.
Why would somebody want to work for a racist or sexist even if the government is forcing them to pretend like they aren't?
If women weren't fairly compensated, I could maximize the profits of my company by hiring only one gender. There's a reason they make less.
Good question. I would like to work at a place where there is peace and tranquility . . . why the hell am I working where I am? I would reevaluate life and my job, but with the potential of Romney being president my free advise is to keep the job you ahve until a better one comes, no matter the conditions.
I think we all in agreement. Society, as it stands now, does not promote, elect or compensate based soley on merit. What's your point . . . let me guess. You don't like Obama
well played. fact is that the people that make more in the same position work more. Studies have proven that.
Nothing insulting about not being able to change the establishment. I wish I could but have no problem getting assitance from gov't if there are inequites that I can't change. I know, I know . . . I'm one of the 47%.
that is good advise. some places will not consider a resume that does not show that the person submitting it is employed
Is it fact that if you work more you will be in the "same postion" as someone who got their job through connections?
Good god I hate being for Romeny because I so don't beleive in alot of the talking points that Romeny supporters believe in. Between Romeny and the Blazers, I need to take up some yoga or something. So best i feel good about my decision and let you all talk in black and white. Go Romney . . . I'm out.
