Conservative Catch-All

Thank you @donnie (not sure if I tagged right). It was a major hit to his confidence, but he's actively looking within his company to move to another group. He's a great employee and over the years has "made a name" for himself. So he has a list of contacts he has worked with within his company he's pursuing. His company does multiple reviews each year and he has always gotten glowing reviews along with bonuses and promotions. He never asked for them, so he knows it's not his work ethic. That probably made it worse for him though because he feels like he's been sucker punched. He has great benefits, 6 weeks of vacation and a good retirement so he doesn't want to start over at another company. Plus closing in on 50...it's not so easy out there. He's looking into client facing jobs which are the only jobs not being sent overseas right now. He just wants to make it to retirement!!

Unfortunately this has been the writing on the wall for technology jobs for a while now. This is the #1 reason he encouraged our son to NOT go to school for any technology job. Those jobs will not be in this country in the future.

I agree and am comfortable as well. However, it is a fact that *some* husbands feel they have the right to monitor their wife's vote. I would like to think it isn't common.

Oh I think "the Donald" would "understand" if Melania had voted for someone else!  haha!!

Some good news for a change of pace here:
The Labor Department says jobless claims across the U.S. fell to the lowest level since 1973. 

"Claims at the lowest level in 45 years underscore a persistent shortage of qualified workers that has made employers reluctant to fire staff. Applications for jobless benefits below the 300,000 tally are typically considered consistent with a healthy labor market," Bloomberg News

David Hogg calls for advertisers to punish Laura Ingraham for tweeting what David Hogg, himself said about being rejected by colleges he applied to. She apologized, but he said not good enough, that he needs to take it further.

She didn't say anything hateful, racist or even wrong. Was it necessary? No, but the only objectionable thing in her statement was stating what he himself said and calling it whining. Is a boycott of her really necessary under those circumstances? I don't think so, it's extremely, almost laughably mild. Especially when contrasted to the things he has said, but he insists on continuing shutting her down. Even those generally in agreement with him are saying he's taking it too far. 

What is the go to boycott response to opposing viewpoints in general going to do to political discourse in this country?

It's not even his profanity. It's his message that is so hateful, intolerant and devoid of facts and includes outright lies. Even CNN says they should have corrected all of his lies, but didn't because they didn't want to do that to a "child" and someone who survived a shooting. 

His message is that his "f'in parents" can't deal with technology or democracy so he/they have fix everything and anyone who disagrees with their solution has blood spattered faces and wants dead kids. Oh and that anyone on the air that disagrees with him or doesn't toe the line exactly right must be destroyed. Gee, I wonder why CNN doesn't want to correct his lies. 

It’s the free market at work, Gia. What’s the problem with that?

The problem with that is that if someone is offended by her show or her as a person, then you don't watch or listen, you allow the free market to EVENTUALLY decide if she's worth keeping on. But the effort to silence a voice, to end a career based on something like this sets not only a dangerous, but completely un-American precedent.

You're supposed to counter speech that you disagree with by presenting better reasoning and ideas, not by attempting to silence the offending speaker.

David Hogg's been allowed to publicly level vicious attacks against those he disagrees with, but then hides behind being "a child" and being a mass shooting survivor in order to shelter himself from criticism. Even CNN said that's why they're afraid to correct his lies and inaccuracies. What Laura Imgraham said is absolutely nothing (especially considering she was repeating what he himself said) which is absolutely harmless compared to the vicious attacks he levels against those he disagrees with. For some reason,  he got the idea that he can say whatever he wants, facts be damned, be as hateful and vicious as he likes and no one is allowed to disagree with him. Wonder where he got that idea. 

Hogg demanded advertisers stop advertising with Ingraham's show and many did. But when some wouldn't follow his orders, he published the names and private info of those executives in an effort to bully them into compliance with his demands. That's NOT the free market at work. That's David Hogg on a power trip. 

So, are you now spending your time looking for a transcript so you won't be annoyed?
Then you can see it's the actual truth and not "just because I don't like what the kid is saying".

No.



And when they didn't he attempted to bully them into submission. Again, that's NOT the free market at work. That's David Hogg on a power trip.

Yes, you can find out who the advertisers are by doing a google search, then extending your search for the CEO’s and other powers that be, as well as checking business filing records of each state.

It is all publicly available.

DO NOT attempt to misrepresent what he said, it only shows you trying to discredit opposing views and that you aren't trying to have an honest discussion.

He said that is the one time he corrected him and there were several other times he did not. He chose to correct an insignificant fact and left others to just be out there and influence people with lies. It's really not a surprise from CNN.

Lies? Or mistakes that should have been corrected? There is a significant difference, as a lie means he knowingly said something that was false vs just having a fact that was wrong.

ETA: I just watched the video again. The title is very misleading. At no time did anyone in that video say that the students were lying. They only said they felt like they should have jumped in to correct facts that were wrong. Again, big difference between the two, and there was no context for whether these were minor facts that were of little significance to the topic being discussed or whether they were very important. I am coming down on the side of somewhat insignificant given the one the reporter said was important enough to correct wasn’t something that most people would get too upset about.

It was important enough to Stelter for him to say he was doing it. 

From Ben Shapiro: