Current Events > Now Americans have to swear loyalty to Israel or risk losing their jobs

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
Anteaterking 12/17/18 4:10:43 PM #52:	@Sativa_Rose, you avoided my question. I've worked for government contractors and gone through their legalese training. Government workers and contractors tend to have broader constitutional protections than employees of private companies, outside of specific laws like the Hatch Act. Where are you getting that Sativa_Rose posted... You can get fired as a government contractor for saying s* the government doesn't like, that has always been the case. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:914287524] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote>@Sativa_Rose, you avoided my question. I've worked for government contractors and gone through their legalese training. Government workers and contractors tend to have broader constitutional protections than employees of private companies, outside of specific laws like the Hatch Act. Where are you getting that <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>You can get fired as a government contractor for saying s* the government doesn't like, that has always been the case. </quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MangaFan462 12/17/18 4:12:06 PM #53:	Good? Why would you side with the Hamas terrorists? --- https://i.redd.it/zwfbqetu2b8y.jpg / https://cdn.awwni.me/120ze.png / https://cdn.awwni.me/120w7.jpg https://imgur.com/ft0Sl2D /// MangaFan462 <cite>MangaFan462 posted [p:914287587] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote>Good? Why would you side with the Hamas terrorists?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#54	Post #54 was unavailable or deleted.
averagejoel 12/17/18 4:24:55 PM #55:	Sativa_Rose posted... averagejoel posted... do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? Most of the world's ~194 countries are ethnostates. how many of the world's countries will give you land if you can prove that your mother's ancestors from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have ties there? --- peanut butter and dick <cite>averagejoel posted [p:914288276] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? </quote> Most of the world's ~194 countries are ethnostates.</quote> how many of the world's countries will give you land if you can prove that your mother's ancestors from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have ties there?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/17/18 4:39:06 PM #56:	Anteaterking posted... @Sativa_Rose, you avoided my question. I've worked for government contractors and gone through their legalese training. Government workers and contractors tend to have broader constitutional protections than employees of private companies, outside of specific laws like the Hatch Act. Where are you getting that Sativa_Rose posted... You can get fired as a government contractor for saying s* the government doesn't like, that has always been the case. I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914289098] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>@Sativa_Rose, you avoided my question. I've worked for government contractors and gone through their legalese training. Government workers and contractors tend to have broader constitutional protections than employees of private companies, outside of specific laws like the Hatch Act. Where are you getting that <cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>You can get fired as a government contractor for saying s* the government doesn't like, that has always been the case. </quote></quote> I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/17/18 4:40:43 PM #57:	averagejoel posted... Sativa_Rose posted... averagejoel posted... do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? Most of the world's ~194 countries are ethnostates. how many of the world's countries will give you land if you can prove that your mother's ancestors from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have ties there? I don't know, but I don't think Israel is giving anyone land for free. Israel is allowed to set their own immigration policy and decide who they want to let immigrate and who they don't, however. The same is true around the world. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914289172] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote>do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? </quote> Most of the world's ~194 countries are ethnostates.</quote> how many of the world's countries will give you land if you can prove that your mother's ancestors from hundreds and hundreds of years ago have ties there?</quote> I don't know, but I don't think Israel is giving anyone land for free. Israel is allowed to set their own immigration policy and decide who they want to let immigrate and who they don't, however. The same is true around the world.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GaryGaryGary 12/17/18 4:47:58 PM #58:	It's so funny that America calls itself the land of the free. This doesn't sound like the type of thing a 'free people' would be forced to abide by. Should be land of the cucked. <cite>GaryGaryGary posted [p:914289594] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote>It's so funny that America calls itself the land of the free. This doesn't sound like the type of thing a 'free people' would be forced to abide by. Should be land of the cucked.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 12/17/18 4:54:45 PM #59:	Sativa_Rose posted... I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly. Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses". --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:914289977] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly.</quote> Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/17/18 5:20:22 PM #60:	Anteaterking posted... Sativa_Rose posted... I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly. Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses". There are plenty of examples of this type of thing happening to government employees, too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-removes-teacher-who-hosted-white-nationalist-podcast-n853096 Also read this, it does a good job of explaining: The government cannot easily fire an employee because of their political speech that would mean the government is suppressing what you say and would violate the First Amendment. But government employees don't enjoy total impunity. "There have been police who have been fired for posting racist things on social media," says Nott. In these instances, she explains, the officers raised First Amendment claims, but the government successfully rebutted that because the officers worked in a racially diverse community, their online posts made it harder for them to do their job and harder for the government to do its job. A comparable incident occurred just this week, when a Texas middle school fired its assistant principal, Eric Hauser, after he published a children's book featuring the "popular white nationalist symbol," Pepe the Frog. According to The Washington Post, the school district Superintendent Jamie Wilson released a statement encouraging free-thought and open expression, but said, "When these ideas interrupt the ability to learn, work or create divisiveness each of us is held accountable." In other words, because the assistant principal's actions impeded the mission of the institution, Superintendent Wilson had grounds to fire him. It seems, then, in both public and private spheres, employees can be held accountable for their political speech. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/yes-your-boss-can-fire-you-for-being-a-white-supremacist.html --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914291469] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly.</quote> Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses".</quote> There are plenty of examples of this type of thing happening to government employees, too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-removes-teacher-who-hosted-white-nationalist-podcast-n853096 Also read this, it does a good job of explaining: <quote> The government cannot easily fire an employee because of their political speech that would mean the government is suppressing what you say and would violate the First Amendment. But government employees don't enjoy total impunity. "There have been police who have been fired for posting racist things on social media," says Nott. In these instances, she explains, the officers raised First Amendment claims, but the government successfully rebutted that because the officers worked in a racially diverse community, their online posts made it harder for them to do their job and harder for the government to do its job. A comparable incident occurred just this week, when a Texas middle school fired its assistant principal, Eric Hauser, after he published a children's book featuring the "popular white nationalist symbol," Pepe the Frog. According to The Washington Post, the school district Superintendent Jamie Wilson released a statement encouraging free-thought and open expression, but said, "When these ideas interrupt the ability to learn, work or create divisiveness each of us is held accountable." In other words, because the assistant principal's actions impeded the mission of the institution, Superintendent Wilson had grounds to fire him. It seems, then, in both public and private spheres, employees can be held accountable for their political speech. </quote> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/yes-your-boss-can-fire-you-for-being-a-white-supremacist.html</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Anteaterking 12/17/18 5:39:00 PM #61:	Sativa_Rose posted... Anteaterking posted... Sativa_Rose posted... I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly. Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses". There are plenty of examples of this type of thing happening to government employees, too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-removes-teacher-who-hosted-white-nationalist-podcast-n853096 Also read this, it does a good job of explaining: The government cannot easily fire an employee because of their political speech that would mean the government is suppressing what you say and would violate the First Amendment. But government employees don't enjoy total impunity. "There have been police who have been fired for posting racist things on social media," says Nott. In these instances, she explains, the officers raised First Amendment claims, but the government successfully rebutted that because the officers worked in a racially diverse community, their online posts made it harder for them to do their job and harder for the government to do its job. A comparable incident occurred just this week, when a Texas middle school fired its assistant principal, Eric Hauser, after he published a children's book featuring the "popular white nationalist symbol," Pepe the Frog. According to The Washington Post, the school district Superintendent Jamie Wilson released a statement encouraging free-thought and open expression, but said, "When these ideas interrupt the ability to learn, work or create divisiveness each of us is held accountable." In other words, because the assistant principal's actions impeded the mission of the institution, Superintendent Wilson had grounds to fire him. It seems, then, in both public and private spheres, employees can be held accountable for their political speech. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/yes-your-boss-can-fire-you-for-being-a-white-supremacist.html But you can even look at her case and see that she was specifically in her posts/podcast talking about spreading that ideology to her school and bringing it in to the classroom. And in the other cases, they've specifically addressed how the comments could be connected to harmful practices towards part of the community they serve. The reason this case will get additional scrutiny in a way that a clause stating "You must agree to not be anti-Semitic" would not is that this is specifically designed around the actual nation and government of Israel. You're going to have a hard time making a case that this stance in Texas will impact the people she works with. --- http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b136/Anteaterking/scan00021.jpg <cite>Anteaterking posted [p:914292381] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have a source, but in general, if an employer wants to require something like this, I don't see why it is a problem. People lose their jobs all the time because of something they do or say outside of the workplace. People lost their jobs for supporting the "Unite the Right" rally for example, despite that being First Amendment protected assembly.</quote> Those people lost their jobs because they worked for private companies. There are more legal protections for people who are government contractors or government employees. You're saying "I don't know why the Constitution should apply to the government if it doesn't apply to private businesses".</quote> There are plenty of examples of this type of thing happening to government employees, too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-school-removes-teacher-who-hosted-white-nationalist-podcast-n853096 Also read this, it does a good job of explaining: <quote> The government cannot easily fire an employee because of their political speech that would mean the government is suppressing what you say and would violate the First Amendment. But government employees don't enjoy total impunity. "There have been police who have been fired for posting racist things on social media," says Nott. In these instances, she explains, the officers raised First Amendment claims, but the government successfully rebutted that because the officers worked in a racially diverse community, their online posts made it harder for them to do their job and harder for the government to do its job. A comparable incident occurred just this week, when a Texas middle school fired its assistant principal, Eric Hauser, after he published a children's book featuring the "popular white nationalist symbol," Pepe the Frog. According to The Washington Post, the school district Superintendent Jamie Wilson released a statement encouraging free-thought and open expression, but said, "When these ideas interrupt the ability to learn, work or create divisiveness each of us is held accountable." In other words, because the assistant principal's actions impeded the mission of the institution, Superintendent Wilson had grounds to fire him. It seems, then, in both public and private spheres, employees can be held accountable for their political speech. </quote> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/16/yes-your-boss-can-fire-you-for-being-a-white-supremacist.html</quote> But you can even look at her case and see that she was specifically in her posts/podcast talking about spreading that ideology to her school and bringing it in to the classroom. And in the other cases, they've specifically addressed how the comments could be connected to harmful practices towards part of the community they serve. The reason this case will get additional scrutiny in a way that a clause stating "You must agree to not be anti-Semitic" would not is that this is specifically designed around the actual nation and government of Israel. You're going to have a hard time making a case that this stance in Texas will impact the people she works with.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sativa_Rose 12/17/18 7:17:28 PM #62:	Anteaterking posted... But you can even look at her case and see that she was specifically in her posts/podcast talking about spreading that ideology to her school and bringing it in to the classroom. And in the other cases, they've specifically addressed how the comments could be connected to harmful practices towards part of the community they serve. The reason this case will get additional scrutiny in a way that a clause stating "You must agree to not be anti-Semitic" would not is that this is specifically designed around the actual nation and government of Israel. You're going to have a hard time making a case that this stance in Texas will impact the people she works with. Shrug, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the courts decide. I can see it going either way, but I would place my bets on them ruling in favor of the state. --- [This signature was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator] <cite>Sativa_Rose posted [p:914297947] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Anteaterking posted...</cite> <quote>But you can even look at her case and see that she was specifically in her posts/podcast talking about spreading that ideology to her school and bringing it in to the classroom. And in the other cases, they've specifically addressed how the comments could be connected to harmful practices towards part of the community they serve. The reason this case will get additional scrutiny in a way that a clause stating "You must agree to not be anti-Semitic" would not is that this is specifically designed around the actual nation and government of Israel. You're going to have a hard time making a case that this stance in Texas will impact the people she works with. </quote> Shrug, I guess we'll just have to wait and see what the courts decide. I can see it going either way, but I would place my bets on them ruling in favor of the state.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Serious Cat 12/17/18 7:31:57 PM #63:	Sativa_Rose posted... I would place my bets on them ruling in favor of the state. I wouldn't. The law specifically applies to entities, not individuals. --- I are Serious Cat This is serious thread <cite>Serious Cat posted [p:914298743] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>Sativa_Rose posted...</cite> <quote> I would place my bets on them ruling in favor of the state.</quote> I wouldn't. The law specifically applies to entities, not individuals.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
jumi 12/17/18 7:48:56 PM #64:	sobergermanguy posted... https://mobile.twitter.com/theintercept/status/1074641421502574593 Damn SJWs How is this SJWs? Texas is run by Republicans, and SJWs don't support Israel because of Palestine. --- XBL Gamertag: Rob Thorsman Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robertvsilvers <cite>jumi posted [p:914299637] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>sobergermanguy posted...</cite> <quote>https://mobile.twitter.com/theintercept/status/1074641421502574593 Damn SJWs</quote> How is this SJWs? Texas is run by Republicans, and SJWs don't support Israel because of Palestine.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Antifar 12/17/18 7:51:53 PM #65:	jumi posted... sobergermanguy posted... https://mobile.twitter.com/theintercept/status/1074641421502574593 Damn SJWs How is this SJWs? Texas is run by Republicans, and SJWs don't support Israel because of Palestine. The joke is that Republicans are behaving in the way they accuse "SJWs" of doing --- kin to all that throbs <cite>Antifar posted [p:914299797] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>jumi posted...</cite> <quote><cite>sobergermanguy posted...</cite> <quote>https://mobile.twitter.com/theintercept/status/1074641421502574593 Damn SJWs</quote> How is this SJWs? Texas is run by Republicans, and SJWs don't support Israel because of Palestine.</quote> The joke is that Republicans are behaving in the way they accuse "SJWs" of doing</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ImTheMacheteGuy 12/17/18 7:52:11 PM #66:	averagejoel posted... ImTheMacheteGuy posted... I don't have any strong opinion on Israel one way or another. do you have any strong opinion on apartheid? do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? do you have any strong opinion on fascist governments? do you have any strong opinion on nuclear weapons and who should have access to them? because all of those things are directly applicable to israel Apartheid is pretty lame. I don't generally appreciate ethnostates. I don't like facism, but my open support of antifa here is more to trigger people who bitch about them than it is genuine support. I have concerns about nuclear weapons but I don't expect them to come to fruition in my lifetime necessarily. --- Place-holder sig because new phone and old sigs not saved :/ <cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted [p:914299812] in Now Americ... [t:77310540]...</cite> <quote><cite>averagejoel posted...</cite> <quote><cite>ImTheMacheteGuy posted...</cite> <quote>I don't have any strong opinion on Israel one way or another.</quote> do you have any strong opinion on apartheid? do you have any strong opinion on ethnostates? do you have any strong opinion on fascist governments? do you have any strong opinion on nuclear weapons and who should have access to them? because all of those things are directly applicable to israel</quote> Apartheid is pretty lame. I don't generally appreciate ethnostates. I don't like facism, but my open support of antifa here is more to trigger people who bitch about them than it is genuine support. I have concerns about nuclear weapons but I don't expect them to come to fruition in my lifetime necessarily.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Current Events > Now Americans have to swear loyalty to Israel or risk losing their jobs (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > Now Americans have to swear loyalty to Israel or risk losing their jobs