The Counterfeiter
Nitro Member
For requiring employees to SPEAK ENGLISH! It's just unreal that our government is attacking an organization that has worked so hard for so long to help our underpriviledged citizens. I am disgusted! - Jim
Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Feds sue the Salvation Army!
- Thread starter The Counterfeiter
- Start date
Sure it is.
I mean, everything that has happened in the last 8 years is the Dems fault.
No doubt Pelosi is driving around, tutoring Spanish, and driving a semi full of workers across the boarder on Saturdays.
Dems fault. Wash, rinse, repeat. Dems fault.
Good thing they will correct things in 2008 when they have the trifecta.
Dont donate this year.
.
Nitro Member
OpinionJournal - John Fund on the TrailSure it is.
I mean, everything that has happened in the last 8 years is the Dems fault.
No doubt Pelosi is driving around, tutoring Spanish, and driving a semi full of workers across the boarder on Saturdays.
Dems fault. Wash, rinse, repeat. Dems fault.
Good thing they will correct things in 2008 when they have the trifecta.
Nancy Pelosi tries to force the Salvation Army to hire people who can't speak English.
none
Nitro Member
Do you mean donate to the Democrat party?
Never have, NEVER will...
If you mean refrain from donating to the Salvation Army, well, that sure is a compassionate viewpoint. Not at all within the "caring" image that liberals like to project. Is that what you actually advise???
Or are you like most liberals who would rather take others money and redistribute same, under the guise of compassion and help for those less fortunate? Instead of letting ME decide who needs help, and giving accordingly?
There was a recent story about how conservatives donate much more to charities than liberals. Why is that, I wonder?
The left (ACLU, etc.) has gone so far as to try to prohibit the Salvation Army from solicitating for donations, or even ringing their bells in public. Oh, they couch all their attempts with "separation of church", etc., but make no mistake, it about total control. Slowly, but surely.
Now they want to tell businesses they can't run their company (already under many onerous "laws") as they see fit, and they can't have rules about what language is allowed at work.
"It isn't fair', "discrimination", "racist" "waaa"...
Give me a friggin' break already...
Geez...
Sorry for the rant; this stuff just p#sses me of...
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
This is why I support the move to making english the official language of the US. I'm a dem, by the way.
BTW, and this is a neutral "outsider's view:" the reason why Pelosi moved to kill the amendment is because english is NOT the official language of the US as of yet, so why should employers require it?
The only reason why it will not be any time soon is because the moment a politician announces his/her support for it, there goes the hispanic vote.
BTW, and this is a neutral "outsider's view:" the reason why Pelosi moved to kill the amendment is because english is NOT the official language of the US as of yet, so why should employers require it?
The only reason why it will not be any time soon is because the moment a politician announces his/her support for it, there goes the hispanic vote.
none
Nitro Member
Sam,
I certainly didn't mean to imply that being a Democrat, in and of itself, is a bad thing. And I hope you didn't take it as such. There is room in this great country for all viewpoints to be expressed, and heard. I do have a major problem with the far left taking over the Democratic Party. I highly recommend Zell Millers book "A National Party No More", among others.
I, too, think we need an "official" language.
However, I don't understand your logic.
Just because the Federal Government hasn't designated English as the official language, why should that preclude a small business owner (or corp or non-profit) from doing so?
As a business owner, how can I run my company efficiently if I can't understand my employess? Futhermore, what business is it of the government how I run my company, as long as compliant with current law?
The only vested interest the govenment has in any company is the amount of taxes it can collect.
If the laws become so onerous that a company can't make a profit, then it will just go out of business, and the government will get NO taxes.
IMO, this is not any business of the government.
It is also my opinion that illegal immigration, and all it's attendant problems, will be one of the real hot issues in the next election. The politicians (on both sides) will begin to see the groundswell of opposition in the country, and all the pandering will begin to stop.
From article linked in a post above:
Last edited:
d'kid
Nitro Member
I have to donate every year to the Feds, are we Living in 1984 or Animal Farm? What's next out of DC, Fahrenheit 451?
I thought we were talking about the Salvation Army.
That donation is a choice, not a requirement.
d'kid
Nitro Member
Donating To The Feds is a requirement every year on April 15th...
We were... Talking about The FEDS sticking their Nose where they have no business sticking it... and you said not to Donate... The only ones that that remark applies to IS the FEDS...
The Salvation Army is not in the wrong in this, The Fed Government is.
I will donate to and support The Salvation Army ever chance I get.
d'kid
Last edited:
Nitrohaulic
Nitro Member
How many times have I seen job postings with the requirement that the successful candidate be bilingual? If that's legal, how could it not be legal to be able to require employess to speak a single language at work? What? I can tell you how to dress but, I can't tell you to speak with the rest of us?
George Bush ran on cutting taxes in 2000, which was done. Pulling us out of Bill Clinton's recession was the one thing the Republicans did well. Remember the Dems crying--"they're cutting taxes and sending out rebate checks during a bad economy!!!" Not one Republican during the last two election cycles was standing up and saying "See what our tax cuts did? Let's do it until it doesn't work!" Now the economy is finally slowing down again. Big surprise. Someone should have stood up while the government revenues were running better than expected and said "Let's keep it going."
When approximately half of everything you make goes to taxes when you add up all the ways--pay when it comes in, pay when it goes out, and how many ways in between--you can't tell me that changes in tax code might not effect the economy more than any other thing the government can do.
George Bush ran on cutting taxes in 2000, which was done. Pulling us out of Bill Clinton's recession was the one thing the Republicans did well. Remember the Dems crying--"they're cutting taxes and sending out rebate checks during a bad economy!!!" Not one Republican during the last two election cycles was standing up and saying "See what our tax cuts did? Let's do it until it doesn't work!" Now the economy is finally slowing down again. Big surprise. Someone should have stood up while the government revenues were running better than expected and said "Let's keep it going."
When approximately half of everything you make goes to taxes when you add up all the ways--pay when it comes in, pay when it goes out, and how many ways in between--you can't tell me that changes in tax code might not effect the economy more than any other thing the government can do.
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
Not to go off-topic, but the "recession" that Ron was talking about during the Clinton error was only if you were a rich person, if you were/are middle-class, the economy was great.
The reverse is true now, they say the economy is/was good only if you're a rich person, if you're middle-class like me, then it blows chunks.
Oh and Clinton left us with a surplus...
The reverse is true now, they say the economy is/was good only if you're a rich person, if you're middle-class like me, then it blows chunks.
Oh and Clinton left us with a surplus...
.
Nitro Member
That is complete BS. There was NEVER a surplus, it was only a projected surplus, not an actual surplus. The so-called "Clinton surplus" only existed on paper, not in reality. Huge difference!
Last edited:
Nitrohaulic
Nitro Member
I often hear libs go without question in the media making statements such as that with nothing to back it up. Really. They'll just say it and then it's on to the next thing. I've never seen that statistic anywhere.
Clinton spent 8 years enjoying what took 12 years to create. That, or someone needs to tell me what he DID to create his wonderful economy. If he was so good for it, he wouldn't have left US, the private sector, in a recession. Oh, but the GOVERNMENT had a surplus! That seems to be the more important side of the equation for Democrats.
Now the private sector has had a surplus and the government is in deficit mode. Like I said, even the Republicans who once again proved that cutting taxes works didn't even run on their own achievements. I don't have words for that. It's that ridiculous.
We have a cycle of the last two Democrat Presidents leaving economies in the toilet. Republicans step in and cut taxes while the liberal media screams bloody murder. A few years later the economy bounces back after money is put where it belongs. In the hands of it's owners.
Last edited:
Nitrohaulic
Nitro Member
I gotta add something to this. George Bush's last opponent, John Kerry, ran on the promise of raising taxes on everyone earning over $200,000. It happens to be a fact that more Americans work for small businesses than any other kind so, John would have been raising taxes on the majority of America's employers.
A year or so ago when I heard a reporter asking J.K.s opinion of the economy, why, he HAD to say something negative, of course! He talked about "low paying jobs" and "jobs going overseas."
If you're an employer, how the hell are you supposed to hand out raises and increased benefits when your taxes are going up and, how the hell are you supposed to be in a better position to compete against foreigners if....your taxes are going up?
He tried to pander to the majority with math that doesn't work. A tax increase on your employer is a tax increase on YOU! That's a raise that you'll never see. Everything has to come from somewhere.
There's nothing wrong with rich people having money because they don't keep it in their mattresses. They try to make more money with it and wherever they put it benefits you, even if it's in the stock market and you don't own a single share.
A year or so ago when I heard a reporter asking J.K.s opinion of the economy, why, he HAD to say something negative, of course! He talked about "low paying jobs" and "jobs going overseas."
If you're an employer, how the hell are you supposed to hand out raises and increased benefits when your taxes are going up and, how the hell are you supposed to be in a better position to compete against foreigners if....your taxes are going up?
He tried to pander to the majority with math that doesn't work. A tax increase on your employer is a tax increase on YOU! That's a raise that you'll never see. Everything has to come from somewhere.
There's nothing wrong with rich people having money because they don't keep it in their mattresses. They try to make more money with it and wherever they put it benefits you, even if it's in the stock market and you don't own a single share.
whyisthisarequiredfield
Nitro Member
Extremely well though out post, Ron. I couldn't agree more.
I'm a small business owner myself, albeit nowhere NEAR the $200K mark. Not even a quarter of that, in fact. We've just crossed the two year mark in our business, and are just starting to slowly bring on staff. When I hear about taxing "The Rich", I laugh...especially when most Americans consider those with a $100,000 income "Rich". If I can't home-brew a business over a decade and end up in the black, what's the point?
Life was a hell of a lot easier in a cubicle.
HEMI6point1
Nitro Member
Nowadays, although it's hard to believe a person who makes $100K is considered by many to be "upper-middle class."
Similar threads
