(06-07-2022 03:07 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 02:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-07-2022 01:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  https://nypost.com/2022/06/06/naked-hunt...un-photos/

Would Hunter trigger a red flag?

Remember this is the shitbird the MSM and major social media went all in to suppress news about during the election.

And, I seem to remember a comment on how dare people have distrust of MSM from one of the erstwhile posters here on the left.

Are you referring to me?

Don’t know. I remember a comment noting a complaint earlier. Didn’t remember who said it, not worth my time or effort to search for it.

Asking because I had a back and forth with Owl#s about the quality of sources, but it was a very different conversation than whether or not people could, or should, rightfully distrust the MSM.

I also don't remember 93 (or Big, who has popped back up), commenting in way that should elicit your response.

To add, if you don't remember the specific comment or who said it, is it a good idea to ascribe that to one of the people who post here?

I remember the fairly stupid attribution one made on something about those that think all MSM information == outright lies.

As I said, not worth my time to search and attribute. Nor worth my time to get into an argument about nothing with you.

Ok.

It was a pretty heavy accusation, frankly, so I was assuming there was substance to it.

Quote: JUST IN — US Judge Drew Tipton throws out Biden administration rules that directed ICE agents to focus on arresting immigrants deemed to threaten national security or public safety and migrants who recently crossed a US border unlawfully.

Tipton is pausing his order for 7 days. pic.twitter.com/jNd069ffdq
— Camilo Montoya-Galvez (@camiloreports) June 10, 2022

Quote:A U.S. District Court Judge in Texas, Drew Tipton, dealt the Biden administration's lenient immigration and border enforcement policies another blow on Friday when he struck down a Department of Homeland Security enforcement memo that instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to give deference to certain individuals inside the United States illegally.

In his order, Judge Tipton explains that the Biden administration's rule "as arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and failing to observe procedure under the Administrative Procedure Act."

"The Executive Branch may prioritize its resources," Tipton's order explained. "But it must do so within the bounds set by Congress." By "[u]sing the words 'discretion' and 'prioritization,' the Executive Branch claims the authority to suspend statutory mandates," he continued. "The law does not sanction this approach."

Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

The following highlights one point of my overall disgust with progressive governance.

I just finished reading a charging document on the people charged with seditious conspiracy in the Jan 6 incident. In context, there is a problem with the charge if/when the people being charged perform such actions with the intent that it is their President who is urging them to do those actions to save the nation. Not defending the actions, and not saying that charges shouldnt be brought --- there are plenty of other charges that could be used against them, eg obstructing congressional proceedings and enhanced assault charges based on assaults of peace officers.

But, for seditious conspiracy, intent and motive are paramount. If they truly believed their President was the rightful victor in the election, and they believed they were saving the country and government from saboteurs --- then seditious conspiracy fails. To combat this, the DOJ has adopted the stance that Trump had little or nothing to do with the actions of Jan 6.

On the other hand, we have the kangaroo proceeding of the 1/6 Committee. The committee contends that Trump’s “Stop The Steal” rhetoric incited the militias. This completely contradicts the Justice Department’s sedition theory.

The committee has another issue, though. I havent seen any evidence that Trump truly intended to stoke a violent attack. Let alone coordinated with them in any way, shape, or form.

I can say that the evidence shows that he very much so acted to ratchet up pressure on Vice President Mike Pence and Congress not to count electoral votes of states he was contesting --- which is not an illegal act.

But the progressives are enjoying another round of playing 'on one hand Trump had nothing to do with it' when it benefits them, and simultaneously trying to play the 'it is all trump' when it benefits them.

And their acolytes are slurping this up in gallons.

(06-14-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The following highlights one point of my overall disgust with progressive governance.

I just finished reading a charging document on the people charged with seditious conspiracy in the Jan 6 incident. In context, there is a problem with the charge if/when the people being charged perform such actions with the intent that it is their President who is urging them to do those actions to save the nation. Not defending the actions, and not saying that charges shouldnt be brought --- there are plenty of other charges that could be used against them, eg obstructing congressional proceedings and enhanced assault charges based on assaults of peace officers.

But, for seditious conspiracy, intent and motive are paramount. If they truly believed their President was the rightful victor in the election, and they believed they were saving the country and government from saboteurs --- then seditious conspiracy fails. To combat this, the DOJ has adopted the stance that Trump had little or nothing to do with the actions of Jan 6.

On the other hand, we have the kangaroo proceeding of the 1/6 Committee. The committee contends that Trump’s “Stop The Steal” rhetoric incited the militias. This completely contradicts the Justice Department’s sedition theory.

The committee has another issue, though. I havent seen any evidence that Trump truly intended to stoke a violent attack. Let alone coordinated with them in any way, shape, or form.

I can say that the evidence shows that he very much so acted to ratchet up pressure on Vice President Mike Pence and Congress not to count electoral votes of states he was contesting --- which is not an illegal act.

But the progressives are enjoying another round of playing 'on one hand Trump had nothing to do with it' when it benefits them, and simultaneously trying to play the 'it is all trump' when it benefits them.

And their acolytes are slurping this up in gallons.

but...but...but muh "Orange Man Bad" --it sez so in the ConstituPravda...

(06-14-2022 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The following highlights one point of my overall disgust with progressive governance.

I just finished reading a charging document on the people charged with seditious conspiracy in the Jan 6 incident. In context, there is a problem with the charge if/when the people being charged perform such actions with the intent that it is their President who is urging them to do those actions to save the nation. Not defending the actions, and not saying that charges shouldnt be brought --- there are plenty of other charges that could be used against them, eg obstructing congressional proceedings and enhanced assault charges based on assaults of peace officers.

But, for seditious conspiracy, intent and motive are paramount. If they truly believed their President was the rightful victor in the election, and they believed they were saving the country and government from saboteurs --- then seditious conspiracy fails.

In order for the accused's stated belief to defeat the intent element of a crime, in most cases doesn't the the belief need to be both subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable?

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

(06-15-2022 10:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

George... this feels like another overgeneralization as well as ignoring the multiple instances where conservatives seemed to lack humor.

I guess humor lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll take a lineup of left-leaning comedians over a lineup of right-leaning comedians all day every day.

(06-15-2022 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

George... this feels like another overgeneralization as well as ignoring the multiple instances where conservatives seemed to lack humor.

I guess humor lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll take a lineup of left-leaning comedians over a lineup of right-leaning comedians all day every day.

I posted a joke.

But yes, the left-leaning comedians such as Colbert can dependably get laughs from their eft-leaning audiences.

(06-15-2022 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:


Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

George... this feels like another overgeneralization as well as ignoring the multiple instances where conservatives seemed to lack humor.

I guess humor lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll take a lineup of left-leaning comedians over a lineup of right-leaning comedians all day every day.

I posted a joke.

But yes, the left-leaning comedians such as Colbert can dependably get laughs from their eft-leaning audiences.

I think an objective look at the history of comedy would favor left-leaning comedians regardless of the audience.

(06-15-2022 11:01 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:59 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

George... this feels like another overgeneralization as well as ignoring the multiple instances where conservatives seemed to lack humor.

I guess humor lies in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll take a lineup of left-leaning comedians over a lineup of right-leaning comedians all day every day.

I posted a joke.

But yes, the left-leaning comedians such as Colbert can dependably get laughs from their eft-leaning audiences.

I think an objective look at the history of comedy would favor left-leaning comedians regardless of the audience.

They go over so well at CPAC.

But it would be interesting to look at the humor of long ago comedians. Will Rogers comes to mind. W. C Fields? Charlie Chaplin? Abbott & Costello? red Skelton? George Burns? Groucho?

The current late night comedian/hosts all broadcast from New York, don't they? So they play to NY audiences. Right wing comedians don't do as well with those audiences, so the show runners tend not to bring them in. At least that is my take.

I tried my hand a few times at stand-up. But I never made politics the focus of any my humor. I tended more to find the humor in topics that were more cogent to me then, such as the problems of being newly divorced or of being a single dad with three kids, etc. I did very well with it, but it sure wasn't anything I wanted to try to do for a living.

(06-15-2022 10:56 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 10:25 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 11:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-12-2022 12:51 AM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Court: Conservative journalist’s anti-union joke WAS protected speech, not unprotected threat: Sometimes a joke is just a joke, despite what triggered people might want to read into things.

Sean Higgins describes the court’s ruling in FDRLST Media LLC v. National Labor Relations Board:

Quote:In a significant win for common sense, a federal appeals court has found that sometimes a joke is just a joke, even when it is made by an employer and concerns workers’ union rights. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the National Labor Relation s Board’s (NLRB) penalty against Federalist publisher Ben Domenech for “threatening” his website’s employees.

The board has long held that any comment, regardless of intent, by an employer that threatened workers for unionizing was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The boss saying “I was just joking” was not a defense. The only thing that mattered was whether any employee could theoretically construe it as a threat. This absolutist position has resulted in many employers going silent during organizing bids for fear of crossing an invisible line.

Ben Domenech, publisher of the conservative online opinion journal the The Federalist, discovered this in June 2019 when he tweeted, “FYI @fdrlst first one of you tries to unionize I swear I’ll send you back to the salt mine.” The tweet was in reaction to the liberal site Vox’s employees organizing.

The employees at The Federalist, all seven of them, saw this for the joke that it was. Among other telling details, The Federalist is an online magazine and does not run any salt mines. More relevantly, the seven workers were all conservatives like Domenech and had made no effort to form a union.

Domenech’s tweet got considerable outside attention, however, and a liberal labor lawyer with no connection to The Federalist or its employees filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the NLRB. The Board allows such third-party complaints. The intention of the practice is to allow labor activists to intercede on behalf of workers who might be afraid to speak up. In this case, the third party making the complaint was pretty clearly abusing the practice in an effort to harass Domenech.

None of this mattered to the NLRB. An administrative law judge found the comment violated the NLRA and the full Board upheld that. Domenech appealed it and the Third Circuit decided that, yeah, this was pretty ridiculous.

“The record contains no sign—indeed, no inkling—of any circumstance at FDRLST Media that leads us to conclude that a reasonable employee would interpret Domenech’s tweet as a veiled threat,” the court noted in its ruling. It added that the NLRB “went too far” when it opined that employees’ own interpretations of their employer’s conduct were irrelevant. Since the charge was filed “by an unrelated third party” a higher standard had to be applied as to whether the statement constituted a threat.

Humor: 1
"Woke" Idiots, Leftists and Communists: 0

Think about it -- an entity with 7 people had to:

defend this in the NLRB administrative proceeding, being pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB, based on a complaint made by no one even associated with The Federalist;

defend itself in an appeal to the NLRB admin board, again pitted against the General Counsel's office of the NLRB;

appeal the ruling to the Federal Appeals Circuit.

"The record contains no evidence that any FDRLST Media employee perceived Domenech’s tweet as a threat, and the Board failed to even acknowledge that
noteworthy gap in the record."

In fact, the NLRB at all stages excluded the affidavits of all Federalist employees as to that.

Again, progressive lawfare at its finest.

One of the more dismal qualities of leftists is their determined humorlessness, which this episode illustrates in spades.

George... this feels like another overgeneralization...

Not at all. Breathless earnestness -- How dare you not take everything as seriously as I think you should! -- has been a hallmark of the hard left for generations. Communist "intellectuals" are perhaps the most notorious example, but I has been true of committed hard-leftists through the ages.

Again, liberals are another matter.

Quote:...as well as ignoring the multiple instances where conservatives seemed to lack humor.

Of course, conservatives who are breathlessly earnest are also humorless. But in my experience -- and I expect also in yours, and also in that of everyone else in this forum -- breathless earnestness is far more of a leftist trait than a conservative one.

If you know a current example of conservative bureaucrats unleashing agency power and wasting hundreds of man-hours in an effort to punish a non-profane, non-defamatory, one-sentence tweet that every literate person on earth understands to be an obvious and harmless joke, please let us know.

Quote:I guess humor lies in the eyes of the beholder,

And?

Quote:...but I'll take a lineup of left-leaning comedians over a lineup of right-leaning comedians all day every day.

I wasn't speaking of professional comedians. But come of think of it, one of their redeeming features is that many of them -- and most of the best ones -- don't have much use for leftist earnestness, and would second the notion that humorless is too much a part of leftism.

In this case the left took an obvious jest and literally made a fing Federal case out of it.

And somehow the George is overgeneralizing when mentioning a lack of humor. Lolz.

(06-15-2022 03:03 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In this case the left took an obvious jest and literally made a fing Federal case out of it.

And somehow the George is overgeneralizing when mentioning a lack of humor. Lolz.

George pointed out an example of obvious lack of humor and made a sweeping generalization. Nobody is disputing his example. It's the overgeneralization that I pushed back against.

Besides, when I post moderately-phrased observations, no one replies!

(06-15-2022 03:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Besides, when I post moderately-phrased observations, no one replies!

There's some truth here. Moderation doesn't typically lead to engagement on the Quad...

(06-15-2022 03:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Besides, when I post moderately-phrased observations, no one replies!

There's some truth here. Moderation doesn't typically lead to engagement on the Quad...

Or anywhere else. Welcome to the world of social media and the destruction of our social fabric.

(06-15-2022 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Besides, when I post moderately-phrased observations, no one replies!

There's some truth here. Moderation doesn't typically lead to engagement on the Quad...

Or anywhere else. Welcome to the world of social media and the destruction of our social fabric.

LOL. But also crying.

(06-15-2022 03:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:15 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-15-2022 03:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Besides, when I post moderately-phrased observations, no one replies!

There's some truth here. Moderation doesn't typically lead to engagement on the Quad...

Or anywhere else. Welcome to the world of social media and the destruction of our social fabric.

LOL. But also crying.

See, this time my one little post started a whole conversation!