- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:43 pm to Warboo
quote:
who is the actual retard?
Still you.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:43 pm to Warboo
See above.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:45 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
What opinions can one have about numbers?
1 is a more meaningful number than 100.
Damn, that was really fricking easy.
quote:
Seems like you came back here for the one and only purpose to be a gigantic unreasonable a-hole to everyone you could.
Did you get divorced in your absence or something? Stock market not doing well for you are something? Found out your wife was screwing the pool boy?
I don't know who it was or what form it came in, but someone spent six months pissing in your cereal and now you're back to take it out on people here.
Dunning-Kruger is a thing, and I'm spending some time highlighting that.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Well, except the part where it isn't.
You don’t think that DOGE is busy cutting government? What is all this talk about Federal workers being unemployed?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:52 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Seems like you came back here for the one and only purpose to be a gigantic unreasonable a-hole to everyone you could.
Did you get divorced in your absence or something? Stock market not doing well for you are something? Found out your wife was screwing the pool boy?
I don't know who it was or what form it came in, but someone spent six months pissing in your cereal and now you're back to take it out on people here.
DB's one and only purpose has always been to be a gigantic a-hole to everyone here. He's just better at it than most of the other assholes that post here.This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 3/6/25 at 3:52 pm to 4cubbies
quote:A better tactic is to fire them all and make them reapply for their positions.
I’m just here for the comments
Posted on 3/6/25 at 5:17 pm to Penrod
quote:
You don’t think that DOGE is busy cutting government?
No.
quote:
What is all this talk about Federal workers being unemployed?
Coalescence.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 5:17 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
DB's one and only purpose has always been to be a gigantic a-hole to everyone here. He's just better at it than most of the other assholes that post here.
Most?
Sir. If I could be offended, I would be.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 5:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
And your point?
Posted on 3/6/25 at 5:59 pm to Warboo
quote:
And your point?
Did you "see above?"
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:13 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the memo.
How would I have been able to quote it if I hadn't read it?
quote:
It goes on to require recipients of this memo to defend why they intend to maintain employment of anyone on probation.
Just because it contains the word "performance" doesn't in any way mean what you claimed. As I said before, the memo starts out by instructing management to trim down to essential employees.
That's the reason for the layoffs. Period. Clearly stated at the beginning of the memo.
What you're claiming is that they are attempting to communicate that everyone who got fired got fired for failure to perform, which is absurd on it's face in a mass layoff situation.
quote:
Yes. It means that they are firing the people they are legally able to fire with ease.
And why are they legally able to fire those employees with ease? (If you insist, we can play a game here.)
quote:
Click on the White House website I linked, then tell me who needs to grow up. I seriously believed I clicked on an Onion article.
I haven't said anything about any mice, I don't know anything about any mice, I don't know what you or others are talking about with the mice, and I believe you told someone else upthread that the tactic you are using here is whataboutism.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:30 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Can you please outline how I mischaracterized someone calling OP "emotional" as being misogynistic?
Sure. He didn't say, state, imply, or otherwise communicate you were being emotional because you are a woman. Not in that post, anyway.
quote:
The only reason the poster said it's emotional is because a woman posted it.
You said that, not him.
And I quote:
quote:
A woman posted it so it must be emotional quantitative data.
As long as it's quoted accurately and in good faith, what someone actually says is fair game. But you don't get to play the Amazing Kreskin and read people's minds and tell them what their motivations are.
quote:
He never gave any actual evidence as to why it could be considered "emotional."
Because it's self-evident. All of this hand-wringing and pearl clutching over something that happens on a regular basis in the US.
The federal government has terminated 62,242 employees year to date.
The private sector—completely independent of government or government contractors—terminated 64,135.
Where's the thread on that? Where's the outrage? The empathy?
You come across like one of those faux "objective" people who actually hate Republicans but claim you hate both parties equally. To make it look like your opinions about Republicans are less biased and therefore more valid.
And this is why.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 6:38 pm
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:36 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I called out 180 mistakes.
(Almost forgot)
Nope, you called out one mistake.
If I drop a carton of eggs and break 10 of them, I didn't make 10 mistakes. I made one mistake that negatively impacted 10 eggs.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 6:37 pm
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:40 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It's ok to thoughtlessly fire these people because other people were fired for bullshite reasons in the past?
No, it's o.k. to fire these people for any reason that their employer wanted because that was the nature of their probationary employment in the first place.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:44 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, it's o.k. to fire these people for any reason that their employer wanted because that was the nature of their probationary employment in the first place.
And their employer is dead-arse broke.
I don't think she's as stupid as she's acting, I suspect she understands scale just fine and gets the point I and others have been making, she's just determined to deflect.
Or maybe she's that stupid. Neither is interesting, especially when she starts beating on straw men.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 6:53 pm to Flats
quote:
especially when she starts beating on straw men.
She inevitably does that.
quote:
And their employer is dead-arse broke.
I don't think she's as stupid as she's acting, I suspect she understands scale just fine and gets the point I and others have been making, she's just determined to deflect.
Or maybe she's that stupid.
You think it's because she's a woman? (wink)
Posted on 3/6/25 at 7:02 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
No, it's o.k. to fire these people for any reason that their employer wanted because that was the nature of their probationary employment in the first place.
Not when you specify it being for cause in the termination notice and have evidence of more than fully successful interim reviews
It has happened in multiple instances.
There are rules in place to can a probationary employees within Fedgov. The cannot just get rid of you for any random reason.
ETA: I should edit to reflect that certain probies can be fired easier than others.
This post was edited on 3/6/25 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 3/6/25 at 8:18 pm to 4cubbies
quote:LOL. I knew you were going to say something like this, because you are a generally simple-minded person. Not stupid, just less capable for nuanced understanding or subtlety.
The government exists to provide societal order and stability. Businesses exist to earn profits.
That is why I said
quote:
Because it is technically true. But the reasons it is true are not relevant to this discussion in any real way.
The differences you define are unimportant to the discussion. Not a single person was fired because they failed to turn a profit.
Are you suggesting that government agencies can never be bloated, wasteful, incompetent, or useless because they don't exist to earn profits?
Are you suggesting that bloated, wasteful, incompetent, or useless agencies are inherently a source of
quote:
societal order and stability.
If Trump started a bureau of left legged supremacy, designed to educate everyone that left-leg dominant people are inherently better. . .this becomes a source of societal order and stability by virtue of being created by the Government?
It is silly.
The similarities between large businesses and large bureaucracy are more similar than not.
If you need me to further illuminate any of the points above, please let me know.
Posted on 3/6/25 at 8:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
You don’t think that DOGE is busy cutting government?
quote:
No
You don’t think we landed on the moon, do you? Do you believe in dinosaurs?
Page 23 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News