So Papa John is a Butt Hole

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Uhh yah, we've all read that, it doesn't change the context of her quote.

It absolutely does. You guys want to infer that she didn't know what was in the bill and just to pass it so they could figure out what was in it, when in fact she knew full well what was in it and her comment was about the rest of us seeing what all the good stuff was in the bill.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Pelosi

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

She was telling the people that they need to pass the bill so THEY could see all the good stuff that is in it.

So... people keep taking her comment out of context to mean that they had to pass it to find out what was in it. However, according to you, when you put it in full context, what she really meant was that they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

Really? Loco shows that the entire premise of your thread and subsequent comments was complete bullshit...



...and instead of addressing that point, you argue about the Nancy Pelosi quote??

Doesn't change what he said. He's backpeddling because he got a lot of shit over his comments.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

So... people keep taking her comment out of context to mean that they had to pass it to find out what was in it. However, according to you, when you put it in full context, what she really meant was that they had to pass it so the general public would find out what was in it.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

Your reading comprehension skills suck.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

So... people keep taking her comment out of context to mean that they had to pass it to find out what was in it. However, according to you, when you put it in full context, what she really meant was that they had to pass it to find out what was in it.

Thanks for clearing that one up.


Still no comment that the entire premise of this thread and your subsequent comments turned out to be complete bullshit?

So basically she wanted congress to pass a bill before they could investigate what the bill's far reaching impacts really were? But Cooooool is saying she knew all along about what was in it, just not the people voting on it, so that makes it ok.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Doesn't change what he said. He's backpeddling because he got a lot of shit over his comments.

You really are special.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

So basically she wanted congress to pass a bill before they could investigate what the bill's far reaching impacts really were? But Cooooool is saying she knew all along about what was in it, just not the people voting on it, so that makes it ok.

On second thought...I don't think they've finished writing many of the regulations required for this bill, so how is it possible Pelosi knew what those were?

[RedLS1GTO]

what she really meant was that they had to pass it so the general public would find out what was in it.

In other words, the general public is too stupid to figure it out so anybody who isn't good little braindead lefty needs to just step in line and accept that the enlightened ones know what is best. Rather than using the fact that the public (and more importantly, those actually voting on it) had absolutely no clue what was happening as a reason to step back and make sure all was right, they did the exact opposite and used it as a reason to ram it through before people actually had a chance to make an informed decision.

Just to be clear...you are arguing that this is a good thing?

Wow.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Doesn't change what he said. He's backpeddling because he got a lot of shit over his comments.

No, he's pointing out that he was set up. He was trying to demonstrated that when a businesses costs rise, adjustments have to be made to keep the business going. That is called responding to change, and it is what businesses do and what the current administration fails to get through their collective buttholes or heads.

Try speaking in an educational forum sometime and get led off into left field by a plant, and coming up with an honest answer in 3 seconds that sounds great. Most people here (including me) would look worse than Biden.

[SteelCityBlue]

Well, I guess papa John being an asshole had nothing to do with the fact I can't get any fast food in NYC today either.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

No, he's pointing out that he was set up. He was trying to demonstrated that when a businesses costs rise, adjustments have to be made to keep the business going. That is called responding to change, and it is what businesses do and what the current administration fails to get through their collective buttholes or heads.

Try speaking in an educational forum sometime and get led off into left field by a plant, and coming up with an honest answer in 3 seconds that sounds great. Most people here (including me) would look worse than Biden.

In summary... he doesn't give a shit that this entire thread was based on comments intentionally taken out of context while at the exact same time arguing that the context is all that matters for something moronic said by someone on the left.

It really is hard to understand a thought process so completely f*cked up from start to finish.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by RedLS1GTO

In summary... he doesn't give a shit that this entire thread was based on comments intentionally taken out of context while at the exact same time arguing that the context is all that matters for something moronic said by someone on the left.

It really is hard to understand a thought process so completely f*cked up from start to finish.

He wasn't taken out of context, he is back peddling because of the shit storm.

And then there was the conference call with Papa John’s shareholders earlier this year where Schnatter added, “We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs (emphasis added) and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests.”

Papa John's Schnatter Says He Will Honor Obamacare And Give Health Insurance To All Employees - Forbes

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

He wasn't really arguing anything about the Pelosi quote..only posted the whole quote, which did nothing to change the context of what she said.

Well, he's making progress. At least there was a link to go with it.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Doesn't change what he said. He's backpeddling because he got a lot of shit over his comments.

Originally Posted by Joecooool

He wasn't taken out of context, he is back peddling because of the shit storm.

*backpedaling. He's not selling encyclopedias door to door.

Just because you repeat something doesn't make it true.

Schnatter repeated exactly what he said at the time, which did not say anything about Papa John's plans specifically.

Common lib tactic. Repeat a lie enough times and it might be regarded as truth.

And then there was the conference call with Papa John’s shareholders earlier this year where Schnatter added, “We’re not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs (emphasis added) and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interests.”

Papa John's Schnatter Says He Will Honor Obamacare And Give Health Insurance To All Employees - Forbes

So a CEO whose primary responsibility is to the shareholders has the temerity to tell shareholders that in his opinion the company can handle the effects of Obamacare but is going to do what every coroprate officer is expected to do and try to minimize costs wherever he can. Absolutely nothing to spin there, no matter what you try.

He only said that part timing employees was one of the options any company would consider when specifically backed into a corner by a liberal Berenstein wannabe. He would look like a moron and get a shareholder backlash and a board of directors backlash if he was not at least considering all options.

Sort of thing you have to think about when you actually run a business, thank God I am not part of a publicly traded company or it would be even worse.

[jda67gta]

So,
I'm the CFO of a private non-profit organization that provides shelter, housing, and supportive services to survivors of domestic violence. I don't answer to shareholders but to a Board of Directors, the community, and the clients we serve.

Our analysis to date shows that with the implementation of the new health care system it will be less expensive for the company to pay the per employee penalty, and give the staff a small pay increase, than it will be to continue to provide a health plan that the employee contributes 30% of the premium.

In short, the savings we could realize would not be profit, but spent on direct services for our clients. Still, the cost for employee health care will be borne by the overall Medicare system, especially for those staff that choose not to purchase a private medical insurance policy. Plus they will also pay a penalty on their tax return if they do not have insurance.

How's that compare to a public company whose mandate is shareholder profit, or a private company whose owners investment and profits are his?

Force the employer to make a business decision, they will.

Stupid, Stupid, law.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

So a CEO whose primary responsibility is to the shareholders....

No. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

A CEO's primary responsibility is to the company and its employees. Any business run for the primary benefit of the shareholders becomes focused only on short-term earnings at the expense of the long-term view and the more important, societal consequences of the company's behavior.

In fact, the whole concept of CEO's running their companies for the primary benefit of shareholders is just a convenient rationale for enriching corporate officers and investors at the expense of the ordinary workers.

[Stangkiller]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

No. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

A CEO's primary responsibility is to the company and its employees. Any business run for the primary benefit of the shareholders becomes focused only on short-term earnings at the expense of the long-term view and the more important, societal consequences of the company's behavior.

In fact, the whole concept of CEO's running their companies for the primary benefit of shareholders is just a convenient rationale for enriching corporate officers and investors at the expense of the ordinary workers.

Shareholders benefit from a long range look out. Who the **** owns the company? It sure as hell aint the guy working part time, it's the shareholders.

Ok, this is one of the most ridiculous things you've said in a long time Phil.

[Doug28450]

Originally Posted by Stangkiller

Shareholders benefit from a long range look out. Who the **** owns the company? It sure as hell aint the guy working part time, it's the shareholders.

Ok, this is one of the most ridiculous things you've said in a long time Phil.

Phil failed Business 101.

[Loco Vette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

No. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument.

A CEO's primary responsibility is to the company and its employees. Any business run for the primary benefit of the shareholders becomes focused only on short-term earnings at the expense of the long-term view and the more important, societal consequences of the company's behavior.

In fact, the whole concept of CEO's running their companies for the primary benefit of shareholders is just a convenient rationale for enriching corporate officers and investors at the expense of the ordinary workers.

The good CEO's work for the long term benefit of the company's owners (the shareholders) and realize that the way to do that includes, among many other things, keeping employees happy and productive. But to stay in business your employees have to cost you less than they produce. There is no flaw in my argument.

Your second sentence is just radicalleftspeak designed to justify wealth redistribution, or more properly called asset seizure or nationalization of private assets.

[Joecooool]

Originally Posted by Loco Vette

The good CEO's work for the long term benefit of the company's owners (the shareholders) and realize that the way to do that includes, among many other things, keeping employees happy and productive. But to stay in business your employees have to cost you less than they produce. There is no flaw in my argument.

A company run for the primary benefit of the shareholders puts more emphasis on the short term profit margins at the direct expense of employees. The average length of time a person is a shareholder in any specific company is - less than four months. Those people have zero interest in the long term goals of a corporation.

What's wrong with maximising shareholder value? | Guardian Sustainable Business | Guardian Professional

Your second sentence is just radicalleftspeak designed to justify wealth redistribution, or more properly called asset seizure or nationalization of private assets.

Bullshit. It is exactly how ventura capitalist - like Romney - made his money.