Official 2012 Democrat Gloating/Republican Tears Thread

Racist = Hates all ____ people. If you even like/are indifferent to one of them, you're totes not racist!

Honestly, if you use the N word in a distinctly negative context regarding someone's race? 99.999% chance you're a racist. 0.001% chance your phone's autocorrect is racist and you were trying to type "no good"

Again, this is not true. What he said is that some Papa Johns franchisees are probably going to cut hours and staff, not that he is going to. I have news for you: he's right. It's not a threat and it's not something he has control over, it's a simple statement of fact. Have you guys met many small business owners? There's a nontrivial portion of them who are absolutely principled free-marketeers with a fetish for doing shitty things to their employees because the big government "made" them.

This is a good thing.

I laugh at all the kids saying stupid shit online using their real names and not hiding their posts behind privacy settings on Facebook. Let that shit be archived for the next two decades.

I can't imagine many individual pizza franchise actually employs 50+ people, I suppose if one person owns several franchises they might but they can probably pull some shenanigans and incorporate each franchise individually and avoid the 50 person head count to avoid the mandatory health insurance requirement all together.

"and the mark up is commonly $5-$10."

I wonder how many of those Papa Johns franchises are in the 20 states with random weepers sending the White House "we're going to secede lol" petitions.

I can't claim to know what Papa John's franchises do, but I can state that incorporating each location individually is exactly what the largest independent pizza chain in (North?) Texas does. From what I understand it is rather commonplace in that industry, too.

Oh man. The modern day fist bump was brought to sports and popularized by Stan 'the Man' Musial, and he voted for Eisenhower twice, so how can you see it as a symbol of Democratic fascism?!

Probably a lot of it. Which would be the point. Sovereign nations don't get federal disaster relief from Washington. They get it from Baton Rouge, which I'm sure wouldn't have any problem scratching up a few billion dollars.

According to their franchising materials, it takes roughly twenty employees to run a Papa Johns, so you'd be looking at owning three Papa Johnses before you were affected by the requirement. I can't seem to find any information about how many total franchisees there are so I don't know how many they each own on average or how many own three or more.

Is it worth setting up a separate corporation for every pair of stores to avoid the health care costs? Honest question, but it doesn't seem like it if said costs are about a one percent increase in their costs.

What "other ways" would that be, specifically? As it is, it seems to upset you that the cost of the healthcare would be --like every other cost-- placed on you (the customer) so you are demanding someone else covers it 'because they are fucking rich'?

Plus, the apocryphal origins of the handshake was as a symbol of demonstrating that you're unarmed. Unarmed! In other words, greeting from an appearance of weakness! Greeting with a closed fist is by definition greeting from an appearance of strength. And while having a gun in the hand is better still (the ideal would be for everyone to greet each other with handguns pointed at each others' faces, like early John Woo movies which were made in properly capitalist Hong Kong), note well that it's "you'll pry my gun out of my cold dead fingers", not "you'll easily remove my gun from my palm."

The very fact that allegedly paper beats rock is itself sign of how thoroughly liberal fascism has been indoctrinated into culture. Probably through public schools.

I'm all for pointing out racism and trying to hold people accountable for their hate speech. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there's a lot of difference between pointing/laughing at someone and actively trying to do harm to their reputation.

Actively digging into those kids' personal lives and meddling in their affairs crosses a line. It's like calling someone's boss to rat them out for surfing during work hours because you had a disagreement with them on a message board. It's not too far off from those nutjob Republicans who tried to make life hell for the family of Graeme Frost. Sure, he wasn't being a racist asshole, but speaking out in favor of SCHIP or anything Obama supports is offensive to Republicans.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from judgment, but harassment doesn't exactly fix the problem.

There likely would be additional costs though probably other advantages as well. If one franchise isn't doing well you could probably declare it bankrupt without affect the others and this might be more advantageous than closing one location as you probably get some tax benefits and stiff debtors rather than carrying the debt with your other locations.

I have no idea which is better and it very well might depend on a ton of other factors and the health care issue may not be very significant at all anyway.

This entire discussion fails to cover the question of whether or not the additional cost will provide any benefits. I'd imagine having healthier (and potentially happier, given the stresses of lacking or having crappy health insurance) employees would be better for the bottom line.

Again: have you met very many small business owners? That kind of clear-headed and sensible medium-term thinking is sadly lacking among many of them.

Possibly. Though I might counter with the argument that many of Papa John's employees are probably quite young on average and probably aren't concerned with health insurance and many will probably be covered by their parents plan anyway now that the ACA extends the age limit to 26.

Well, there are just a lot of variables here. For one, would Papa Johns even allow that? No way to know but I seriously doubt that the franchise company I worked for would have. Beyond the general sense that someone trying to pull that is probably putting something over on you one way or another, it's not really in Papa Johns' interest to make it easier for their stores to go out of business.

As long they're not a debtor (they quite possibly they are, though they likely have clauses to govern bankruptcies in their franchising contracts and probably don't get completely stiffed) why would they care? I mean there are going to be cases of legitimate bankruptcies.

Two reasons: one, very simply more open stores equals more royalties, and two they report numbers of successful/ailing/closed stores to prospective new franchisees, and having more stores close makes it much harder to attract people.

Good points. Though I'm not sure the structure of the franchiser/franchisee relationship matters much to these numbers. If one guy has a bunch of franchises under a single corporation or he has each under its own if one closes that's a +1 to the closed column either way.

That's true, but there's one other potential concern too, and because I don't know for sure that Papa Johns has a policy like this, I'll talk about it in terms of the franchise company I worked for (and I'm also familiar with one other franchise system that has a similar deal). In my experience, you can't just decide that you're going to close your franchise. Because the franchisor has a big interest in keeping stores open, they retain control over that, and while closing a store isn't out of the question it has to be in really, really bad shape and even then it's a really long process of trying every possible thing to revive it. IANAL but presumably bankruptcy would be a way around this. Of course if someone actually goes bankrupt that's one thing, but if one franchisee were to set up twenty corporations for their twenty stores so they could declare bankruptcy if one wasn't doing well and they wanted to close it, that would circumvent that control and be a good reason to not allow franchisees to own stores under multiple corporations.

The internet is mean. Watch Romney be unliked in real time.

http://disappearingromney.com/

The paraphrase is from a FUCKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Read the source it came from. There's a link at the bottom. There is no "reporter" who claims he used the word "dramatically". I have no idea why you think there is, let alone feel strongly enough about it to call me a troll.

Fucking stupid tattoo. And you thought the bumper stickers were bad.

I have to say I respect that guy's willingness to get in my face with an extreme form of expression that makes it hard to ignore his commitment to traditional values.

I think I see Vetarnias's dot!

One of the maps I've seen for mapping the racist tweets did, indeed, have at least one in Canada.

I thought the purpose of government was to keep the poors from revolting.

Turns out the best way to do that is make sure their basic needs are met to at least a minimal level.

Whoops, I thought Montreal had a dot. Blame my color-blindness.

Commie.

No a social safety net is not why we have a government.

Reported.

(Because I do not like this post.)

That noted Marxist radical Otto von Bismarck would like to disagree. Unless you are good at fighting sabre duels I advise you to choose your words carefully.

I'm sure you feel you have a philosophical point to make about a pure government from the constitution while you build castles in the air but in the real world where politicians try to adress the very real problems of their citizens a social safety net with all what it entails is the primary reason with which our governments justify themselves to the governed.

Grover Norquist, in all things, is still a seventh-grader

Once again, I'd like to point out how horrible it was that only Democrats ran any sort of negative ads during this campaign. The Republicans, historically the most stoic of parties who are usually too classy to complain about anything, just sat there and took it and did not respond in kind with any sort of smear-tactics whatsoever. It's just that the American public really wanted to elect a Kenyan Muslim communist academically-fraudulent dope-peddler.

You're one of those "corporations must do anything and everything legally possible to make a profit" types right? Fuck off.

So he has no control over them but he can set their prices? Why did he even open his mouth? "If Obama is elected prices will go up and staff will be cut and I have no control over it."

Look, bottom line is it's a multibillion dollar company who's going to be hit with a whopping great bill that equals less than 1% of their profits acting like they HAVE to raise price and they HAVE to cut hours IF someone gets elected.

Leave off the fact that Papa John would benefit greatly from cutting the capital gains tax and the estate tax and the cutting of taxes to millionaires and corporations, he's just concerned about pizza prices and his minimum wage emploees :*(