Posted on 09/12/2010 10:11:56 AM PDT by truthandlife
It’s new news to me so most likely it is to others as well.
Which do you think is worse—openly supporting the progressive cause, like Schumer or Reid, or supporting it while disguised as a Republican like Castle?
And you are lying if that is your assertion.
And no, barely breaking 30% is not at all the same thing as breaking 35%.
Who says? You? What makes you the expert?
It’s a bold faced lie and you know it.
No, a bold faced lie would be O'Donnell claiming that she won two out of three counties against Biden. When confronted she then backed up and said "two." I actually knew you would fall for my trap with your assertion, and it would allow me to point out this fact. You walked into it beautifully.
McCain got 36.92% in Delaware in 2008. O’Donnell got 35.3% in Delaware in 2008. Christine did 1.62% worst than McCain in 2008.
O'Donnell did worse against Biden than any other candidate that has ever run against him for Senate. That's the real fact. Underperforming McCain shows how nonviable she is, as even some McCain voters were unwilling to vote for her.
2008 was a terrible year for Republicans, 2010 is a great year for Republicans. Those are the facts.
2010 will only be a great year if we run the right candidates in the right States. Handing free Senate seats to the rats will turn a great year into a terrible year.
It costs a lot of money to follow through and win a lawsuit of any kind, and most lawfirms these days don’t have the financial resources to litigate against someone with a lot more money to defend themselves.
Thnaks for the sane comment. I am all for getting rid of RINO’s but, Christine O’Donnell is a poor candidate.
The fact that so many overlook her weakness as a general election candidate is alarming.
You don’t understand the point because you’re on a conservative site.
“Oh, come on, you aren’t really commenting on a lawsuit based solely on the filing for the plaintiff, are you?”
Read the post. All the facts you cite are not material to retaliation. If you engage in protected activity under the law and your employer takes an adverse personnel action against you in close temporal proximity to the protected action, this creates a prima facie case, or rebuttable presumption of retaliation.
Two weeks is lightning fast to fire someone after they contacted the EEOC. It is a clear presumption which can only be rebutted with a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason. The weakness of the proffered reason (fired for running an outside business)is exacerbated by the fact that they did not provide the reason for the firing until four weeks after it occurred. The fact that it was not done contemporaneously therewith, as well as the fact that this business (promoting the Passion of the Christ for ICON productions) was known to the employer for months before the firing occurred renders this proffered “legitimate nondiscriminatory reason” pretextual and meritless.
When you don’t know the law, and you certainly don’t, it pays to shut your yap. Otherwise you look like a clown.
No. ISI retaliated against Christine O’Donnell. This is a clear violation of federal employment law found in Title VII, Chapter 42 of the United States Code. GO look it up, educate yourself, practice law for a few years and then come back and debate me.
In very much the same way that the Delaware GOP, McCormack and you are retaliating against her. Your feeble protestations of support for her ring hollow. Everyone knows you are a Castle stooge. Just a you once shilled on this board for Mittens.
As conservatives my friend and I were both against the new home buyers tax credit as a futile attempt to prop up housing prices.
He bought a house about six month ago, and did file for the tax credit on his tax returns. Are you saying he should have given up on that $8,000 just because he was against it?
Seems to me being against a certain law shouldn’t preclude one from being entitled to fairly receive the benefit from that law while the law is still in effect.
Yeah, it is alarming how much the incumbent republican can come to be so reviled that even a questionable candidate is considered much more preferable to him.
LOL.
I think that applies to more states than just DE.
Fair point.
Hank
I don’t know your state of residence, so I can’t give you a rating of your democrat reprensentative, but one of mine is Gene Taylor, democrat Mississippi and his ACU lifetime rating is 66+.
Because there are commonly accepted meanings for “barely breaking” and you know full well that over 5% is more than barely breaking. And you know that the measuring stick contains all 5%s, like a ruler. 25, 30, 35. If you exceed 35%, it is accepted practice to use the 5 as the measure. You don’t say 33, or 34, you say 35. That’s how it works.
You’re a liar and you know it.
Have you answered my questions about other races? Who do you support in Hawaii, Maryland, NH, NY and NY? Or do you just hate Conservatives?
Absolutely AC I hope this backfires on the Sand Castle losers.
I don’t think it’s alarming at all.
Castle voted wrong, over and over again.
We want our Senator to vote right.
She has promised to vote right, and Castle has proven that he will hurt Conservatives with his votes.
Castle could’ve voted right, but he voted like a Liberal.
It’s a surprise to you that Conservative Republicans aren’t going to vote for a Liberal.
Conservatives won’t be voting for Castle in November.
Garbage? What if it’s true?
Is it “slime” or truth? If it doesn’t matter to you then you are supporting a ideology I want no part of.
Absolutely and I'll wager Rush relied on TGO too, and likely ditto for Sarah since she's close with both plus Hannity and she announced her endorsement on Hannity's radio show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.