And we all know that the university is just f****** around. They will withhold whatever documentation for a month or two, and then if he gets a lawyer they will quietly cave, because they never cared one way or the other, they’re just afraid of Trump.
I don’t quite agree. On the one hand, all of those companies that publicly caved to Trump are f****** terrible. On the other hand, a lot of DEI policies are actually basic common sense, because if you want to get skilled employees, it’s pretty ridiculous to exclude everyone who’s not white male. Which is to say, if companies have similar policies to what they had before even using a different name, it’s probably good for them and their employees, even if their cowardice is bad for the nation.
Because there are multiple people in the GOP, obviously. They all have their own agendas.
Except what you’re describing doesn’t make sense. If the new owners purchased all of those things, then in reality they purchased the company. Courts are very likely to agree on this. It looks like a company-wide sale, therefore it probably is, even if someone tries to add a line saying “we aren’t liable”.
But imagine someone could “sell everything other than the liability”. In such a case, the seller would be putting themselves on the hook to pay outstanding debts (i.e., the seller would be liable). And we know they have money – they just sold the thing. So then the seller would pay… But they know that in advance, so they would not agree to such a sale in the first place, unless they were planning to steal that money through creative accounting of some kind… But both parties know all of that that in advance, so they would both be acting fraudulently.
I think a company like this is not planning to linger for years. The owners wanna make a buck for a year or two and then sell it off. If they can stiff their customers in the process, they just don’t care.
For long-lasting companies the motivation would be different. But this is not a world-famous VPN company, not by a long shot.
Some bureaucrats will decide what to cut. It is those offices and committees – probably both public and private – that are the death panels.
I don’t think the claim to Christianity is particularly relevant. Organized religion has been abused for its entire existence – one might reasonably argue that that was the point of it.
Ask the article’s author. They could have linked to a PDF court filing but of course they didn’t, because they suck at journalism.
You have just argued against the article itself. Should we believe you?
What a terrible headline. All of us? No. Next.
Ah, classic sophistry. If you omit the actor, you can draw a bad conclusion and pretend you didn’t know it was a bad one. But maybe I’m mistaken and you actually don’t know the answer to your question. Why don’t you read the article? It answers it.
deleted by creator
Lots of people are prescribed pills for lots of things. What the hell does that have to do with anything? You know it doesn’t.
My friend, anyone who watches the news on an occasional basis knows that you’re lying, and that you know you’re lying. I’m not sure why you’re wasting our time, or yours.
You can define it that way, but the problem is that the authors of the article didn’t give a definition. For example, I think they think the term means to do what’s in your job description and contract. And they think that workers should be going above and beyond that. But if they were forced to spell it out, then people would ask why companies don’t change the job description or contract, because obviously it’s ridiculous to ask people to do what you didn’t ask them to do.
“kills” … This is still occurring, let’s use the present tense.
Exactly. Workers are doing their jobs! Gasp!
Holy f***, God forbid making settings menus that actually get you to where you want to go, definitely wouldn’t want to do that, much better to AI.
We don’t even have to ask the experts. Just look at Japan that tried something similar in the past. Of course it was a complete failure… This is basic reality, right? Families that don’t have money simply can’t afford to raise a child even if they get a bit of cash at the start. Pay them more than a living wage if you want them to have kids.
Not “we”. You. Many of us actively campaign against it.