Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (14083)	8/24/2004 12:00:23 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Chris Matthews was his usual, over the top, talking head tonight. I'm starting to think Pat Buchanan is having a very hard time being Chris' foil on the show. Christ dominated tonight's interview with Dick Cavett, and Pat couldn't get a word in edgewise. At the conclusion, Pat looked like he'd stepped in something warm and gooey. I predict he doesn't stay with the show past thie current season (if the show lasts that long).

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (14083)	8/24/2004 1:55:28 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

You might want to try again to explain this orca. I don't think he gets it yet. You REALLY gotta wonder about Kerry. Why not just say "I served 3 years and 4 months" at the start and avoid all this? It isn't like he doesn't have enough already plaguing him.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (14083)	8/24/2004 10:02:03 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 90947

I mean, who the F would make a big deal out of his being discharged in January if he didn't lie and claim it was March? You know, many companies have strict policies requiring immediate termination for such misrepresentations. That's frequently used as a defense to discrimination cases. Often, the padded resume is not caught until the employee is placed under microscopic examination after having been terminated and having initiated suit against the employer. The defense is, basically, that the employer WOULD HAVE terminated the employee for resume fraud, had it been discovered in time. Hence, no harm no foul. It's called the "after acquired evidence" defense. If I recall correctly, it originated in the federal courts in Title VII cases and cross-pollinated into the state laws of CA and elsewhere.