Jump to content

channel 2- Buffalo comments re alleged Incognito...


KingRex

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 Today we simply do not have the jobs to support immigration in large numbers.  

 

Fake news.   There are 6 million unfilled job openings in the country right now, of which only 2 million are being filled annually.    The service economy -- particularly liesure and hospitality, low-end health care and a host of entry-level jobs that few Americans want to do -- are all capable of suporting immigrant labor.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Fake news.   There are 6 million unfilled job openings in the country right now, of which only 2 million are being filled annually.    The service economy -- particularly liesure and hospitality, low-end health care and a host of entry-level jobs that few Americans want to do -- are all capable of suporting immigrant labor.     

 

Service economy = restaurants and fast food.  Leisure and hospitality. = hotel maids and maintenance.  Low end 

health care = nurses aides, etc.    All pretty much min wage jobs or close to it. 

 

Not even close to the work I was talking about that will create and economic growth.  So not fake.  What would help is getting people off of unemployment and into these jobs.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Bob in STL said:

 

Service economy = restaurants and fast food.  Leisure and hospitality. = hotel maids and maintenance.  Low end 

health care = nurses aides, etc.    All pretty much min wage jobs or close to it. 

 

Not even close to the work I was talking about that will create and economic growth.  So not fake.  What would help is getting people off of unemployment and into these jobs.  

 

But necessary jobs.    And they create economic growth.    And give people the first rung to get started on their working lives.

 

Does it take two hospitality jobs to equal the income of one manufactuing job?   Probably.   But that's how the economy works.    Just as it always has...

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kelly the Dog said:

Dion Dawkins, who was next to him on the play, and next to him most of the season, said he didn't hear anything like it, and that if Incognito ever said anything racially offensive, Dawkins would have been in his face himself.

 

Doesn't mean it totally didn't happen. I assume he said something stupid. But it may not have been so bad.

 

Don't let Biscuit and the other angry SJWs hear that kind of talk.  Blood is in the water and want to be outraged!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

WRONG.

 

They require him to be good at football.  Not parent your kids.

Agreed, but our point here is:

 

Most employers expect you to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner and not bring financial harm to said employer. In entertainment public figure type jobs your personal life and actions are more magnified and a bigger factor in continuing employment then say a guy who works 3rd shift in a factory running a machine. Lower level jobs situation like that factory job would be less likely to cost you anything except burning up vacation days to go to court etc etc....that DWI and some legal troubles don't cost you your job because you are not the public face of the company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Frankly, I wish everyone would react this way to unsubstantiated accusations.

 

Media jerkoffs are just upset they haven’t been able to turn it into a page-click bonanza.

 

Great point!  Maybe he just called the guy a '**** hole' ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cba fan said:

Agreed, but our point here is:

 

Most employers expect you to conduct yourself in a reasonable manner and not bring financial harm to said employer. In entertainment public figure type jobs your personal life and actions are more magnified and a bigger factor in continuing employment then say a guy who works 3rd shift in a factory running a machine. Lower level jobs situation like that factory job would be less likely to cost you anything except burning up vacation days to go to court etc etc....that DWI and some legal troubles don't cost you your job because you are not the public face of the company.

Richie ain't costing anybody anything.

 

Interesting point about not costing employers money. Sounds a lot like that whole kneeling thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Richie ain't costing anybody anything.

 

Interesting point about not costing employers money. Sounds a lot like that whole kneeling thing.

Never said Richie was.

 

If he does though the employer has every right to mitigate that occurrence as they see fit.

 

How would you feel if you are a high paid employee or any employee who does his job and contributes greatly to the bottom line and you go into your annual e v a l where you get your expected raise plus profit sharing check and the HR person informs you:

 

You will not be getting  a raise this year and will be taking a salary cut due to an employee who did 'X" and put our co in a negative light with the public causing sales to drop. All was clear and obvious and all agree it was one employees actions causing this. We did not agree with what he did and have taken corrective action, however, it was too late to rebound sales for this year and it cost us a lot of profit. Better luck next year.

 

PS: you are right about the "kneeling thing" it caused lost ticket sales and lower tv ratings. This will cause salary cap to not go up as much as it would have if the protest had not occurred. How much is an educated guess economist can figure out. It is clear that it will take salary out of players pockets.

Edited by cba fan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, KingRex said:

racial comments in Jags game.

 

They had a bunch of professional football idiots like Jerry Sullivan commenting. Basically they said that the failure of Incognito and the team to simply say that the truth was Incognito and the team did not make any racial disparities was in itself deafening.

 

Actually, while I think Sully is an idiot, like a broken clock he is actually right twice a day.

 

They remarked that given that there is a void of official Bills commentary on the issue that Incognito given his history of dirty play early in his career in GB and the race based debacle in Miami, that Incognito does not get the benefit of the doubt.  He, Caruuci, and the other sport pundits are simply correct that while Incog deserves the right to say what he wants, the void left by not saying anything leaves, the fans, his teammates, and the media to reasonably assume Incognito guilty.

 

Too bad because he produces as a player, but if he continues to allow any good play by him to be overwhelmed by using racial slurs, the Bills should let Incognito go.

 

I hate it when solid football performers are idiots as human beings.

 

While

 

 

Horrible take - all the way. 

 

The Bills organization made a statement - the incident is under investigation and they are backing RI story at this time.  

 

It sounded to to me like it was discussed internally with RI and others and they found nothing and are now waiting for the NFL to review all of the sounds.

 

It sounded to me like they handled it appropriately and at this point people are just leaping to conclusions based upon his past.  Others have stated they did not hear it or nothing was said - so why not wait for the final verdict rather than going off before things are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:

Horrible take - all the way. 

 

The Bills organization made a statement - the incident is under investigation and they are backing RI story at this time.  

 

It sounded to to me like it was discussed internally with RI and others and they found nothing and are now waiting for the NFL to review all of the sounds.

 

It sounded to me like they handled it appropriately and at this point people are just leaping to conclusions based upon his past.  Others have stated they did not hear it or nothing was said - so why not wait for the final verdict rather than going off before things are done.

 

Because someone claimed something happened and that claim has to be believed regardless of whether there is actual proof of what the claim says happened, and even with proof otherwise.  And then when nothing is found, the claimant suffers no repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...