Weather Channel Anchor Says She Was Fired Over Her Military Service
- Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:49am by
Madeleine Morgenstern
- Print »
- Email »
Nicole Mitchell claims her contract with the Weather Channel was not renewed because of her status as an Air Force reserve officer. (Image source: Atlanta Business Chronicle)
A former Weather Channel anchor is suing the network, claiming her status as an Air Force reserve officer got her fired.
Nicole Mitchell said this week her contract was not renewed in 2010 because Weather Channel management did not want to contend with the time she took off for her military duties, the Marietta Daily Journal reported. She has accused the Weather Channel and its parent companies of violating her rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994.
Mitchell, who holds the rank of captain, was an on-air meteorologist for the network for seven years. She said the trouble started after the Weather Channel was sold in 2008 to NBC Universal and private equity firms Bain Capital and the Blackstone Group. She told Fox News that management told her she would have to get clearance before taking any Air Force assignments.
“I was told in an email, ‘before you agree to military duty, you need to clear it through us first,’” Mitchell told Fox. “If you don’t show up for orders, you could be court-martialed.”
In one instance, Mitchell said, she was reprimanded for choosing her weekend Air Force commitment over a scheduled hair appointment. After missing a separate makeup consultation, she said she was moved from the 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. weekday anchor shift to a Monday to Friday 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. shift.
Image source: Facebook
According to the Daily Journal, Mitchell was never given a reason for not having her contract renewed.
“She had stellar evaluations,” Lynn Hogue, a retired Army lawyer, told the newspaper. “What other inference could you possible draw than that the renewal was based on the inconvenience caused by her military service?”
Mitchell, who started in the Reserves 20 years ago when she graduated from high school, said her suit is not just about herself, but other military members facing discrimination who don’t have the same resources she does.
“It‘s popular right now to say we support the troops and we’ve got your back, but if you’re going to say it you should mean it,” she said according to WAGA-TV.
Mitchell’s attorney, Lance LoRusso, has not said how much money his client is seeking but said she is entitled to wages she would have received had her contract been renewed.
In a statement, the Weather Channel said it couldn’t comment on the pending lawsuit but said it is committed to creating a work atmosphere in compliance with the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act.
“As with many situations, there is more than one version of what occurred,” the statement said. “We disagree with many of the assertions in the plaintiff’s press statements and intend to vigorously defend the matter in the arbitration process.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 591 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 376 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 415 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 383 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know 100 Comments- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 303 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 417 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (327)
Duey2000
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:59amGetting fired and not renewing a contract are two different things. I disagree with the way that she was treated and I hope that she gets something out of this though.
I’m also surprised to see that the Blackstone group was involved in the purchase of the Weather Channel. They own the Hilton brand…
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:22pmAyn Rand supporters would have made the same tough decision to trim away the takers. Businesses are not run to support USAF Reserve operational readiness.
If the super businesslike Bain Capital group was going to make the Weather Channel lean and mean, and squeeze out every cent of profits for the stockholders, it reasonably had to “un-renew” inefficient workers, no matter how “patriotic.”
It’s not about sex. The fact is, women veterans are just as hard working as anyone else, but reservists of any sex require businesslike consideration to be able to serve, which is a little bit costly.
Clearly, our combat and back line veterans need to understand that they cost the taxpayers a lot more than the 99.5% of normal US citizens who do not ever serve for even one day. This young lady needs to make some hard decisions about her career ambitions.
TEA
ronniesherard
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:41pm“Clearly, our combat and back line veterans need to understand that they cost the taxpayers a lot more than the 99.5% of normal US citizens who do not ever serve for even one day. This young lady needs to make some hard decisions about her career ambitions.”
We cost you “normal” citizens? Excuse me? Having been on active duty for almost 13 years now, I can certainly attest that we “abnormal” citizens serving our country pay taxes as well. All I can say is, wow…
Report Post »hidden_lion
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:43pmIt is illegal to fire someone for status as a reservist, but like you point out, not having a contract renewed is not the same as firing. They will win the lawsuit on that basis. She would be better served finding a new employer that respects her service or she could go active duty.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:05pmI’m sure people will disagree, but the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is just like the Civil Rights Act. Both violate the first amendment (the right of the people peaceably to assemble). You have the Natural Right to hire and fire anyone you like for any reason you like.
It is a violation of our Natural Rights, and the Constitution, to tell anyone they can’t fire anyone for any reason at all. It’s common sense.
Now, if you want to brand the Weather Channel “nasty”, “unpatriotic”, “sleazy”, “demeaning to the troops”, etc, then you should knock yourself out, because those are all accurate descriptions of the company. If you refuse to watch them and tell others not to watch them, that’s awesome. I’ll be sure to do that myself, for this reason and several others (mostly related to AGW).
Think about it folks, the Civil Rights Act AND the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act are where “Thought Crimes” begin. It‘s okay to fire someone if you’re thinking the correct way, but it’s not okay to fire your own employees (to spend your own money how you see fit) if you’re thinking the incorrect way.
Anyone who supports either of these acts is taking a broad jump into Progressive Socialist territory.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:15pm“Getting fired and not renewing a contract are two different things.”
Not in the Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act…
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:23pmJAYCEN
Comparing the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is just like the Civil Rights Act is like comparing the GI Bill and Food Stamps…
One protects people who served the country, and deserve a little bit of special treatment…While the other creates a class of people who have done nothing but be born.
Just like one helps people who have sacrificed part of their lives and the other helps people who refuse to help them selves….
Report Post »sasquatch08
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:25pmActually, I‘ve looked into this because I’m trying to joining a reserve unit, once the person is hired it’s illegal under federal law to dismiss them due to military service. If, in reconsidering her contract, they considered her status as an inactive reserve member and used that as part of the decision not to continue her then they have committed a crime under federal law.
@MONICNE
Yes, they cost the taxpayer money, however Rand never said anything about military reservists or active duty being bad and they are preforming one function of government that is explicitly laid out in the Constitution (ie something the government SHOULD be doing).
Just because you hate the military doesn’t make what you say correct.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:31pm@eagle2715
I often wonder if anyone ever bothers to think about the fact that these various “Acts” come about to give people “Rights” they didn’t have before.
I don’t recall seeing the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights amendment in the Constitution, guaranteeing the job of service people regardless of how their military duties conflict with their employment obligations. Seems more like some kind of union tactic to buy the votes of service people.
Want to have your cake and eat it too? Sure! We’ll invent a new right, and then you can basically have two different jobs. One with the government, and a private job. If the government job interferes with your private job, that’s tough-titty for your employer. But just so we’re on the same page, your private job BETTER NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT JOB…
Report Post »Cavy from VA
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:36pmReading some of these comments it struck me that “Being Patriotic” has become something of the past … In my book, you always choose to be patriotic over anything else … it’s what Patriots do!! (Think of all the military members who have given the supreme sacrifice … patriotically) Obviously the fools at the Weather Channel will only be patriotic if they are forced into it and when given a choice they choose for their own selfish ends and not for our Great Country. Soooooo since they have decided to choose themselves over the USA … I will choose to NEVER look at their trash again. I say ALL PATRIOTS SHOULD CHOOSE TO DO THE SAME. They can worry about internals when it comes to profits … too bad the fools don’t realize the source of those profits and the fact that viewers generate them … not the stuffy self engrossed executives who run the whole shebang … It’s the “Progressive” disease … all of them have it … it’s just like ole John Edwards combing his hair … a bunch of immature liberal AIRHEADS who think that if it wasn’t for them there would be no success.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:39pm@eagle2715
I‘m afraid we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, Eagle. Both creates a special class of people.
You might consider your words carefully “…people who served the country…“ What does the word ”serve” mean? Do you choose to serve, or are you required to serve? Does “service” mean you’re then entitled to something, or does it mean you sacrifice yourself, your life, your free time – for something greater than yourself?
By your definition, SERVICE seems trite. I respect the military for their service, because I THINK they do it without seeking additional special privilages, even though they risk their lives and livelihood.
If they’re doing it for your reasons, then I’m done clapping for veterans. I’m done thanking veterans, because they already get a big, fat thanks from my tax dollars in the form of pointing a gun at employers and forcing them to suck it in the face of hardship earned by having employed a “service”man or woman.
Report Post »tommytruck
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:54pm@MONICINE
Navy Vet, here. As someone who defended your right to free-speech, I see that you have exercised it quite liberally. Now, I’ll exercise my right. You are a tool.
The movie was crappy, but the book “Starship Troopers” had a very interesting take on citizenship. Anyone could be a resident – only those who put their lives through military service were allowed to be citizens and were afforded the priviledge of voting. There is some merit to that mode of thought.
The difference between you and a Vet – Your right to free speech was defended by someone else. Vets have earned their “right” to free speech.
Again. You are a tool.
Report Post »Dom321
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:04pmAgain, Monicne”s posts are like hearing my dog fart…. I ignore them…
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:15pmMONICNE
- Reservists gain additional experience working with people of varied backgrounds.
- You make additional contacts potentially throughout the U.S.
- A great many service people have been stationed overseas & have been exposed to foreign cultures.
- A service member is not likely to have a bigoted or provincial world view like those inside the beltway or on the left coast.
Somehow the same leftists that are for family leave for 6 months at the drop of the hat are against a service member leaving for 2 weeks or for 1 year during a national emergency.
It is an emergency whether you admit it to your trollish self or not.
1993 World Trade center Bombing
1995 Oklahoma City Bombing*
1996 Khobar Tower
1998 Embassy Bombings
2000 USS Cole Bombing
2001 9/11
*He sometimes travelled to the Philippines alone, while she remained in Kansas.
Cebu City in the Philippines was at the time a reputed base for several militant organizations, including the Liberation Army of the Philippines, the Communist Huk, and the Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf.[22] Stephen Jones, the trial attorney who first represented McVeigh, cited evidence of a meeting in Davao City, Mindanao, in 1992 or 1993, in which 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, al-Qaeda members Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah, and a “farmer” fitting Nichols’s description met to discuss the Oklahoma bombing. Jones said the FBI was aware of the meeting.
Report Post »http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nich
Walkabout
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:18pmMonicne
Earth to Monicne: Bain Capital group is not run by Romney., He hasn’t bee there in a while troll.
The #3 guy at Bain is an Obama supporter & bundler. There in lies the problem. So I would say any problem lie with Democrats running things.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:22pmYou normal reservist is going to be away from work or home about36 days out of the year, a little more than a month & 10% of the year. A little over 2/rds of that time is weekends.
Let certain private business crap on service members. We’ll take names & take our business elsewhere.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:24pmMONICNE
Clearly, our combat and back line veterans need to understand that they cost the taxpayers a lot more than the 99.5% of normal US citizens who do not ever serve for even one day.
____
You are the one that costs. Without the military, you would never be.
Without the military people would take your stuff, abuse you & dispose of you.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:29pm@Walkabout
Amen, brother! And God bless you.
I’ll do exactly that. Any business who drops an employee based on their service (either because they once served, or because they’re a reservist) deserves public scorn and shame. But this cuts both ways.
What if a Reservist worked for a very small company and he/she was a key employee? Every time they have to take off, it screws the company. Now who’s the jerk? In cases like this, the reservist needs to find a new line of private work, or seek to end his/her term in the Reserves as quickly as possible.
Freedom people. Supposedly, that’s why the Reservists serve.
Report Post »Fubared
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:50pmmonicne/encinomom
Piss off troll.
TEA
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:52pmWant to have your cake and eat it too? Sure! We’ll invent a new right, and then you can basically have two different jobs. One with the government, and a private job. If the government job interferes with your private job, that’s tough-titty for your employer. But just so we’re on the same page, your private job BETTER NOT INTERFERE WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT JOB…
Your comparing Military Service to a Postal worker, and then comparing both to an accountant?”
“You might consider your words carefully “…people who served the country…“ What does the word ”serve” mean? Do you choose to serve, or are you required to serve? Does “service” mean you’re then entitled to something, or does it mean you sacrifice yourself, your life, your free time – for something greater than yourself?”
I should cinsider my word carefully? Really? You drying to dissect the word serve makes you sound like some sort of philosophical professor who doesn’t delve in the real world. Someone who chooses to SERVE in the MILITARY of this country does so of their own free will. And unless you yourself have served, is above any kind of judgement you can levee against them. If they signed up for the education benifits, or the thanks from little kids at the airport, or for the cool uniforms, or for a chance to blow **** up, it doesn’t matter. They DID SIGN UP, and were willing to make a sacrifice far beyond what you are apparently capable of understanding.
Report Post »jcvillar
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:58pmThat will be the problem for her attorney. The defense will claim they simply did not renew the contract because she wasn’t that great or maybe they are just broke, or both. Never know what a jury will do, though. Wait and see situation.
Report Post »Dave
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:03pmPlease note that The Home Depot is also a proud sponsor of the Weather Channel. Vote with your dollars my fellow Americans!
Report Post »GNAC
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:04pmThe problem is there is a LAW giving reservists and active duty members certain rights. It will take a courtroom to ascertain the specifics and if the law was broken.
In our over litigious society, this is nothing new.
Report Post »Jim in Houston
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:15pmAll I had to read was NBC and immediately it became clear why she was fired. Make them pay big time Captain.
Report Post »CharlesMartel
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:24pm@MONICNE National Guard are Reserve Training weekends are usually on a very predictable schedule, so it does not put an undo burden on employers to ask then to schedule around military training. The two week annual training is no more difficult to schedule around than an 2 week vacation.
This is about attitude of employers not those serving their country!
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:39pm@eagle2715
No, Eagle, it doesn’t. I’m not dissecting the word, friend, I’m trying to figure out if we both share an understanding of its meaning.
Your atttitude reminds me of a union mentality. “I put my time in.“ ”I want what I got coming to me.”
I’d ask that you take a deep breath, and re-read the parts of my post you carefully chose to ignore. I’m not trying to “be right”. I’m trying to challenge your thinking.
You seem to want to limit the freedom of employers through legislation in order to get something in return for your sacrifice. I’m telling you that the sacrifice was your willful choice that came with no pre-conditions on my side. If you ask the government to hold a gun to my head (which is what legislation is) so you can get a little something-something in return for your service, then I’m going to resist that at every turn.
If you and I drink a beer and agree that “it’s the right thing to do”, but we won’t force it on our fellow citizens, then I’ll pay for your beer, shake your hand and graciously thank you for your service to my country.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:42pm@CharlesMartel
No sir, this is about forcing employers to make concessions to a protected class of people. That’s the opposite of freedom – you are removing the employers‘ freedom to choose who they will and won’t employ. Moreover, you‘re doing it based on the employers’ beliefs, which is creepy and evil.
By the by, since you don’t work in every company in America, I doubt you have much of a clue as to any given company’s specific situation, and just how difficult it can be to schedule around a vacation with a little as 2 weeks notice. Yet, you presume to know. Feeling a little god-like, are we?
Let me ask you – when Barack Obama presumes to know how you live your life and why you make your choices, does it torque you off?
Report Post »Kevin The Elder
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:46pm@JAYCEN. It sounds to me as if you do too much thinking with your brain and too little reacting with your heart. I suspect that you’re right that many will look at what you say and not understand. That seems to be a huge problem with society today. Very few think of the other side. I suspect you get pretty frustrated in hearing the views of so many others. Have a great weekend to all.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:46pm@Jim in Houston
That’s what I thought, too. NBC is about as anti-American as a corporation can get. The other networks are bad enough, but NBC is worse by an order of magnitude.
Report Post »JPinGA
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:47pmI suspect that she “voluntarily” had herself put on orders without informing her employer. I had this happen to me several times during the “war on terror”, and the majority of the time, the “culprits” would get a job (while on orders) that really had nothing to do with combat duties. If this can be proven to be the case, her employer had every right to not renew her contract. Now she can go an be what we refer to as a “Reserve Bum”. She won’t make as much money as she did with the weather channel, but damn if she won’t look good doing it……… LOL
Report Post »portague
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:51pmJaycen
technically your right about businesses having the right to fire at will or “at will states”. What you fail to realize though is most companies have hiring and firing policies that stop management from firing people at will (at least ones worth a damn). Reason being so that management can not fire people who actually do their jobs because they have a wild hair up their ass. This is due to the fact that vacant jobs cost the company money, so does the associated costs of re-hiring, and training. Companies with such policies do open themselves to legal cases for wrongful firing of employees due to violating such company policies. The only way a company can truly fire someone at will is to not have such a policy. Which actually can cost the company without such a policy more money as management hires and keeps people who are not worth it because of feeling rather then facts that show whether or not the employee is productive and an asset to the company.
“She had stellar evaluations,” Lynn Hogue if this is true then they let go a financial asset to the company, even though she is a reservist she was still an asset. Companies tend not to let go assets that are good unless an idiot was put in charge of the asset. So there is good chance the person who let her go violated a company hiring and firing policy. So after this let go someone else is getting let go for company policy violations.
Report Post »Pro-Palin
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:55pmMONICNE
And when it comes to defending this nations interests more than 1/2 are from reserve units you can get the hell out of here with your Bain Capital group BS . ALL U HATERS OF SUCCESSFUL SMART AND PRETTY WOMEN like this woman and people like Sarah Palin go back to your spot on the couch grab your bag of chettos or your 1/2 gallon of ice cream and get fatter lazier and more pathetic than u already are. This woman is patriotic loves her nation and her JOBS and the glorious weather channel molesters can get over it. Look up the history of comments made against and feeling up of pretty women on set and comment uncalled for. Its the soldier that gets hired before civilian slugs because of their sense of duty to any job , most are never disapline problems ever and most are early to the job instaed of on time. Take your female woman haters club and military haters club and shove it Love chunks couch potatoes.
Report Post »idarusskie
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 5:00pmBlackstone owns a lot of stuff. They also just purchased motel 6 and la Quinta. I am more surprised that Bain and Blackstone owned the weather channel. Since bain was supposed to be so evil while Blackstone being owned 49% by union pension funds is sanctified because they bundle for Obama.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 5:25pm@portague
Hi, Portague. Actually, I’m trying to step back from this specific issue and try to see it from a larger perspective. Ultimately, I don’t care what employers do. I don‘t care if they’re incompetent. The market will handle that. Employers will get better and succeed, or they’ll fail and go out of business.
To me, this isn’t about managment practices, this is about freedom and the rights of individuals and companies to hire and fire regardless of who they hire and fire or why.
Once government gets into “why” you fired someone, they are stripping you of your God-given rights. This is true if the employee is female, black, a veteran, or has 3 toes. Other commenters seem to think that how a person has spent their life entitles them to special treatment.
Each individual must be free to make that decision on their own. If I like veterans and I’m a patriot, I want to be free to support veterans. If I’m an anti-American doucheasaurus who hates the military, I want to be free to NOT support veterans.
There’s a tremendous difference between public pressure and putting something into LAW. Those who want to force others to think and act like they do through law are anti-American a-holes – ie Progressive Socialists.
Those who call people a-holes are simply exercising their right to free speech. You don’t like veterans, I think you’re an a-hole! See how I didn’t trample on your rights, I just trampled on your pwecious feewings.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 5:30pm@Kevin The Elder
Thanks, Kevin. Though, since my logic is being used to help keep not only myself, but my neighbors free, I like to think a lot of this comes directly from my heart ;-)
Report Post »jhaydeng
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 5:48pmNot to sound like a typical guy, but I would watch the Weather Channel even if she was talking about global warming! They dropped the ball on this one! IMO!
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:01pmI was in the Army (combat engineer) and later the National Guard. And if the crap hits the fan guess who is there to make sure you have a home or place to go to work the next day? Who do you think looters/rapist fear most in a disaster….. cops or the National Guard? And what is that worth? Is it to high a cost that I get to keep my job under the law? Let JAYCEN’s A$$ be stuck on the roof of his house during a flood and he would pay anything for the Guard to show up.
Report Post »San Diego Soldier
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:09pmMONICNE,
Report Post »It is illegal for an employer to use your reserve/National Guard military service against you inconsideration of hiring and firing. She will win any law suit she pushes forward on those grounds.
MONICNE
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:12pmI do not hate the Reserves or the military, and I served faithfully active duty from 72 to 81, with three honorable, and was deployed outside CONUS for all but training. I was a volunteer before the all- volunteer forces. So you possibly misunderstand me, or possibly you are just coming out swinging.
All I am saying is, Job Creators are important too. Right now, they are under lots of stress, because they are scared of uncertain taxes. Bain and Blackstone are bravely making the hard decisions that will help the shareholding Job Creators rescue the country. That is super patriotic.
And, a strong woman who chooses to stay in the reserves is not just going to survive – but to thrive.
Too too many Reserve and National Guard units have deployed multiple times in the past ten years, so the term “weekend warrior” is no longer a good description. A high number of the so-called weekend warriors are fighting and dying along with their “regular” Army and Marine war fighters.
The civilian labor force is stretched thin. Job creators have laid off all possible workers and the workers that are left can no longer support lengthy absences of any one, and all kinds of families have to put up with it.
Special note to WALKABOUT: I, at least do not need Aussies advising me on how to be patriotic. I have been to Westrail in years gone by and the hard working folks down there would kick my bum if I had stuck my Yank nose in their local political affairs! LOL
POW MIA Nev
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:26pmHey, JAYCEN, even GOD gave us laws because He understands human nature. You Paulists cannot distinguish between freedom and moral anarchy, and you’re spreading the latter like a virus. We FLLLLUCKING FIRED RON PAUL, AND YET YOU PAULISTS WANT TO RAM HIM DOWN OUR THROATS, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU. YOU MAKE THREATS, YOU INSULT, YOU THINK YOU ARE SPECIAL.
Hypocrites, hypocrites, hypocrites. Just shut up, dude.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:27pmYes, the military deserves special treatment. Cpt. Michell worked for the WC SEVEN YEARS without incident. Then the Hussein media takes over, and from Day 1, she starts to get warnings from management.
Belonging to the military sets you apart in many ways. As Cpt. Mitchell noted, people in the military can be court-martialed. If as a society we fail to accommodate our heroes, then we have devolved into a liberal or a Paulist. The truth is, if she were butt-ugly or a FINO (female in name only) like most of the liberal women in the media, she would still have a job.
Report Post »Rick in Greene
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:35pmThe article reads that she has been a reservist for 20 years, this is not like walking into work one day and announcing you just joined the reserves. Then to notify her via email, this is just spineless management. During the acquisition one would think that the Bain Group was made aware of her long standing commitment to her country. This just makes you want to believe that there’s one more left wing whacko outfit in this world…
Report Post »MONICNE
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:37pmBy the way, there was no federal law broken, nobody fired her, she is not an rank and file employee.
She had a professional entertainment and broadcasting contract, common in the industry. She was probably protected by one or more Unions until her contract expired and was not renewed. Now she can hit the road and make it bigger and better, or file a retaliatory lawsuit and make some lawyers rich for forcing her way back into a now-unwelcome environment.
Or maybe her lawyers just want a nice settlement.
You better believe Glenn and Rush and Fox reserve the right to legally not renew an option if it affects anything from ratings to bottom line costs or shareholder profit. And NBC as well.
When you see Bain, you know there will be Pain. Whenever a company is being right-sized, nobody should be surprised when a clear-eyed business decision happens.
The real patriots are slaving away to save the nation. Real Men like Representatives Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan, Governors Mitt Romney, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, and Chris Christie do not need to have worn the Uniform for one day, to know what is best to do about our socialist entitled takers, including civil engineers, teachers, nurses, firemen, police, EMT, medicare/medicade users, retirees over 67, and, yes – veterans.
Life is hard, and then you die.
POW/MIA – take 5 seconds to honor their memory
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:38pmDidn’t take long to see an evil Bain reference.
First off, for our active and retired Patriots, no cost is too high. That‘s the one place I’d gladly pay higher taxes to fund. Don’t let our resident trolls tell you otherwise. They prefer to use our taxes to buy votes. They don’t serve this country in any other way than to bring it down. This will be another three day issue of organized manufactured outrage and Obama will come out with a statement about Bain hating our troops.
The protections of our troops by existing law cannot be thwarted. If only that statement applied to the end of lives system in our new healthcare bill.
Let’s go punk a$$$ trolls, argue with that last statement. I’m itching to smack one of you. It’s Friday.
Report Post »Ari Ben TZion
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:41pmMitchell is a knock-out. Just look at those big beautiful eyes.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:56pmAs the self appointed arbitrator between two fine Patriots- eagle and Jay,
Gotta say both of y’all are right. Service is voluntary. Paying for our military is vital. Those that choose to serve perform duties to accomplish defense. Those who do not choose to serve are obligated to pay for such military, by constitutional mandate. Though they may disagree with such tax it is vital for the defense of said constitutional rights, like freedom of speech.
I say we put all of our efforts into welfare and food stamp/ebt reform in regards to those who produce nothing. And I can thinkmof 20 other organizational vampires that suck the blood of the taxpayer.
Thanks guys. Good debate. Keep it clean unless you’re smacking these media matters employees.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:03pmOk. The monicne that I know and despise was like stumbling bumbling idiot. The new one is now a veteran that volunteered during a time of draft.
I guess mr soros got my memo about firing encinom. The new hire just showed up.everybody give him a hand. Apparrently these media matters people just sign in under any name when their shift starts.
What a joke you are media matters trolls. Live with that.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:23pmAfter furtherconsideration and re reading I rescind my comments about monicne.
Accept my apologies. Your statements reminded me of who you are now.
Must be a temporary case of Alzheimer’s. God bless.
Report Post »Lunertic
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:24pmMonicne? You mention Bain? What about Blackstone? Do you even know who Blackstone is? If not I suggest you listen to Glenn in between Tingle Leg, Schlitz and Madcow.
Report Post »How much a Soldier cost us? How much is your families and your life worth to you? You and your Families FREEDOM? You close with “TEA”? You haven’t got a clue what “TEA” is all about do you.
hayesstephen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:56pmmoncine. I’ve read your rantings before. If there is a such a thing as karma, you have a double portion coming your way, all bad, horrible bad!!! You are something that lives under rocks, a thing when a decent human meets you they have to fight the urge to flee!!! I feel the need to shower to cleanse my body,from just reading your nasty disgusting ramblings. Do you have any real friends? Are you allowed to attend family get gatherings? You are a monster that sits a high throne you have built for your self and one day you’ll come tumbling down. Monster,slime, that which people scrape off the bottom of their shoes. You my dear are a nightmare with access to the internet.
Report Post »Baja
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 8:35pm@monicne
“POW/MIA – take 5 seconds to honor their memory.”
Really?
Report Post »If that is really how you fell, then you are an unappreciative POS and don’t deserve to live in a country where tens of thousands have died for your freedom and rights.
jzs
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:37pmI guess this is Bain Capital’s idea of job creation. They created a job when they fired her for serving in the military, a lower paying job for sure. Go Bain. Go USA.
Report Post »C. Schwehr
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:49pmMONICNE: As you are a fascist troll, your comments are without meaning….you are anti-military to begin with, and would see the military destroyed by your “messiah”. You are political manure.
Report Post »JAYCEN: You show MUCH ignorance of the Constitution you make specious claims for. The Constitution says nothing about MANY things which are known to be natural rights. The Federal government is allowed to establish a set of uniform laws to protect the rights of the people. The law you seem to consider UN-Constitutional is established by the government to PROTECT the jobs of people who volunteer to join the National Guard and Reserves of the various STATES. This law allows citizens to volunteer their time to the protection of the states and in turn the country as a whole without being PUNISHED by losing their jobs. It addresses the rights of the businesses equally, and allows a person to return to their job if the job still exists when they return to civilian life. Your claim of an unstated right is moot. Except for the first ten amendments ALL of our rights are unstated!!!!!
Live_Free_orDie
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:49pmFor all of you who are debating this…she is covered by USERRA. The U.S. Government is the standard set in USERRA…and if the U.S. Government has to abide by this Act. Then guess what??? This company has major problems. She will get her job back with pay and they will most likely get fined!
Report Post »SpitFU
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:59pm@Jaycen “I’m done thanking veterans, because they already get a big, fat thanks from my tax dollars” Huh? I served active duty 10 years ago and it has not gone up much my yearly earnings with BAQ and VHA, and BAS was $27k a year. On what planet are you on that my big fat pay check is thanks from you. I‘m tired of peoples’ UN-sympathetic attitude towards service members and their families’ sacrifice. Go serve active duty or even reservist for a few years and see if you can make ends meet without a actual private job waiting for you when you get back from serving over in Iraq or Afghanistan for 6 months and tell me about your big fat paycheck and earnings. You can’t even make a 1 bedroom apartment lease payment on that big fat paycheck we get. And no housing is not guaranteed to reservists.
The Uniformed Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act stems previously from the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. Hmm, what were people complaining about then… well the draft. We have an all volunteer military now we could bring back the draft and you guys could see what its like to not find employment after you have to serve in a mandatory fashion. Please don’t take away recruiters major method of attracting reservists, our most highly gifted service members in the military. Many are pilots, doctors, and lawyers, technicians, and tradesmen.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:26am@RepubliCorp
Hey, what does your comment have to do with ANYTHING I’ve said? Did I say there shouldn’t be a National Reserve? Jesus. Buy a clue.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:30am@kryptonite
I never mentioned Ron Paul. If you‘ve ever read anything I’ve ever said about Ron Paul, you‘d know I think he’s more dangerous than Barack Obama.
Here’s a thought, kryptonite, I haven’t once told anyone on this thread to shut up, either. Take your own advice. Your comment is so dumb, you don’t have any context for what you posted to me. You might want to put your padded helmet back on. Another shock will push you right under “borderline”.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:35am@kryptonite
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:27pm
Yes, the military deserves special treatment. Cpt. Michell worked for the WC SEVEN YEARS without incident. Then the Hussein media takes over, and from Day 1, she starts to get warnings from management.
Belonging to the military sets you apart in many ways.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, now I see where you’re coming from. Let’s just have a look at your perspective, shall we?
Barack Obama didn’t have this woman fired. In fact, he has absolutely nothing to do with this story. I despise Obama, but you’re just a frothing ding dong.
Did you even bother to read the article before dropping down to pop off in the comments section? Probably not. Thinking is hard.
Report Post »Fippy
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:39am@eagle2715
Getting fired and not having a contract renewed *are* two distinctly separate things, even under the USERRA. I‘d be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed by their decision a bit, but a corporation has the right to choose a new candidate that better serves their business needs. She may be offered a different position, or given a tidy severance package in accordance with her original contract, but so long as the contractual obligations were filled, they have their rear-ends covered.
The USERRA protects against what most would consider wrongful termination, but is not a “I-get-to-keep-whatever-job-I-want ticket”.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:40am@SLAPTHELEFT
Thanks, brother. I don‘t disagree with anything you’ve said. I think a well-funded military is critical. When I hire, I look for military service. If I hired a Reservist, I would talk to them about their scheduling needs and do my best to work with them and I woud stand for them within my company if someone opposed it.
None of that requires a law, and that’s the crux of my argument. The moment we cross the line and force employers into a position, we’ve just stripped our fellow Americans of their NATURAL RIGHTS (I’m looking at you, Kryptonite).
“Rights Act”s are not Natural Rights, they’re “Civil Rights” – arbitrary rights made up by men and granted by men. Those are not rights as Americans understand them.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:55amC. Schwehr
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:49pm
JAYCEN: The Constitution says nothing about MANY things which are known to be natural rights. The Federal government is allowed to establish a set of uniform laws to protect the rights of the people.
It addresses the rights of the businesses equally, and allows a person to return to their job if the job still exists when they return to civilian life. Your claim of an unstated right is moot. Except for the first ten amendments ALL of our rights are unstated
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The law does not address the rights of the business equally. It favors the Reservist, period. The business has no right. That’s an unstated constitutional right covered by the 9th and 10th amendments, eh?
The “right” of a Reservist to willingly take on responsibilities that prevent him from fulfilling his obligations to his employers to the exclusion of the employer’s right to fire him is an unstated right? You’re right, that’s what the Founders wanted. Special rights for soliders that automatically negate the rights of civilians. I suppose that’s why we have the 3rd amendment, because the founders were SO hip to that idea. Must also be why the Supreme Commander of the military is always a civilian.
But what do I know? I clearly don’t understand the Constitution.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:58am@SpitFU
Nice nickname. You must be a wonderful person to know IRL. I suppose it’s no surprise you chose to take my comment completely out of context. Nice.
USERRA of 1994 was due to what happened in Viet Nam? Timely. Makes perfect sense. 20 years too late to make a difference.
Oh, and obviously the problem they were trying to solve had everything to do with “going to war and losing your job” and nothing to do with a country turned against its own people by Communists. Eh, take that out of context, too. Why not? It’s easier not to THINK that way.
Good on ya.
Report Post »Mil Mom
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 1:23am@moncine
re : It’s not about sex. The fact is, women veterans are just as hard working as anyone else, but reservists of any sex require businesslike consideration to be able to serve, which is a little bit costly.
Clearly, our combat and back line veterans need to understand that they cost the taxpayers a lot more than the 99.5% of normal US citizens who do not ever serve for even one day. This young lady needs to make some hard decisions about her career ambitions
Report Post »****
Certainly the taxpayers (and non taxpayers) need to realize they cost the combat and back line veterans their lives and health (Yes, I said lives, because many come home then die from injuries or conditions caused by their service!) and these people Are Way More worthy of the extra consideration than the 99.5% of us who have neither the ability, courage or dedication to put our lives and health on the line, and be willing to face guns, bombs, IED’s and some of the worst conditions on earth, to give us the right to sit home and type into a computer or smart phone all kinds of comments. UNLESS YOU‘RE READY TO DIE FOR THE OTHER SIDE’S RIGHT TO SAY ANY FOOL THING THEY WANT TO, DON’T COMPLAIN ABOUT MILITARY GETTING SPECIAL TREATMENT! You never know when you may need them to save your, or your loved one’s lives.
starman70
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 7:26amHere you have a prime example of NBC’s view of the military. THEY HATE IT! While there is a difference between “Getting fired and ”Not renewing a contract”, the action is an indefensible position as far as TWC is concerned. She was eliminated because she is in the military.
What more could you expect from NBC (Nothing But Communism). This young lady is an American Patriot and therefore, she doesn’t fit their mold of wishy washy far left ******** who work for and run that lousy network.
I will no longer watch TWC. Instead, I will use Accuweather of some other source of weather information.
Report Post »SpitFU
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 7:37am@jaycen “I suppose it’s no surprise you chose to take my comment completely out of context.” What context? I was simply quoting you for purposes of brevity within a 1500 character limit on posts. Explain to me your entire context then that I pulled your words from…
Reading your entire post I sense your giving the political retort. “20 years too late to make a difference.” The original Act never stopped it had similar provisions which covered the same situations for service members. Congress and Bill Clinton saw the need for updating the Act.
“Oh, and obviously the problem they were trying to solve had everything to do with “going to war and losing your job” and nothing to do with a country turned against its own people by Communists.”
Yes one of the problems they were trying to solve was just that among other things. It had nothing to do with Communism.
Speaking of thought, try to do some research on your own before spouting statements with no thought behind them like the above.
Report Post »bobdog19006
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 9:59amNot getting renewed and getting fired are two different things?
Sorry. It’s black letter law. The Weather Channel loses, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Second, she’s been a Reserve officer for 20 years. They knew she was reserve military when they hired her 7 years ago.
Third, she was not renewed because she missed a haircut and a makeup session? Dafuq?
Report Post »dmayeads
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:38pmDuey2000,
I agree. Some of the other “posters” are missing the point. I‘m guessing they have never served in the armed forces or they just don’t care that someone is devoting part of their life to the service of their country.
I’m all for making a buck. I’m also for anyone devoting their life for the service of my country. These “investors” are wrong and should be ashamed!
I should have guessed. The weather channel seems to have shown a “leftist attitude” over the last few years.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 2:45pmJaycen
Each individual must be free to make that decision on their own. If I like veterans and I’m a patriot, I want to be free to support veterans. If I’m an anti-American doucheasaurus who hates the military, I want to be free to NOT support veterans.
—
You want stupid? That statement takes the grand prize. Our men and women in uniform don’t get to choose who they protect and fight for. They shed their blood to the death, sacrifice their limbs if need be, and leave their loved ones and their hometowns behind for every American. The fact that JOINING the military was made voluntary doesn’t preclude them from the safeguards that have been put in place so they can do their job effectively and still support themselves and their families. That’s common sense to any patriot who gives it a little thought.
Speaking of borderline, you crossed the line, pal. You claim you are not a Paulist, but your response is right out of their handbook. You also say you couldn’t tell where I was coming from. A good place to start if you want to avoid confusion is to align yourself with the camp that best reflects your views on key issues. I’d say the military ranks right up there with freedom. (cont.)
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 2:56pm@JAYCEN (Cont.)
The third possibility is that you never matured. You retain the egocentric world view of an adolescent. It happens a lot in this country of plenty, case in point, the OWS. The latter are anarchists, and you are borrowing their moral code: “This is what FREEDOM looks like! Rad, dude!” Your view comes across as either egregiously callous or puerile. If you don’t want others to take you for a Paulist or an anarchist, I suggest you refrain from quacking like one of those ducks.
=> “Barack Obama didn’t have this woman fired. In fact, he has absolutely nothing to do with this story. I despise Obama, but you’re just a frothing ding dong.”
—
And you’re cr@pping all over the military. Congrats! You win again. Chris Matthews couldn’t have said it better.
Did I say Obama made a call? No. Obama doesn’t fire anyone who doesn’t attack him personally. He’s got his hands full. However, the MSM is marching in lockstep with his policy of undermining the military. Did someone take a hit for lunch? Um….um…which direction is planet Earth? (I’m looking right back at you, Jaycen.)
Report Post »cmi
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 3:37pmWhen you’re working under contract, & that contract is up, what law is it that say’s they MUST renew your contract?? That’s crazy!!! Hit the street, captain, it’s over, goodbye!!!! Suppose your contract was up & they wanted you to stay, but you didn’t want to? Could they get a lawyer & force you to stay??
Report Post »The Third Archon
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 4:00pm@MONICNE
That’s because Ayn Rand was an idiot who missed the important things and life–her literature is as worthless as her purpose in life.
The whole POINT of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is to prevent the firing of military personnel on the grounds of the inconveniences caused to their employer for their service–not EVERYTHING of value, not EVERY worthy purpose, can be reduced down to monetary profit. The purpose of preventing economic discrimination against military personnel is one worthy of a little lost revenue. If it’s SUCH a burden on the firms to do so (doubtful)–petition the government for remuneration.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 5:02pm@JAYCEN
None of that requires a law, and that’s the crux of my argument.
—–
Your premise that “we don’t require a law” is false. Most people don’t murder, but a law does forbid it for the minority who contemplate/commit murder. There’s also a dispensation that allows the military to kill the enemy in times of war. So your generalization is unviable in real life.
If you don’t need a law to keep your end of the bargain, great! You’re a caring, socially responsible citizen. But half of America DOES require said law. Why does it concern you if a law requires un-American citizens to abide by special provisions for people who carry out the supreme mission of defending this country? The Bible says: “Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same…But if you do what is evil, be afraid (Rom 13:3-4). The fact that you find “a law for good” stifling, and resort to pitting military rights against civilian rights shows you have the typical liberal antagonism toward the military. Your earlier remarks and condescending tone are also telling (June 8 @1:39am).
I don’t have any “natural rights.” I have GOD-given rights, and God entrusted the military with my liberty. What the law does is make sure the anti-military crowd pays Liberty her dues. So “fight or support those who fight in practical ways,” because like it or not, we are all in this fight.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 6:29pmNichole Mitchell is a total babe, and she is smart as a whip. She does not need the commies at the Weather Channel. Screw them. She is a class act-period. Now this is just my personal opinion, but, I am thinking that the less attractive, (ie fat and ugly) women did not like her because she soaked up all the attention like a giant sponge, so-back stab. Ugly libs just hate that. Happens all the time.
Report Post »pavepaws
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 2:44amGo to Fox.
Report Post »RacWisco
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 1:15pm“Clearly, our combat and back line veterans need to understand that they cost the taxpayers a lot more than the 99.5% of normal US citizens who do not ever serve for even one day. This young lady needs to make some hard decisions about her career ambitions.” That has to be the most vapid piece of drivel I have ever seen written. I am going to take a guess that you have never read Ayn Rand, because I think anyone that could write what you did would struggle with a “chapter” AKA big girls book. You do realize active duty service members, reservists and, retirees pay taxes I hope? As far as what “military members need to realize”, Monicne, I think the only thing I could probably learn from you after serving my country for 26 years is how to paint my nails.
Report Post »Lt_Scrounge
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 11:34pmJaycen, you are obviously not a veteran. How many of your jobs have you had that even in training people die? How many where a misstep can leave you permanently disabled? How many coworkers have you had have severe health problems related to their work environment? How many jobs have you had that you can be sent to prison and declared a convicted felon for quitting, or failing to show up for a business trip? How many jobs have you had that has an elevated rate of suicide amongst otherwise physically healthy 20 somethings? How many jobs have you had wherein you missed the bulk of your child’s first year of life, if not all of it? Want to know the truth? Most veterans accept their VA benefits reluctantly. I get an annual physical. I BUY my prescriptions from Walmart because they’re less expensive than ordering them from the VA. When you start complaining about what veterans cost, think about what they pay to earn those benefits. Without those of us who are willing to stand up to those who would attack this country and say “Not on MY WATCH”, twits like you wouldn’t have the ability to spew your venom.
I agree with the commenter who praised the “Starship Troopers” idea that only those willing to put their lives on the line to defend the government should be the ones to determine how it is run. Odds are that if only veterans were allowed to vote and run for office, the defense dept would be strong, but would be used very little. No one hates war more than those fighting
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:21am@Lt_Scrounge
Scrounge, your comment is depressing. So many veterans righteously indignant – over their support for stripping a neighbor of his rights so the veteran gets special priviliges.
It makes me sick to see so much of this. You’re supposed to put your butt on the line to protect our rights. I guess for a lot of you guys, it’s about favoritism.
What I do in my job is irrelevant. What a soldier does in his job is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is freedom for all Americans. I want that freedom. You don’t.
Why, exactly, were you a soldier again? Without telling me how much I don’t know, why don’t you tell me what you know? Why don’t you explain to me how your work as a soldier entitles you to stomp all over my rights?
Thanks.
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 1:25am@kryptonite
I don’t need to respond to most of your comments, Kryptonite, because your mountain of emotional evidence has little basis in fact, nor does it address my points in any meaningful way.
I DO want to address your last bit, though, where you equate a soldier‘s right to keep a job holding more power than the employer’s right to employ who they like – with MURDER. You keep accusing me of being a supporter of Ron Paul, which is classic logical fallacey, but I’ll take your comment and use it to accuse you of being a Union Supporter since your tactics are right out of the playbook of SEIU and Saul Alinsky.
Report Post »LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 9:19amThere is study about to be released stating that those who have less than 7 hours sleep are 4 times more likely to suffer a stroke.
@MONICNE, those who read your ridiculous, dumbfounded, drenched in liberal kool-aid comments are 10 times likely to have a stroke. You have no respect for anybody who serves the greater good for my country.
I officially ask you to relinquish your American citizenship and leave.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 6:46pm@Jaycen
I don’t need to respond to most of your comments
–
You can cop out, dude. It’s your choice. However, don’t confuse zeal with mindless emotion. Patriotism is intrinsically intense. I invoked patriotic duty — which we ALL are bound by, whether we sign up for the toughest positions or not – and, once again, you reacted derisively, dismissing it as “emotional.”
=> “…you equate a soldier‘s right to keep a job holding more power than the employer’s right to employ who they like – with MURDER.
Report Post »—-
My argument is based on scientific studies of social behavior, so it’s a little more complex than that. I challenged your childish notion that “we don’t require a law.” It was not a comparison with murder or killing (to defend), per se. It simply illustrated the need for a social contract, so that all can enjoy a free and safe Republic. Since retaining Life and Liberty is a costly ongoing battle, we all have to pay a price. The law is there for criminals, as well as for naysayers like you who either think they can have their cake and eat it too, or cannot see the forest for the trees. (CONT.)
kryptonite
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 7:25pm@JAYCEN (Cont.)
Without God, our “natural rights” devolve into human rights, civil rights, union rights, employer rights- no matter, they are all self-serving and therefore conflict-ridden. By contrast, when God delegates those rights, our social contract reflects the righteousness of God, to the best of our ability. John Adams was keenly aware of this distinction and warned about acquiring the “manners” of other nations, stating that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” The left is in power, and it is a Godless wreck. They work tirelessly to strip our military of its code, equipment, morale and privileges, so no one will want to join. The right has two choices: be a patriot or a useful idiot. There’s no in-between.
Here are the stats and analysis: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/04/9772612
Report Post »Note: When you get to the part where it says, “Beyond the gap in condition, there is a gap in perception,” look in the mirror, Jaycen, and choose to be a patriot.
Coralchristie
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:59amThey say there are two versions and imply that she did something that was wrong and therefore was terminated with cause. There will be something manufactured to appear to be cause but with stellar evaluations prior to this, hopefully, it will be an uphill battle for the weather channel hypocrites.
Report Post »cgnick
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 12:36amShe cannot be fired for her military service. She does not have to get permission from her employer before going in for her reserve assignments. She is protected by federal law. I’m sure that the NBC lawyers are contacting upper management at the Weather Channel and informing them that they are discriminating against a reservist. The Weather Channel will be renewing her contract with a likely apology very soon.
Report Post »Stu D. Baker-Hawk
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:55amThe weather has no agenda. NBC less so.
Report Post »GENEPAGLIARI
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 4:21pmRIIIIGHTTT or should I say left.
Report Post »nolefan2
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:53amWe stopped watching The Weather Channel as soon as they were taken over by NBC. We thought Nicole Mitchell was a great meteorologist and miss seeing her on there. We now get our weather online and that way we avoid all of TWC’s left wing propaganda.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:16pmI’d rather send money to beck for his product, than allow my channel selection on cable to be counted towards viewership of lefty station propaganda.
Just because I’m stubborn I always make sure my cable channel is set on a channel not owned by commies while I work and sleep. May work, maybe not. at least I get the pleasure of doing that little bit extra.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 7:43amNow that I know that the Weather Channel has been bought by NBC, I will be deleting them from my favorites and getting my weather info elsewhere. I was unaware of that. Thanks.
Report Post »AJAYW
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:51amI hope she collects.
Report Post »Ruprecht
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:49amI wondered what happened to her. I used to watch every morning when she was on. Then they moved her to late evenings and put on the intolerable Stephanie Abrams. Nicole Mitchell has tons more class. If I can’t time my viewing to the “local on the 8′s”, I don’t watch the Weather Channel anymore.
I don’t know about the merits of this suit, but suffice it to say, I, for one, am not surprised that NBC put on the big-mouthed and biased Abrams instead. Not once did Nicole Mitchell come off that way. She’s very reputable in my book. I wish her the best.
Report Post »G-WHIZ
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:47amThey said it…”if you‘re from ’the millitary’…we’ve got your back…but…**** the rest of you.” This is what progressive-stink smells-like… .
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:46amSounds like a bit of disinformation.
Looks to me like they let her serve out the terms of her contract and then simply refused to give her a new one. I think there’s a bit of a difference between getting “fired” and simply not winning a new contact.
I’m not aware of any law that says that guardsmen and reservists have special rights to have new contracts (I was a reservist for five years). I’m not aware of any law that says that an employer is required to give you a reason for refusing to give you a new contract. That condition, as stated by an attorney, seems to indicate that they have no evidence to claim that they refused to renew her contract because of her military service.
The reality is that granting her the win could create “affirmative action” conditions where an employer would be disadvantaged from hiring better talent during this part of contract phases simply because one of them has a military card. I come from a huge military tradition in my family and find her military service commendable, but I painfully have to side with the aszhats at TWC on this one.
Report Post »Duey2000
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:02pmI was thinking the exact same thing. While I feel for her, I don’t think that she really has a case. As you said, she wasn’t fired, she just wasn’t renewed. And they don’t have to give her a reason for not renewing.
It sucks, but it is the law…
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:29pmYou guys making a distinction for “not renewing a contract” and being fired is out of ignorance of how laws are applied. If TWC standard practice is not to renew contracts then they are fine, but if they have a standard for renewing contracts, especially for people who have ” …had stellar evaluations”
Go read the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act guys because a lot of what your saying, especially you Duey, is specifically stated in the USERRA.
Not like it matters much as it will more than likely be settled out of court in arbitration…
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:18pmGonna have to fire it right back atcha, Eagle.
Our distinction is far more clear than the reasons she is claiming for not winning a new contract. Even though she has no proof (she so much as admitted it), they are making the illogical claim that absent a stated reason, then it can only be because she is a guardsman. Of course that irrationally places the burden of proof on the employer because she is making a claim, and then demanding they prove her wrong.
She was not fired, that much is clear. She was permitted to finish out her contract without penalty.
If you make it about TWC “standards,” then she’ll lose, because no doubt she will not be the first person to have failed to win a new contract without a stated reason, not to mention there is a good possibility that they have renewed contracts for other guardsman/reservists, indicating that her failure to win a new contract can not be rationally displayed as prejudice against guardsman. Additionally, if you think the law suggests that a reservist/guard employee can sign a term contract and enjoy perpetual unchallenged renewal based on the fact that they were weekend warriors like me, then you do two things; you essentially make the contract a waste of paper, and you disincentivize employers from hiring reservist/guardsman.
And then your final statement reveals all; it’s not about justice, but money…a settlement. Merely an opportunity to use laws to bully money out of them even absent a valid claim.
Shame
Report Post »Jaycen
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:26pmWe’re free to not watch The Weather Channel. They should be free to hire, retain, fire, contract, terminate anyone they wish.
It’s America, right? Don‘t you want the right to decide who works for you and who doesn’t? Don’t you want to be free to reason for yourself, and make your own choices? It’s really that simple.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 3:10pm“We’re free to not watch The Weather Channel. They should be free to hire, retain, fire, contract, terminate anyone they wish.”
***Hypothetical situation here
Your also free to not buy coffee from a guy who runs a coffee shop, but also rapes little children. So by not buying coffee from him he won’t do anything illegal anymore?
So your freedom to not buy coffee from him might put him out of business, but he’s still breaking the law (it also doesn’t specifically state that raping children is bad in the constitution, something You eluded to earlier)…
While I understand this is an extreme case and raping children is not on the same level as firing people for no reason, it’s effective at getting my point across…
Report Post »Back To Reality
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 6:04pmDear Eagle… since you seem to think you’ve got it all figured out, let me explain something to you; the contract was OVER…meaning, she was NO LONGER AN EMPLOYEE.
Since she was no longer an employee at the end of her contract, then no laws were violated.
I understand your enthusiastic support for her, but she has actually made comments to the press which do her no favors. She said, ““I don’t think it was so much they were anti-military, but we were taken over by outside companies that weren’t internally managing, if that makes sense…”
She then said, “Georgia is a right-to-work state, there’s no requirement to renew anyone’s contract. But, just like new management couldn’t come in and say, ‘We don’t really like black people, we’re not going to renew their contracts’ — you can’t do that, you can’t do it for discriminatory reason. So, for the same reason, you can’t say, ‘We’re not going to renew her because she’s in the military.”
Of course the problem is that they never said that their reason for not renewing her contract was due to her military service, so it’s disingenuis to pretend like they did. She’s trying to build a case on claims that they said things they never said, even boldly implying in public that they said things which they never said.
She’s just looking for an easy payday.
Report Post »TruthPolice60
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:46amThe guy who founded the Weather Channel was appauled at the global warming activism that came to the channel after he left. Now NBC owns the Weather Channel and their fingerprints are all over this women’s situation.
I think it’s time for Roger Ailes to start up a competitor weather network to crush the Weather Channel just like he crushed CNN and is in the process of doing to CNBC with the Fox Business Network.
It would be fun to see FOX run another liberal institution out of town. You know they’d load up the on- air personalities with good looking conservative women. There may not be much of a market for round the clock weather reporting but there is always a market for fun loving eye candy.
Report Post »cemerius
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:45amWell I hope a Conservative show picks her up….word to ALL NBC Conservative workers….leave now!!! I hope she gets millions from this lawsuit and continues her career with honor and dignity!
Report Post »Bill Wallace
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:42amI think she is hot.
I think she is wrong to sue for not renewing a contract. At the end of a contract, either party should be able to walk away and go in another direction. That is life.
Nobody should be forced to renew a contract out of fear of lawsuit for military service, or fear that employee might sue based on race or religion or other hokey grounds.
If she was fired, actually fired, mid contract, another story. But this contract ended. It was honored until it ended. And TWC should not be forced into mandatory ongoing contracts based on service.
Report Post »Walter P
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 4:31amIf the decision to not renew the contract was based on her job performance, company needs, etc then you are correct. However it seems the decision to not renew her contract was specifically due to the fact that she’s in the Reserve. This is against the law. The government has established several catagories that can not be used as a basis for job hiring/firing: sex; age; national origin; creed; etc. Belonging to the Reserves/National Guard is basically just another ctatgory like these. The decision to hire/fire/renew contracts can NOT be legally based on those facts.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 7:45amHey Walter. You are right. Everybody is “protected” except us white boys. We are evil devils.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on June 10, 2012 at 7:47amWalterP. You are correct. Everybody is “protected” against us evil white guys. All of us snowmen are on our own. Nice huh?
Report Post »thegreatcarnac
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:41amTWC is amazing in the fact it manages to take a weather channel and skew it to become a liberal talking point. Along with the weather it also spouts liberal propaganda about global warming and any thing else they can throw in that is liberal. I hope this girl brings them to the cleaners.
Report Post »pghpatriot
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:37amI used to turn to TWC on the 8′s for local weather but no longer since I can never find it with all the green/climate chance propaganda they spew. Who the hell needs to watch other people suffer from earthquakes; tornados and hurricanes? Luckily we have another station that just gives 24-7 weather. TWC trys to win all these doc-u-drama awards with these tomes.
Let’s see…. GE used to own NBC. Isn’t GE the wall street monolith whose CEO is Obadmans CZAR for jobs? Boy, is he doing a bang up job (no pun intended.) I believe he is also the one that sent 2million dollars worth of GE jobs to China. I sure am glad he is in our corner!
STOP THIS MADNESS! VOTE! GET OTHERS TO VOTE! Before it’s too late.
Report Post »Wolf73b
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:35amDoes anyone remember a model/actress who was cast as a slut on some late night drama a few years back? After she got pregnant and started gaining weight, they realized that she wouldn’t be believable as a slut anymore, they canned her from the show. Feminists went crazy, she sued and won a bunch of money.
So, why aren’t feminists coming completely unglued over this? It would seem to be an even clearer case of discrimination.
Report Post »qdllc
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:31amNot to sound like a jerk, but TWC is correct in what they did.
Reservists being called up for duty place a huge imposition on an employer…to preserve a job that you need someone in NOW but know you have to take someone back when (hopefully not “if”) they come back. USERRA was conceived when reservists being called up was a rare occurrence. Now, in any military engagement, reservists are called up for multiple deployments. As such, more employers now avoid hiring people with active reserve obligations because they don’t need the headaches it creates.
This is the result of pushing over half our armed forces to reserve status to save money in pay and benefits compared to a large standing active military.
In this case, she is under CONTRACT. A contract can be renewed or declined for renewal by either party for any reason. It might arguably be unpatriotic, but it is not illegal to say, “Sorry, we don’t want to deal with another military deployment, so we won’t be renewing your current contract.” USERRA does not compel renewal of contracts…it would prohibit an early termination of a contract, but it can’t mandate its renewal.
Report Post »DangerMike
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:37amIncorrect. This is exactly why the ESGR was put into law.
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:44amYes it can be a hassle to juggle the schedule of some one willing to put their life on the line for my freedom. That would meant that I would have to hire another person to help fill the gap. Then when the troop comes back I would have to be fair and give both of them hours. Wow, when we look at it that way we learn that it doesn’t take much effort to comply with the law and support some one who is fighting for our freedom. I love the vets and current people who serve that work with me.
Report Post »Wolf73b
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:45amAbsolutely incorrect!
A military reservist cannot be demoted because of their service. That’s the law.
By the way, one cannot decline to renew a contract for just any reason. Think about the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Report Post »HuskerDave
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:45amQD… too late.. you sound like a jerk.
I’m a former military JAG lawyer – and I can firmly tell you that Ms. Mitchell is on sound legal ground. The Weather Channel has bitten off quite a hot pepper on this one. Of course, we have a Justice Department that has no respect for our laws, so perhaps they’ll get away with it.
Report Post »Blazebanned
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:47am@qdllc.
Report Post »You sir/ma’am are wrong, i know of no business that refuses to let reservists due thier duty,at least businesses that respect this country and it military.I have hired reservists in the past, and not one did not disclose the fact, and prepare me for their eventual time off.I’m guessing,you do not, nor ever have been in any sort of position such as management,that has had to deal with this,and as such,your opinion is moot.
qdllc
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:54amDangermike,
You can compel an employer to save someone’s job for when they get back or put them into a similar position if the employer had to fill their position. You can prohibit an employer from firing someone for doing their duty if they are called up or given orders…or just because they serve in the military. You CAN NOT prohibit an employer from electing to not renew a contract when its term expires. You CAN NOT force an employer to create or continue a contract they no longer wish to continue.
In the workforce there are AT WILL and CONTRACT workers. AT WILL serve at the pleasure of the employer (and vice versa) and it can end at any time with or without notice and with our without cause. Arguably, it’s easier to claim discrimination in an AT WILL relationship because it would boil down to an issue of causality. (Granted, employers have long cooked up excuses to justify a termination when they fear legal repercussions.)
CONTRACT workers serve for a term with the understanding that the contract DOES NOT automatically mandate renewal at the end of the term. It is legal for an employer to decline to hire someone because their military obligations pose a conflict that may complicate the core function that the employer wants to hire them for. It may be a “chicken or the egg” argument, but when a contract expires, if the employer finds a situation is counterproductive to the job requirements, it is within their right to elect NOT to renew the contract.
Report Post »MEANS2RESIST
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:05pmWrong QDLLC….Theres a law that prevents them from doing this.
I hope she wins. I stopped watching weather channel years ago after they began spouting off about this man made climate change nonsense. Everytime someone mentions Ohhh what about global warming? I have to inform them that theres no such thing. weather channel…Pffffft…fanguu!!
I get my weather off the net, where its the real deal.
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:20pm“It is legal for an employer to decline to hire someone because their military obligations pose a conflict that may complicate the core function that the employer wants to hire them for”
Ohhh Really???
You need to find a different lawyer man, because the one feeding you this info is gonna get you into trouble if your an employer..
Report Post »eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:34pm“Reservists being called up for duty place a huge imposition on an employer…”
It’s a bigger imposition on the Reservist when he shows up for duty and signs the check “payable up to and including my life” The check that is responsible for allowing that business owner to maintain a business… Your an ass….
“You CAN NOT force an employer to create or continue a contract they no longer wish to continue.”…
Um yes they can, and do… That’s like saying an employer no longer desires to renew a contract because the maintenance of a handy cap ramp is too much of a pain in the ass…
Again, you have a very narrow understanding of contract law and need to either actually talk to a contract lawyer or find a new one…
Go read the actual act before you say any more stupid #*$&….
Report Post »matrixcheck
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:16pmWhat I find funny is everyone here has an a** hat opinion about what the law says or does not say.
Report Post »You all don‘t even know what you are talking about because you haven’t seen the contract.
No one should be forced to renew a CONTRACT, I don’t care what the law states.
This is America, Land of the FREE? If we are really free then we are free to NOT RENEW CONTRACTS. Home of the BRAVE! I Thank ALL in the armed services for your service.
hidden_lion
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:43pmMatrix-
Report Post »“This is America, Land of the FREE?”
Nope. It is the land of the government dictates who you will hire, and once you have hired them, contract or no contract, you can’t get rid of them. it could be because they are disabled, they are a certain color or ethnicity or a reservist. These acts, while well meaning push the envelope of freedom and slavery. Screw affirmative action in all it’s guises. I have served both active duty and reserves, but would never use that status to push an employer to keep me around if they didn’t want me. There are plenty of good employers around and if not I would use my skills to make my own job.
eagle2715
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 3:06pm-MATRIXCHECK
“What I find funny is everyone here has an a** hat opinion about what the law says or does not say.”
In a comment forum on the internet? NO WAY!
Report Post »… Any more brilliant epiphanies today from you Sherlock?
matrixcheck
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 9:00pm@eagle
Yeah, how about ur a douch.
Report Post »RSHLUVER
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:21amNo surprise,lefty Weather Channel. I hope she wins. She is hot!!!
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:43pmI wonder if she goes all the way down when she does her pushups.
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:13amWe need an alternative to the Weather Channel. How about a channel that just gives us the weather without the constant lie of global warming, climate change, green house effect or whatever else its called. How about a network with integrity and presents facts, not theories.
Report Post »Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:18amGood idea.
Report Post »balrog25
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:24amAmen and thank you. Weather is important, and TWC is one of the regular go-to’s on our TV, but I just scream when the spout out global warming BS while I’m waiting for the “local on the eights.” Even some of the founders speak out against the liberal spin. Thank you again for your comments.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:26amWow, now that would mean it couldn’t be affiliated with NBC
Report Post »SavvyCowboy
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:28amI don’t watch the global warming channel; stopped the second they were sold to commie NBC. TWC was started by a Conservative businessman. I guess money talked when he sold it to the NBC commies. God bless this warrior for sticking to her guns. Anti-military people annoy the hell outa me. Besides Nicole is SMOKIN’ hot! Why doesn’t FNC find a spot for her so she can continue to work on the national level?
My recommendation is boycott TWC and any business that advertises with them.
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:29amI agree. Stopped even flipping over to The Weather Channel. They are the most unreliable when it comes to checking the weather in a particular area, and there are very long periods of time between it being shown anyway. Then there are the BS stories along with the global warming lies you mentioned. I can’t see where they have any real kind of a viewership much like BSNBC. Oh well, another financial drain on NBC as far as I am concerned. I think Bain Capitol screwed us with that deal, but Romney was not still with them….LOL.
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:39amThank you, everyone. God bless all of our troops, full and part time!
Report Post »MRMANN
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:42pmYou have my vote.
Report Post »single stack
Posted on June 9, 2012 at 11:10amI check the weather here
http://www.accuweather.com/index.asp
and here
http://www.weather.gov/
Report Post »bassist237
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:12amIt happens all the time.. I have the same situation going on, I am not going to sue because I don’t care for the job anyway – they not only don’t renew you, but they attack your character because they can’t outright say it is because of your military commitment. That’s what the ESGR is for… I don’t know why you would want to continue to work for someone who would do that to you – but if you can recoup the losses so be it. You would think they would want someone in the NG or Reserves, shows commitment other than to a full time job, also have a part time job, and sometimes kids which is also a full-time job. Hard working people are getting harder and harder to come by..:)
Report Post »carl_in_ohio
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:08amI see both sides of the argument.
Report Post »Don’t fire her.
Just don’t give her a job where her absences affect media production and presentation.
In short, drop her as an anchor and let her fly a desk job.
Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:16amThere IS NO second side of the argument. The law states that her job is protected. Reserve and Air Guardsmen are VITAL to our defense, especially in light of today’s inane draw downs. Reservist’s and Guardsmen (Air and Army) shouldn’t have to worry about or fight for their civilian jobs.
Report Post »GeorgeWashingtonslept here
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:19amSo because she serves her country she should be demoted? Wow, I bet your “someone’s” boss somewhere…………..she’s got more balls than you………….she’s serving our country…..God Bless her.
Report Post »DangerMike
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:35amNo Carl, there is NO second side to this. Why do you think the ESGR was passed?
Report Post »I went through this with a manager at a previous employer.
HR advised me to ignore the manager and carry on with my job and reserve duty.
The Manager eventually got shown the door.
Supporting the Troops means, you actually support the troops.
rickroland
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:13pmIf she was fired over her military service, then it was a violation of the law. Period, the end.
Report Post »Warthog Fixer
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 4:40pm@Belch & Danger… There’s ALWAYS a second side or differing position/perspective to any argument. Hence the “argument”… Unfortunately in this situation, TWC believes they’re above the law of the land like so many other liberal elitist organizations. This will ultimately be their downfall.
Go get ‘em Nicole!… I mean Ma’am!!
Report Post »jamesctheman
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:06amNBC. What a shock. They birth MSNBC & propogate the liberal talking points & say they’re objective. NBC has made the choice the be the mainstream far left liberal news organization. Yes they have the 6 or 7 token GOP’ers that they bring on to trample. I’m not shocked. It’s NBC. Serice to our country is nothing special or sacred to them unless you belong to a union or civil rights group.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:12amIts not like Bain Capital is also an owner…of wait they are. Again, Mitt’s Bain Capital costing another perseon, an American Servicewomen, a job. I guess Bain like Mitt enjoys firing people.
Report Post »Spyderco
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:20am@ Encinom
Report Post »I have fired plenty of people. If its better for the business then I have to make that call. No one I have ever fired didn‘t know that it was coming or didn’t deserve it. It is hard to take away someone’s income knowing that is how they support their families. In the end the truth is they did it to themselves.
Belchfire V-8
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:22amENCINOM, have you run out of ideas? It would seem so, Romney isn’t with Bain now. Bain has NOTHING to do with this story. Go off and play somewhere.
Report Post »Docrow
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:26am“….Weather Channel was sold in 2008 to NBC Universal and private equity firms Bain Capital and the Blackstone Group.”
Obama took $1,000,000 from Black Stone. Don’t know who that is? Look it up.
http://www.joeclarke.net/2012/05/black-stone-capital-fired-thousands.html
Tell the whole story next time.
Report Post »dblaess
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:28am@encinom
Report Post »Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:12am
Its not like Bain Capital is also an owner…of wait they are. Again, Mitt’s Bain Capital costing another perseon, an American Servicewomen, a job. I guess Bain like Mitt enjoys firing people.
———————————————————————————————————————–
Wow! What a truely intelligent observation. Now the “current” president Bush who is responsible for all evil has someone also creating “evil” by costing jobs. In my dreams there is a person called Obama who is president destroying jobs and costing jobs by doing capital investment.
SovereignSoul
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:33amI’m not taking sides either way, but if Bain has nothing to do with the story why did they bother to mention it in the article?
Report Post »RJJinGadsden
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:37amENCINO_NAMBLA_MAN, Leave it to you to tell lies like 0bama to blame Romney for the actions of a man who is actually an 0bama campaign bundler again, who was running Bain Capitol during this transaction as well as those the likes of you complain. What is it, just can’t wrap your uber fat head around the truth? Just tell lie after lie when the truth just fit your agenda, eh?
Report Post »jamesctheman
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 3:17pm@encinomom. Just in case you haven’t heard, Romney doesn’t work there any more. He didn’t work there when the purchase was made. The current guy running Bain gave more money to Obama in ‘08 then McCain & also admittedly voted for him. A bundler. Are you that dense? Low brow? Incapable? Rational? don’t think so. I really think your just a moron> I’ve seen your other posts & I find them to be almost on par as ridiculous as this one is. Bain Bain Bain. %.5 trillion in new debt. Yeah Romney is the bad g. That‘s what I just don’t get. I’ll never understand the nature of liberals who lack common sense. I live my life by it so to be you & have none is foreign to me. Try to keep up. Bain is actually a piece in Obama’s bread basket now. Your commander & chief sure does hang out with a lot of money grubbing uncaring for the common man kind of heartless people huh? Blackstone loves Obama. They’ve had a cozy relationship for a while now. Look up Blackstone & see their layoff rate. Bain is an angel in comparison. Tell me when you need another lesson Ms. Encinomom.
Report Post »Cape_Lookout_RW_Extremist
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 3:19pm@Encinom….You‘re just upset that you’re gay and she is not.
Report Post »lessoneleg
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:05amA great question here, do people who are aligned with OWS and progressive liberalism more qualified to be TV news and weather journalists?
Report Post »Obviously they must be. If a capable and knowledgeable person such as Nicole Mitchell is removed what alternative is left to choose from? Progressive liberals.
Wasn’t it Nancy Pelosi, and the Obama Administration pontificating about “civility”. Yup.
But there are double standards in affect I suppose. And where is the Women’s Groups demanding answers. NIcole Mitchell was released from service without justifiable cause.
denispaul
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:03amWe all know how NBC feels about our military so think i believe her side of the story.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:10amWell we also now know how Mitt’s Bain Capital feels about employees that serve this nation.
Report Post »scuba13
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:49pmAnd we all know how Encinom feels about intelligence, he can’t figure it out because his stupidity.
Report Post »jamesctheman
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 3:29pmencinomom. Why do you cling to a lie? What is the purpose. The truth lives here. If you’re going to be dishonest go somewhere else. We want you to understand Mitt & Bain are 2 separate things now. Use his record of service when he was with the company & making decisions. WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE SUCH A LIAR. The administration does it. The DOJ does it. This world has gone to hell in a hand basket & it’s because of people exactly like you. Lie spreaders & uninformed informed idiots running spewing their stupidity everywhere they go. You & those of your nature lie so much the standard sheeple buy into it because you seem so smart. Sounding informed & being informed are too completely different things encino. You freaking liar. I hate that. UGGGGHHHHHHHHHH.
Report Post »Lunertic
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 7:36pmWhy is it Liberals never mention the Companies that are now successful due to Bains input and the number of jobs it created. That would KILL their argument huh.
Report Post »wythepatriot
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:58amNikki Is HOT!!
Report Post »GeorgeWashingtonslept here
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:57amPa leeezzze……….the Weather Channel……….i get a more accurate report from a bunch of high school kids on http://www.footsforecast.org. Their doing you a favor sweetie.
Report Post »Tom K
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:16am@ GEORGEWASHINGTONSLEPTHERE : Thanks for the tip on “ footsforecast”. I will give them a try. N.B.C. can SAY that they support the troops but their actions say otherwise. “ The Ineligible One ” SAYS a lot of things too, a lot of which is not true.
Report Post »sacwoodpusher
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 8:51pmI’ll reserve judgement on this until after the trial.
She said, they said….blah, blah.
Zimmerman and Martin, tried in the media again.
Report Post »duckwalker
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 10:55amLooks like FOX will be adding new talent.
Report Post »Leslie Anne
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:20amHave you ever noticed most of the Fox women are blonde? Even my elderly father commented on the abundance of attractive blondes on Fox.
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on June 8, 2012 at 12:13pmThats why the left hates Fox so much. Fox leads by example with beautiful AND smart women. Femi-nazis practice being ugly because they think it makes them look smarter.
Report Post »LookTowardsTheLight
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 9:20amConservative women are more attractive. It’s just that simple.
Report Post »