Back to this: Papa John and His Anger at Obama Ruining his Business

Originally posted by ctdannyd

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by lithographyman
Hopefully Obama dies of natural causes real soon....

Now that is a zinger. What a childish and stupid thing to say.

CJ

So, if I read your (sick) comment, you'd like to have Joe Biden as the president?

Yeah, uhuh. You must be a mind reader.

CJ

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
The man has a right to run his business as he sees fit and sees it's necessary just as you have the right to buy a pizza elsewhere, IMO. I may buy one just for the sake of the fact I really don't think boycotts in a bad economy are the least bit helpful. I know people at the college working at Papa Johns. What did they do? Boycotts usually hit the wrong people but we each have our own choice to make with our dollars. The free market in action.

Actually that is the best time for a boycott, it drives the point home hard and fast. Granted national chain pizza is crap altogether, I buy and support local.

reply to post by tide88


You don't even have a link to support this.

Red State Socialism

A little more up to date (from February of this year):

Most Red States take more money than they put in

1. New Mexico: $2.63
2. West Virginia: $2.57
3. Mississippi: $2.47
4. District of Colombia: $2.41
5. Hawaii: $2.38
6. Alabama: $2.03
7. Alaska: $1.93
8. Montana: $1.92
9. South Carolina: $1.92
10. Maine: $1.78

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

www.cnbc.com...


Post what you want. The percentage of people on welfare on these high population states are all democratic states. It is sick that this group pushes entitlements onto people. Why should these people work, when they dont have to.

Ok. There are more conservatives on welfare than liberals. Math.


CJ

Actually Id be willing to bet, that most of those in these high population states are liberals. Id actually bet my life on it. Math, lol. Guess you weren't very good at that subject.

Here is another nice link proving that Liberals recieve the most welfare.

www.statisticbrain.com...

Top 10 Hourly Wage Equivalent Welfare States in U.S.
State Hourly Wage Equivalent
Hawaii $17.50
Alaska $15.48
Massachusetts $14.66
Connecticut $14.23
Washington, D.C. $13.99
New York $13.13
New Jersey $12.55
Rhode Island $12.55
California $11.59
Virginia $11.11


I can see why there are so many leaching liberals. The sadest thing is, there is probably jobs out there in these high population states, but why work when you get more just sitting at home.


And here is another. Simple addition will let you know which states, Ill give you a hint (blue), have the most recipients on welfare and foodstamps. Feel free to post anything that backs up your claims. I am anxious to see this stats.

www.nytimes.com...

reply to post by ConcernedConservative


They are psychopathic scumbags that deserve no admiration at all.

Now, if they were to respect their employees, customers and general public by not making such rash comments or decisions, then they would certainly be admired more.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


First off, you are completely missing the point and I did provide a link, actually I provided many. You are presenting a list of states that take in more than they give. That list is ridiculous. As I said before, the states with higher populations, which translate into higher tax revenues, and the states with higher wealth, which also translate into higher tax revenues, would obviously pay more then they receive.

If you look at the amount of people, total number, percentage, etc... you can clearly see that the blue states have more welfare recipients then the red states. In fact, it isn't even close.

reply to post by tide88


The sad thing is that you can't get it through your head that you're generalizing people using nothing but bald-faced lies.

If we're to deny ignorance here at ATS, we must repudiate people who come here with the Fox News mindset of "blame liberals for everything".

reply to post by tide88


You didn't provide the link in the post I quoted so don't try and backpedal like that.

Keep trying though in your little game to build yourself up using the fighting words of Uncles Rush, Sean, Bill and all the other goofy-ass neo-cons out there.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


What am I lying about. I responded to a post saying that conservative Red States receive more federal assistance then Liberal blue states, which is completely false.

Just because you say it is a lie, which you cannot back up by the way, doesn't make it one. I have provided multiple links, you are the one denying ignorance here.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


I posted it after and its a fact, so who cares. Statistics don't lie, just because you seem to have trouble understanding which states actually receive the most federal assistance, doesn't make it any less true, nor will your name calling.

Now if you can post a link that claims anything I am saying is wrong, then please do. I will anxiously await it.

Originally posted by Matt1951
Set the minimum wage to $15 per hour, to match Australia. This would solve several problems. Then everyone would be paying Federal Income Tax, which would make Republicans very happy. It would also reduce cost of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would help the deficit. It would reduce Medicaid payments, which should further delight Republicans. Just think how happy Papa John would be.

Not in America where you can get away with hiring illegals for 50 cents a lb of tomatoes or whatever... If we did that more illegals would be hired=less jobs for citizens or they'd outsource what they could to China India and Pakistan.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag
reply to post by tide88

 

The sad thing is that you can't get it through your head that you're generalizing people using nothing but bald-faced lies.

If we're to deny ignorance here at ATS, we must repudiate people who come here with the Fox News mindset of "blame liberals for everything".

So it is okay to blame the republicans and Bush, but when the shoe is on the other foot, it isn't. See that is a typical liberal comment you made. You can sure dish out blame, but have a seriously hard time taking it.

It's pretty comical IMO.

Here is one of the best videos out there IMO that John Stewart did this year at the Dem Convention

www.thedailyshow.com...

You cant refute anything I have said. I'm done, Ignorance is why Obama was reelected. I think Ill go deny it somewhere else. EOM

reply to post by ColoradoJens


Something about that guy i never liked, he has no lips his mouth is just a slit ? It's weird, every time i see his lousy commercials it really bothers me... looking at his mouth move with no lips, did he burn them off on a hot slice of pizza? Gives me the heebie jeebies. Anyhoo worst catch phraze ever btw, it got him sued even it's that cheezy literally, sued by Pizza Hut ( a much better pizza imho) . Slamming a competitor how republican of him.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_Pizza

In 1997, Pizza Hut filed suit against Papa John's based on a series of advertisements that compared the ingredients of Papa John's and its competitors.

Lawsuit We conclude that (1) the slogan, standing alone, is not an objectionable statement of fact upon which consumers would be justified in relying, and thus not actionable under section 43(a); and (2) while the slogan, when utilized in connection with some of the post-May 1997 comparative advertising--specifically, the sauce, dough and stuff campaigns--conveyed objectionable and misleading facts, Pizza Hut has failed to adduce any evidence demonstrating that the facts conveyed by the slogan were material to the purchasing decisions of the consumers to which the slogan was directed. Summary statement from appellate decision in Pizza Hut, Inc. v. Papa John’s Int’l, Inc. In 1997, Pizza Hut filed suit against Papa John's based on a series of advertisements that compared the ingredients of Papa John's and its competitors. At trial, the court agreed with Pizza Hut's argument that Papa John's slogan did not constitute statements of literal fact – that "fresher ingredients" do not necessarily account for a "better" pizza; this ruling was overturned in 2000 when Papa John's appealed the decision. Although the jury's decision on the misleading advertising was upheld, the appeals court determined that Pizza Hut failed to prove, under the requirements of the Lanham Act, that the misleading advertising and puffery had a material effect on consumers' purchasing decisions

Oh so you are that annoying D-bag sending me those texts, like robo calls how republican of him

SPAM Lawsuit In 2012, the company was the subject of a class action lawsuit for allegedly sending over 500,000 unwanted text messages to customers. The suit is seeking over $250 million in damages.

Yep typical elitist thinks Healthcare must be some luxury , who needs to be healthy pssst just fire up the ovens cook those pizzas will ya!




Those lips not even human! Pic related

This thread is great, where else can you find unsuccessful people giving economic advise LOL. This place is great for a laugh, wish I had found it early.

Liberals are the most greedy people of all, they want your money and their money, food stamps, free medical, etc.

I want that house!


Anyhow, if mathmatically these people feel they need to raise prices (say 20 cents a pie as suggested from the global crop issues) a bit to pay for healthcare coverege..here is a simple suggestion.

just effin do it and stop your g-damn moaning already! I don't mind spending a few extra cents for your subrate pizza if it means someone who couldn't afford it can suddenly get healthcare..so shut up you greedy absurd moron!

still a nice house.

Originally posted by bkprice
This thread is great, where else can you find unsuccessful people giving economic advise LOL. This place is great for a laugh, wish I had found it early.

You have no idea who amongst us is successful vs. unsuccessful. None of us do, you are making an unfair assumption based on little to no evidence besides political leanings. Your post is the epitome of ignorance. If you would like to have a fair and intelligent conversation about the issues then let's go, I'd be happy to debate with you.

However, if you wish to insult the participants of this thread, then I would ask you on behalf of all participants on every side of this issue to please go away.

Originally posted by bkprice
This thread is great, where else can you find unsuccessful people giving economic advise LOL. This place is great for a laugh, wish I had found it early.

Liberals are the most greedy people of all, they want your money and their money, food stamps, free medical, etc.

Not sure if trolling or ignorant to the facts? You are projecting one dimensional thinking here, not everything is that black and white. It's one thing to be successful but it is another to be a pompous selfish bully! When i say bully, he bullied his employees with intimidation. This is why politics has no business in the work place. I avoid politics all together when having discussion with co-workers.

When you say unsuccessful people i have to laugh, the members here are anonymous. There is no way to determine what kind of lifestyle they come from. Hence you are full of it! Do you understand the meaning of success in this day and age? Survival, it is fast becoming a challenge in these times. If you have a roof over your head, food on the table, a warm bed to sleep in you you are successful. Mr Papa sits on top the mountain due to reaping the the fruits of labor of others. He did not single handed cook and deliver millions of pizzas on his own... HIS EMPLOYEES DID and without them for the simply fee of minimum wage he would be nobody! He would be one of them.

If i give you a quarter will you go back under your bridge? Being im a unsuccessful lib and all, I will spread the wealth pun intended

Originally posted by bkprice
Liberals are the most greedy people of all, they want your money and their money, food stamps, free medical, etc.

Whereas the opposite want starving sickly homeless people?

Yes, I know your response. You will say "nuu, conservatives want people working and blah blah blah". but you won't admit that not everyone can get a high paying job..instead you will deflect the discussion about socialism or kenya or who knows...

Find me a place on earth where there are no food stamps, free medical, and I will show you right where your pointing a 3rd world disaster of a nation (hint, look in parts of africa for your vision of greatness)

I challenge you to walk the walk..go live in some broken government non social program society for a year..just do it..imagine the props you will get when you come back still standing for your...beliefs(?).

Originally posted by tide88
reply to post by VaterOrlaag

 

First off, you are completely missing the point and I did provide a link, actually I provided many. You are presenting a list of states that take in more than they give. That list is ridiculous. As I said before, the states with higher populations, which translate into higher tax revenues, and the states with higher wealth, which also translate into higher tax revenues, would obviously pay more then they receive.

If you look at the amount of people, total number, percentage, etc... you can clearly see that the blue states have more welfare recipients then the red states. In fact, it isn't even close.

Yes indeed. How many exactly? How many conservatives vs libs are on the dole? Laughable. You need to start a revolution in "red" states against your conservative brethren.

CJ

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

For "the bankers" it was never about wealth, it was about the power to control nations.

for someone who seems to know a bit about the true nature of money, i am pretty disappointed with your statements regarding how the rich spend "their" money.

can you acknowledge that money (the monetary system) is a shared resource, particularly considering its fiat nature?

no one owns money. the only way to become a schnatter (not just rich, but wealthy) is to make an abuse of OUR MONEY. I have no problem stating unequivocally that, yes, I am ENTITLED to a healthy monetary policy and I have no problem whatsoever in correcting abuses of the system as necessary.