Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
Another day, another lie from Lovebear.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
Another day, another lie from Lovebear.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
Another day, another lie from Lovebear.
I think I can safely assume that neither of you bothered to click the link and read the actual story. I say this because the ONLY misleading thing about it is the headline. Lockheed estimates that they would be forced to layoff about 10,000 workers.
According to the WARN Act, Lockheed is REQUIRED to send notice to EVERY employee, and that number IS 123K.
The fact remains that Obama's offer to pay their legal fees if they VIOLATE the WARN Act is a MYSTERY, for America's top law enforcement officer.
It's no surprise for a floundering politician, though...
LB65:
Why did you post this? Is this a criticism of a budget reduction that results in a loss of jobs? If so, do you then affirm that "stimulus" spending is an effective method of job creation?
Because all spending reductions will create job loss.
No. You and your nutter buddies/bloggers are the deceptive ones.Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
snopes.com: Lockheed Martin Layoffs
"So, to summarize the claims made in the example quoted at the head of this page, it is true that Lockheed Martin may have to lay off a significant number of workers in 2013 due to sequestration-related budget cuts, and that the company is refraining from issuing layoff warnings at the advice of the federal government. It is not true, however, that Lockheed Martin is "going to lay off 123,000 defense workers due to Obama's downsizing of the military": Whether sequestration will be enacted at all, and if so, how many layoffs (if any) might take place at Lockheed Martin as a result, are currently unknown. Lockheed Martin has projected a much lower figure of potential layoffs, stating in a July 2012 memo that "Our very rough estimate of the number of employees who could be affected [by sequestration], based on the limited information available to us from the government, is about 10,000." (The 123,000 figure is the total number of workers employed by the company.) Moreover, as political reporter Bob Woodward noted, the sequester in the Budget Control Act that could result in automatic defense spending cuts in 2013 was put there not as part of an Obama administration policy to "downsize the military," but as means of prodding Congress into coming up with a concrete plan for addressing the deficit issue.
Just googled "Snopes Family Political Leaning" and got this list from page 1. There are just too many websites that question the fact whether these people are not, in fact, a political lean to the left for that fact not to be so. They ARE LIBERALS. Without question.
Snopes Exposed - Is Snopes.com Biased? - Urban Legends
urbanlegends.about.com ... Internet / Web Hoaxes
David Emery
by David Emery - More by David Emery
Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think ...
Doo Doo Economics Blog: Fact Checkers at Snopes Cover-Up Scytl ...
blog.doodooecon.com/.../fact-checkers-at-snopes-cover-up-scytl.htm...
Apr 26, 2012 Snopes.com is the big daddy of politically biased propaganda and ... It may be that the Mikkelson family has an natural left-wing bias and do not ...
FactCheck.org : Snopes.com
FactCheck.org | A Project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center Ask FactCheck
Apr 10, 2009 And in fact, the site is run by someone who has no political party affiliation and his .... Do the Snopes.com articles reveal a political bias?
Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias ...
Online Rumor Mill Spins Its Own Myth(Snopes.com's leftwing bias undercuts its credibility)
Aug 21, 2003 But some observers say the site is colored by a liberal political bias ... "The money was used for civil legal assistance for families affected by the ...
So you think you can trust snopes.com? : Stop The ACLU
So you think you can trust snopes.com? : Stop The ACLU...
Oct 21, 2008 Amusingly, I looked for the email on snopes and it was not mentioned! ... snopes and find many more things there talking about the political bias of snopes. So any of you who have misguided liberal friends or family that keep ...
Who runs and owns snopes.com are they more republican or ...
Answerbag.com | Ask Questions, Get Answers, Find Information ... Computers Internet Internet Culture
FactCheck reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George ... Their views on whether or not Snopes has a Liberal bias are themselves ..... How often to do you use snopes.com or a similar site to convince a family ...
Snopes.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snopes.com
David Mikkelson used the username "snopes" (the name of a family of often ... bias, but insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political urban ...
Does Snopes have a Liberal Bias when Fact-Checking Issues that ...
www.calldrmatt.com/Myth_Busting_108-Snopes_Alleged_Liberal_B...
The second article that supposedly exposes the "Liberal Bias" of Snopes, ... But If who don't care about Family, Faith, and Country enough to FORWARD this ...
Mommy Life: Snopes, FactCheck, Wikipedia - liberal bias
mommylife.net/archives/2010/03/snopes_factchec.html
Mar 31, 2010 About 2 hours of searching Snopes' site on political issues reveals that, ... The family's views have changed dramatically over the years, which ...
Snopes No More ? « Family Survival Protocol
familysurvivalprotocol.com/2012/09/22/snopes-no-more/
Sep 22, 2012 Anyway just FYI please don't use Snopes.com anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well.
So when SNOPES responds to a question concerning politics YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE AN HONEST, UNBIASED RESPONSE.
LB65:
Why did you post this? Is this a criticism of a budget reduction that results in a loss of jobs? If so, do you then affirm that "stimulus" spending is an effective method of job creation?
Because all spending reductions will create job loss.
LB65:
Why did you post this? Is this a criticism of a budget reduction that results in a loss of jobs? If so, do you then affirm that "stimulus" spending is an effective method of job creation?
Because all spending reductions will create job loss.
We don't need more "stimulus". What we need is an economic atmosphere that fosters new business establishment so that for jobs lost, jobs will be created. As it stands now, government interference and the uncertainty of this country's social and political direction really inhibits those who might wish to build new businesses. Why should anyone want to establish a business, which is usually done with the intent to earn money, when there is imminent threat that their efforts will be co-opted "for the greater good".
Uh...the Federal Govt is supposed to maintain "the Army and Navy" going back to the US Constitution, which is now overall the DoD budget. So cutting $500 BILLION from the DoD budget while blowing billions on welfare, Obamacare, medicare/medicaid, etc....programs not traced back to the US Constitution mandates for the Federal Govt shows how fucked up liberals are today.
The Federal Govt throwing tax money at hiring some teachers for 1 year contracts is a joke compared to DoD spending actually defending this country and employing more people at the same time. Teachers, firemen, police, etc are the responsbility of the state and local Govts not the Feds.
Now, when your city is responsible for defending the US....get back with us.
LB65:
Why did you post this? Is this a criticism of a budget reduction that results in a loss of jobs? If so, do you then affirm that "stimulus" spending is an effective method of job creation?
Because all spending reductions will create job loss.
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election
Lockheed Martin To Lay Off 123,000 Employees-Obama Says Keep It Quiet Until After Election | PatriotsBillboard
Man he is so deceiving ..
There is nothing written into sequestration that says funding to Lockheed Martin will be cut. Cuts could happen throughout the defense department, but nobody knows where those cuts would happen, so Lockheed Martin sending out lay-off notices is really trying to sway the election in the opposite direction, because there is no evidence that these people would be layed off, just an outside possibility, even with sequestration.
This shit is so obvious, but you guys keep falling for it and pushing it on us. Unfortunately, there are enough uninformed Americans that you might actually be successful in swaying enough people with your lies. Scary shit.
Uh...the Federal Govt is supposed to maintain "the Army and Navy" going back to the US Constitution, which is now overall the DoD budget. So cutting $500 BILLION from the DoD budget while blowing billions on welfare, Obamacare, medicare/medicaid, etc....programs not traced back to the US Constitution mandates for the Federal Govt shows how fucked up liberals are today.
The Federal Govt throwing tax money at hiring some teachers for 1 year contracts is a joke compared to DoD spending actually defending this country and employing more people at the same time. Teachers, firemen, police, etc are the responsbility of the state and local Govts not the Feds.
Now, when your city is responsible for defending the US....get back with us.
LB65:
Why did you post this? Is this a criticism of a budget reduction that results in a loss of jobs? If so, do you then affirm that "stimulus" spending is an effective method of job creation?
Because all spending reductions will create job loss.
Nope, I won't buy that "constitutional" argument. That document mentions something about the "common defense," but I don't see how that applies to bases in Germany or the purchase of jets the Air Force doesn't even want. The Constitution does, however, speak of the "general welfare" of citizens, though, so it is apparently open to interpretation according to the eyes of the beholder. That's why I'm not a so-called "constitutionalist." It's like reading the Bible to determine how to treat thieves (either cut off the hands, or forgive them--depending upon the chapter and verse).
I'll tell you what--let's cut defense by half and make similar cuts across the board. When the economy and government subsequently collapses, we'll try to start from scratch again. Maybe we can somewhat recover after a couple of decades. (LOL)
