Eat that, bitches:

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:20 am

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110620/us_ ... rt_lawsuit

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:39 am

Wal-Mart definitely discriminates. Wrong choice.

Fantastique · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:44 am

Thank Christ. I thought this was the biggest load of bs, having a bajillion women all sue walmart for the exct same thing when they are all in completely different circumstances. Besides, after a certain point it became painfully obvious that they were all trying to get in on it so they could get a piece of the prospective winnings pie.

Gj supreme court.

Meowth · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:52 am

Aestu wrote:

Wal-Mart definitely discriminates. Wrong choice.

Not that it matters

Quote:

It accepted Wal-Mart's argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 11:56 am

Aestu wrote:

Wal-Mart definitely discriminates. Wrong choice.

#1: Says you, stop drinking the h8orade.
#2: The decision had nothing to do with whether or not Wal*Mart had committed any acts of discrimination, it was only about who could be certified as part of the class taking action in the suit: L2Read.

My mother worked at Wal*Mart from the time I was 15 or so until she died. She was promoted several times, and couldn't get any more promotions without signing on to the deal they give managers that moves them around every few years, which didn't interest her. I'd say there's a lot of disgruntled twats out there who are peeved that someone more qualified got the job because they operate under the impression that having a vagina should have automatically gotten them the job. You are woman, hear me snore.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:01 pm

The argument is specious because all those women do have something in common, the only thing that matters: they all work for Wal-Mart.

I've watched enough interviews with many different women and read enough about their corporate culture to leave no doubt that it is discrimination by design.

Eturnalshift · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:11 pm

Aestu wrote:

I've watched enough interviews with many different women and read enough about their corporate culture to leave no doubt that it is discrimination by design.

Jesus Christ. Aestu get's his first taste of pussy and now he's going to defend it until the end.

GG whips.

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:12 pm

Aestu wrote:

The argument is specious because all those women do have something in common, the only thing that matters: they all work for Wal-Mart.

I've watched enough interviews with many different women and read enough about their corporate culture to leave no doubt that it is discrimination by design.

They all work for Wal*Mart...at different locations and under different supervisors, and given that Wal*Mart's official published policy is "no discrimination," the court found that the class had been improperly certified. I'm sure all the crap interviews you watched were completely unbiased and forthright, and that those being interviewed had nothing to gain and no axes to grind. I'm standing by my assertion that there are just a lot of women involved here who think that they should get preference regardless of whether or not someone with a wang is more qualified.

Your Pal,
Jubber

Baneleaf · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 12:59 pm

My aunt and uncle both work for Wal Mart as managers. She actually made more than him for quite some time because of the sales volume of the store she was in. There is always going to be someone crying about descrimination and there will always be descrimination, thats the way the world works, unfortunately.

Usdk · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:00 pm

AESTU THE WHITE KNIGHT OH IM GEE

Aestu · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:10 pm

I express an opinion in one thread and get called a misogynist; I express a separate opinion in another and get accused of white knighting. Since the only common element is that I am proceeding on the basis of what I believe to be fair, is clearly not consistent withh any affiliation or bias, it is logical to conclude mine is simply the most wise and objective opinion there is.

Hence, I feel entitled to my well-known conceit.

Usdk · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:14 pm

So what you're saying is: "I WILL SAVE YOU PRINCESS!"

Azelma · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:45 pm

White Knights could be Misogynists.

They just beat the princess when they get inside the Castle Walls and the cameras stop rolling.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 2:58 pm

This decision was made on the basis of the class (this happens frequently, and a "class" such as "all women employees" has the habit of not making it), not the merits of the case. It's not a "victory" for anyone, and the supposed cheering businesspeople mentioned in the article are all idiots for apparently not realizing this.

Azelma · **Posted:** Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:07 pm

Yuratuhl wrote:

This decision was made on the basis of the class (this happens frequently, and a "class" such as "all women employees" has the habit of not making it), not the merits of the case. It's not a "victory" for anyone, and the supposed cheering businesspeople mentioned in the article are all idiots for apparently not realizing this.

^

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Eat that, bitches:

Who is online