Originally posted by Eladar I don't that's true, but a majority of voters do. That's my point.
I'm saying that the system is corrupt. What Kaz is saying is just one aspect of the corruption. To turn a blind eye to it does nothing but make oneself feel better.
I agree that there are corrupt politicians. I also do not think that we can effectively keep corrupt politicians from participating in the political process before they are convicted of a crime.
Allowing unabridged free speech is not turning a blind eye. You cannot fix a corrupt system by putting limits on honest, law-abiding politicians and citizens.
[b]If the law is properly enforced, sure, why not?
It is kind of hard to (1) prove political corruption and (2) deter political corruption. I am not keen on the dragnet, or shoot from the hip, approach. I do not like limiting the rights of everyone in an attempt to stop one social evil. It hasn't worked with guns. We still have shootings in gun free zones.[/b]
Not really.
You really believe donations don't affect a politician's decisions?
It is kind of hard to (1) prove political corruption and (2) deter political corruption.
Maybe it is "kind of hard", but not impossible. I suggest investigating societies where corruption is relatively low.
You really believe donations don't affect a politician's decisions?
It is kind of hard to (1) prove political corruption and (2) deter political corruption.
Maybe it is "kind of hard", but not impossible. I suggest investigating societies where corruption is relatively low.[/b]
You really believe donations don't affect a politician's decisions?
It affects their advertising / campaign decisions. Generally, I do not think it affects the honest, law-abiding politician's decisions while in office.
Maybe it is "kind of hard", but not impossible. I suggest investigating societies where corruption is relatively low.
If you have information on these supposed low corruption societies, share it.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike [b]You really believe donations don't affect a politician's decisions?
It affects their advertising / campaign decisions. Generally, I do not think it affects the honest, law-abiding politician's decisions while in office.
Maybe it is "kind of hard", but not impossible. I suggest investigating societies where corruption is relatively low.
If you have information on these supposed low corruption societies, share it.[/b]
It affects their advertising / campaign decisions. Generally, I do not think it affects the honest, law-abiding politician's decisions while in office.
Honest people don't get elected, no matter how low corruption is.
If you have information on these supposed low corruption societies, share it.
Have you heard of the Toblerone affair? A Swedish deputy PM got into serious trouble after it was revealed that she had bought some Toblerone bars with a credit card to be used for work-related purposes. She subsequently resigned.
Originally posted by techsouth You just made a argument against "having your cake and eating it too" with regards to benefits of incorporating versus keeping freedoms that individuals have. You summarized, and I quote: "You can't have it both ways" as if this were logically evident.
But you've said that the NY Times is protected under the first amendment. So somehow, you are allowi ...[text shortened]... eat it too (in which case the NY Times is not protected by the first amendment).
Which is it.
The argument has nothing to do with the "mother may I" red herring you keep trotting out. It has to do with the character of the entity itself as I have consistently pointed out.
Perhaps I have not been as clear as I could have been. IMO, the NY Times itself doesn't have an inherent right to free speech like an individual does. Neither does a corporation have a right to make enforceable contracts. But we allow such entities to exercise such "rights" because they could hardly fulfill their purposes otherwise. A corporation that couldn't make contracts would be useless. A newspaper that could be shuttered because of what it wrote would be just as useless. The nature and purposes of the entity itself inform what "rights" it has.
By contrast, no part of Hobby Lobby's purpose is implicated by the religious beliefs of its corporate executives and/or primary shareholders. Thus, to grant such a secular, for profit corporation the "right" of religious worship is an unnecessary absurdity. This contrasts with the Little Sisters of the Poor which is an organization composed almost exclusively of Catholic nuns and who's purpose is informed by the teachings of Jesus.
I hope that clears up my what my opinion is and you will stop consistently mischaracterizing it.
Your premise is wrong, No1. The religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby's shareholders, directors, and officers informs the company's business judgment. That is why they sell primarily christian merchandise and that is why they are closed on Sunday. Hobby Lobby can hardly be described as a "secular for profit corporation."
Why are you closed on Sundays?
We have chosen to close on the day most widely recognized as a day of rest, in order to allow our employees and customers more time for worship and family. This has not been an easy decision for Hobby Lobby because we realize that this decision may cost us financially. Yet we also realize that there are things more important than profits. This is a matter of principle for our company owner and officers.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Your premise is wrong, No1. The religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby's shareholders, directors, and officers informs the company's business judgment. That is why they sell primarily christian merchandise and that is why they are closed on Sunday. Hobby Lobby can hardly be described as a "secular for profit corporation."
[quote][b]Why are you closed on ...[text shortened]... om of association and freedom of religion, while christian retailers do not have those freedoms.
The last paragraph is obviously a non sequitur.
Closing on Sunday because it is "widely recognized" as a "day of rest" doesn't sound overtly religious to me.
EDIT: Looking at their website (http://shop.hobbylobby.com/) it seems that is a false assertion that "they sell primarily christian merchandise".
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Hmm, there is not much for me to respond to since your post, No1, is littered with variations of the no u meme. I will try my best though.
[b]The last paragraph is obviously a non sequitur.
🙄
Closing on Sunday because it is "widely recognized" as a "day of rest" doesn't sound overtly religious to me.
What?! 🙄
EDIT ...[text shortened]... rtion that "they sell primarily christian merchandise".
You did not look hard enough. 🙄[/b]
Unsurprisingly, you offer nothing of substance and are quickly into "pissing match" mode. This act of yours is tiresome.
FYI. Hobby Lobby's Brief relied exclusively on statutory interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and avoided any constitutional claims. See the "Question Presented".
The question presented is whether the regulation
violates RFRA by requiring Respondents to provide
insurance coverage for contraceptives in violation of their religious beliefs, or else pay severe fines.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Sunday is a "secular" day of rest; however, I do not know of any "secular" companies that are closed on Sunday. And by closed I mean this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmULYr1nsZ0
Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A are closed on Sunday because they are overtly, obviously, and clearly christian companies. Duh.
---------------
Also, Sunday is not the universal day of rest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath
Your argument is circular; they close on Sundays, so therefore they are "christian" companies and we know they are "christian" companies because they close on Sundays.
Sundays are "widely recognized as a day of rest" in the US and not just by Christians. At any rate, a Christian for profit corporation is a misnomer.
Originally posted by no1marauder Unsurprisingly, you offer nothing of substance and are quickly into "pissing match" mode. This act of yours is tiresome.
FYI. Hobby Lobby's Brief relied exclusively on statutory interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and avoided any constitutional claims. See the "Question Presented".
The question presented is whether t ...[text shortened]...
“The Greens have organized their businesses with religious principles in mind.” App. 8a. In Hobby Lobby’s official statement of purpose, the Greens commit to “[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” Id. Mardel primarily sells Christian materials and describes itself as “a faith-based company dedicated to renewing minds and transforming lives through the products we sell and the ministries we support.” Id. The Greens each sign a Statement of Faith and a Trustee Commitment obligating them to conduct the businesses according to their religious beliefs and to “use the Green family assets to create, support, and leverage the efforts of Christian ministries.” JA 21a.
That is basically what I have been saying. I give you, No1, permission to proceed with your next strawman maneuver.
Originally posted by no1marauder Your argument is circular; they close on Sundays, so therefore they are "christian" companies and we know they are "christian" companies because they close on Sundays.
Sundays are "widely recognized as a day of rest" in the US and not just by Christians. At any rate, a Christian for profit corporation is a misnomer.
They are a Christian company because they say they are a Christian company, you nincompoop. And they practice what they preach too. They close on Sunday while other arts and crafts stores do not. 🙄
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Look what I found in the brief:
[quote]“The Greens have organized their businesses with religious principles in mind.” App. 8a. In Hobby Lobby’s official statement of purpose, the Greens commit to “[h]onoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.” Id. Mardel [b]primarily sells Christian ...[text shortened]... at I have been saying. I give you, No1, permission to proceed with your next strawman maneuver.[/b]
My comment and your response was directed toward Hobby Lobby, not Mardel. Your statement was incorrect as regards the former company.
Obamacare Recreates the First Estate
04 Jan '14 17:01
YouTube
Back to Top