I don't have a problem with Apple making their products as recyclable as possible. But I don't agree with certain other positions that liberals often hold on environmental issues, such as "global warming", nuclear power, drilling for oil etc.
That's fine - what I mean is, there might be specific disagreements about policy approaches or whatever, but generally there are things on which most people tend to agree (for example, most people in the world agree that some sort of response is required to tackle climate change - but people disagree wildly on what that response should actually be).
In this case though, Apple is generally supporting civil rights based on fairly common shared values. That need not be controversial.
And even if it is controversial for some, then my earlier comment was suggesting that those people have bigger problems than Apple: it is likely that they are coming into conflict with most of the population on some issues. In that context, it makes little sense to criticise Apple, given that it is reflecting what is an increasingly mainstream view (even if a specific person disagrees with that increasingly mainstream view).
That's fine - what I mean is, there might be specific disagreements about policy approaches or whatever, but generally there are things on which most people tend to agree (for example, most people in the world agree that some sort of response is required to tackle climate change - but people disagree wildly on what that response should actually be).
In this case though, Apple is generally supporting civil rights based on fairly common shared values. That need not be controversial.
And even if it is controversial for some, then my earlier comment was suggesting that those people have bigger problems than Apple: it is likely that they are coming into conflict with most of the population on some issues. In that context, it makes little sense to criticise Apple, given that it is reflecting what is an increasingly mainstream view (even if a specific person disagrees with that increasingly mainstream view).
I disagree with Apple from time to time, but I also agree with them far more often than I disagree with them.
And even though I might disagree with Apple on a few issues, it's obviously not that huge of an issue to me, because I wouldn't own any Apple shares if it were.
I agree, which is precisely why I find it strange that some people try to give me a hard time, merely because they don't agree with my politics.
I like Apple, and that's all the reason that I need to be on this site.
That goes both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I am pro death penalty.
I think life in prison is worse.
I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that.
Does that give me the right to tell someone else how to live their life? It's not illegal.
Even if you were religious...aren't those decisions Gods? I think it's quite arrogant to tell people "I know what God thinks".
I am pro marijuana.
Your choice. Smoke em if you got em.
I am anti-illegals.
We are a country of immigrants. So we need some kind of comprehensive solutions.
I am pro American supremacy.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I am anti-third world religious dictatorships.
Who isn't. Being the world's police...that's another issue.
I am pro first amendment and pro second amendment.
No issue here but there are limitations to both. "You can't run into a crowded theatre & yell fire"
I am pro capitalism.
Not at the expense of Democracy. Capitalism is not a form of government. A free market doesn't mean you have no rules. I have to follow laws, so should corporations. Working people also need a seat at the table. Ideas do not usually trickle down the usually trickle up. CEOs are not the only people in corporations that make a contribution to the well being of a company.
I am anti-socialist.
Including subsidies to corporations which is a form of socialism. I do believe in public education which is a form of socialism. Social Security, I have paid into this my whole life. I do not trust Wallstreet. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them
I am anti-communist.
who isn't?
I am anti-nazis.
again, who isn't?
I am anti-Political correctness.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
"I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that."
Remarks like his is probably why you get so much flak. It's not about being politically correct. It's human nature to attack when being attacked. I have never read a post of yours that attacks conservatism or calls them names. I could be wrong. Who doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with everything that is said. I don't know anyone & have never met anyone that I 100% agee with on well, everything. That doesn't mean that we don't get along at all. That's just life.
Showing me something from dictionary.com doesn't tell me what point you are trying to make
Nevermind. I thought you had used the word in an earlier post that didn't line up with the actual meaning of the word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlApple
I'm an independent so I will give this a shot. I disagree with conservatives when it come to war. The US has a bad habit of trying to police the world and attempt to create democracy. We need to worry about our country and stay out of others business. My one exception if people in another country need humanitarian relief due do a disaster, then we should help as much as possible.
I agree & also if there is a direct threat to our national security.
What bothers me from the liberal side has everything to do with the economy. Only half of our population pays federal taxes, we have the lowest employment participation rate in 35 years. We have 47 million americans in poverty and the same on food stamps. We need to get our shit together and get the government out of the free market private sector.
Why do you think these economic issues were caused by Democrats? I would argue this is the result of Reaganomics & trickle down economics. Manufacturing jobs have been outsourced. Not everyone has the privilege of being able to afford college. I work as a Graphic artist...my job was outsourced to India. Why are companies that move jobs overseas rewarded with tax cuts & subsidies? How much of half the public that pays federal taxes is retired, pays income taxes & state taxes, is in the military etc., etc., it's a bogus statistic. Some reasonable changes have to be made on the governments end in the private sector but no rules or regulations is insane. We are living through the results of that now. We all have to abide by laws & rules.
Immigration reform. Conservatives need to make peace with the fact we have 12 million people in the country that are illegal. There is no way in hell we are going to deport them so lets make it work so we can make them productive and get them on the books to pay taxes. If they haven't committed a crime then I don't see a reason to try and waste money on something we can't fix.
Yup.
For both parties get your shit together with border patrol. Lets use our military for that instead of sending them all over the world for no good reason.
There has never been more funds allocated to border security than there have been under this president. There have never been more deportations. The border will never be 100% secure. So what are the metrics for the Republicans that will constitute secure?
The big topic of this thread, social issues. Either make gay marriage legal or define it as two people of the opposite sex. I don't agree with gay marriage that is my point of view. If it became a federal law that was defined I certainly would't think about it or honestly even care. It's not my battle. I have stated my opinion but that doesn't mean others have to agree with it, and I respect their opinion when they can present it without flipping out.
Looking at this from the point of view of freedom & liberty for all; doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Liberty & freedom mean different things to different people. I don't agree with Nazis on anything, yet they constitutionally have the right to free speech & assembly.
I could go on with healthcare but this post would be 10 pages long. Healthcare for everyone really should be this hard or that much of an issue, we are the richest country in the world.
Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. As you sited an Englishman & an Irishman are from different ethnic groups or nationality. They belong to the same race - caucasian. So what you are trying to explain as the meaning of the word race is not the meaning of the word, anywhere.
It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Quote:
Isn't taking the ball home pretty much what Hobby Lobby wants? This ruling is going to have implications for years to come.
Abortion & contraception are not illegal regardless of your religious point of view. You have the right to not practice those things because of your religious point of view. Who has an issue with that? What about the employees rights or their religious points of view? Are they paying for any of this healthcare plan?
Evangelical Christians have long argued that life begins at conception, and therefore that medical procedures that disrupt the first stages of pregnancy amount to murder. In the case of Hobby Lobby, this extends to a woman taking pills such as Plan B, Next Choice or Ella, any of which would prevent her ovaries from releasing an egg that could be fertilized after unprotected sex. Yet they have no issue with Viagra or vasectomies.
What exactly have I been Hypocritical about?
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that.
If you're anti-abortion, that's fine. Just don't have one. What gives you the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?
I am anti-third world religious dictatorships.
Apparently, you are also pro religious dictatorships on American soil.
I am anti-socialist.
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word. You're repeating what you heard on the radio. You couldn't even explain what it is without first looking it up in a dictionary.
I am anti-nazis.
What a cutting-edge, progressive position. Do you expect praise for this enlightened position?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Yes, we do. You're the result of the dumbing down of the American education system. A complete ignoramus, an uneducated buffoon proud of his stupidity and shouting out loud "USA! USA! USA!". Depressing.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
Apple and Tim Cook are not pushing their views on their employees. When Apple added health coverage to domestic partners years ago, and when they took position against prop 8, it didn't take anything away from their straight or religious employees. What Hobby Lobby does pushes the religious values of the owners onto its 13,000 employees, and it's disgusting. There is no fundamental constitutional right for a company to have religious views and use them to bypass the laws in order to withhold benefits to their employees. Corporations are not people. But this supreme court is a disgrace, and Alito is a pig.
If you're anti-abortion, that's fine. Just don't have one. What gives you the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?
As long as wannabe totalitarian liberals are constantly attempting to pass silly laws governing what other people can and can not do, which is none of their business at all, and since I am a believer in fairness, and since this is not a one way street, then i believe that my view on certain things is equally as valid as theirs, and is fully deserving of being implemented.
Abortion is just not a very civilized thing to do, and since I am a civilized person, I am of course opposed to it. I just don't think that it's a cool thing to do, to murder your fetus. The people who've done it should surely feel pretty bad about themselves, and they deserve to.
Apparently, you are also pro religious dictatorships on American soil.
I am not at all. I don't even like many of the so-called Christian Conservative politicians and their moronic stances on many issues. If you can call anti-liberalism a religion, then sure, I am in favor of that kind of religious dictatorship. It sure beats a liberal dictatorship.
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word. You're repeating what you heard on the radio. You couldn't even explain what it is without first looking it up in a dictionary.
You have no idea what I know or don't know. You're obviously a very immature person, and I usually wouldn't take any time out of my day to converse with such a lowly specimen such as yourself, so you should feel extremely privileged that I am even bothering replying to you, and I will keep it short by simply saying that you are incorrect, as in dead wrong.
Yes, we do. You're the result of the dumbing down of the American education system. A complete ignoramus, an uneducated buffoon proud of his stupidity and shouting out loud "USA! USA! USA!". Depressing.
You are clearly the uneducated person here. An immature person who is too dumb to obey forum rules, as you are violating them by engaging in a childish personal attack. You sound exactly like a typical, low information liberal, one who is ignorant, one who is obviously not very well educated or well mannered, and you come across as a little chihuahua, all bark and no bite. I will not waste any more of my time responding to a poster which I have just designated to be a worthless specimen, and I hereby officially command that you are to be aborted from my sight, so off you go to the ignore list.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
Apple and Tim Cook are not pushing their views on their employees. When Apple added health coverage to domestic partners years ago, and when they took position against prop 8, it didn't take anything away from their straight or religious employees. What Hobby Lobby does pushes the religious values of the owners onto its 13,000 employees, and it's disgusting. There is no fundamental constitutional right for a company to have religious views and use them to bypass the laws in order to withhold benefits to their employees. Corporations are not people. But this supreme court is a disgrace, and Alito is a pig.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
Indeed, for both parties involved. The criminal has to live with no freedom and society has to pay to keep him alive.
Your choice. Smoke em if you got em.
It's not your choice to make me pay higher medical bills, however.
We are a country of immigrants. So we need some kind of comprehensive solutions.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with illegal immigrants?
Not sure what you mean by this.
I'm guessing it's just a poor choice of word to describe American exceptionalism. Or a good choice of word to describe some of the deplorable behavior he exhibits.
Being the world's police...that's another issue.
The largest military force on the planet inherently has a duty–to itself, its allies, and its enemies–to have a wider presence thereon. Isolationism, while enticing, is untenable.
I am anti-communist.
who isn't?
Off the top of my head, the commies.
Originally Posted by LordJohnWhorfin
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word.
From what I've seen, neither do the socialists.
Originally Posted by RichL
This case has proven that socialised medical care is the way forward for America.
This case has proven that we should go back to bloodletting via leeches. See, I can do it, too.
Tell that to Flaneur, because he certainly pays attention to what I do.
I pay attention to the extent that you pollute and pervert so many threads with your racism, classism, enthno- and cultural centrism, depressing those better than you, sowing despair and discord, shaming humanity and common empathy. If I met you I would roll you into the gutter where you belong, by sheer force of elementary decency. You are a coward hiding behind your keyboard and your perverted employers. No one can be as stupid as you pretend to be, and still write in English.
It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I'm sorry as I said there is a distinction between Race & ethnicity. That is pretty much what you copy & pasted said. When someone starts a sentence with, not to be an asshole or anything...they usually are.
Now vasectomies don't help stop pregnancy! Yeah, good to know. Is it just women that are the issue here or is it the activist judges that Bush appointed that have an ax to grind with the Affordable Care Act. By the way the "Mandate" part of the ACA which conservatives tried to say was unconstitutional came from the Heritage Foundation, a CONSERVATIVE, think tank. I'm sure you knew that also. The case is about murder? How do you know a women is even pregnant when she takes one of these pills? There seems to be an assumption there with no proof of pregnancy.
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
"It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple."
?Ah nope...Apple is not making everyone in the company support what they are doing or forcing anyone to believe in Gay rights. The constitution does not allow unbridled religious rights. Religious rights stop when they start violating the rights of others. The government in this case has clearly taken a side. Big mistake based on ideology. Alito's explanation would be thrown out in a lower court. It's muddy.
Indeed, for both parties involved. The criminal has to live with no freedom and society has to pay to keep him alive.
People don't get sentenced to death & get executed the next day...it's usually quite a few years later.
It's not your choice to make me pay higher medical bills, however.
Who mention medical? Medical: So, you don't want your bills to go up but you are okay with someone else's bills going up to pay for your prescription needs? Okay. I get it.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with illegal immigrants?
What's your solution or are you just going to give me a bunch of empty rhetoric. What is the metric by which the border is secure.
I'm guessing it's just a poor choice of word to describe American exceptionalism. Or a good choice of word to describe some of the deplorable behavior he exhibits.
The largest military force on the planet inherently has a duty–to itself, its allies, and its enemies–to have a wider presence thereon. Isolationism, while enticing, is untenable.
What obligation do our "allies" have to this endeavor? Are they picking up any of the tab & cost in lives?
No one said anything about isolation but let's not have war as the first answer to everything.
Off the top of my head, the commies.
No shit? Of course the majority of people in this country are commies, right?
From what I've seen, neither do the socialists.
Apparently, neither do Americans. It's just a scary word that Conservatives throw out there. Like Unconstitutional.
This case has proven that we should go back to bloodletting via leeches. See, I can do it, too.
People don't get sentenced to death & get executed the next day...it's usually quite a few years later.
And that’s a travesty. 30 years on death row? Come on.
Who mention medical?
Come on.
Medical: So, you don't want your bills to go up but you are okay with someone else's bills going up to pay for your prescription needs? Okay. I get it.
Nice strawman. No.
What's your solution or are you just going to give me a bunch of empty rhetoric. What is the metric by which the border is secure.
That’s not what we’re discussing. Though your initial response was tenuous at best.
What obligation do our "allies" have to this endeavor?
Not as much as I, personally, think they ought to.
...let’s not have war as the first answer to everything.
I don’t recall that being the case for several millennia.
No shit? Of course the majority of people in this country are commies, right?
*cough*
Apparently, neither do Americans. It's just a scary word that Conservatives throw out there. Like Unconstitutional.
The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them.
I just scrolled past this and thought it was very telling and interesting.
Government should "do its job" - but many people are opposed to any government options around healthcare, and say that it's the responsibility of the individual and/or employer. If you make healthcare coverage the responsibility of the employer, you must include all the relevant aspects of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
My view is that whoever provides the healthcare coverage is the one with the mandate to ensure appropriate access to treatments/services. Whether that's a company or the government is another issue entirely.
I don't make the rules. What worse gone in 60 seconds or a life of hell?
Never said you did. There you go again. What’s worse: paying to keep a serial child rapist/murderer alive or not paying that money?
Okay? Come on what? …for something that would be prescribed.
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on. Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
I'm not sure how you deport 2 million people (find them) & the resources that it would take to do that.
You have to be joking. 10 million, by the way.
So US policy before GW was pre-emptive war?
Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
Why not invade North Korea - they had more of a Nuclear program than Iraq.
If the UN’s ineffectual nature in every other aspect of its functioning wasn’t clear enough, their refusal to act with regard to the Kim Jong family and their crimes against humanity should be all we need to see…
Never said you did. There you go again. What’s worse: paying to keep a serial child rapist/murderer alive or not paying that money?
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on. Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
You have to be joking. 10 million, by the way.
Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
If the UN’s ineffectual nature in every other aspect of its functioning wasn’t clear enough, their refusal to act with regard to the Kim Jong family and their crimes against humanity should be all we need to see…
Thanks for the nonsensical ‘argument’ here.
I think we're done with this conversation. Agreed?
Comments
I don't have a problem with Apple making their products as recyclable as possible. But I don't agree with certain other positions that liberals often hold on environmental issues, such as "global warming", nuclear power, drilling for oil etc.
That's fine - what I mean is, there might be specific disagreements about policy approaches or whatever, but generally there are things on which most people tend to agree (for example, most people in the world agree that some sort of response is required to tackle climate change - but people disagree wildly on what that response should actually be).
In this case though, Apple is generally supporting civil rights based on fairly common shared values. That need not be controversial.
And even if it is controversial for some, then my earlier comment was suggesting that those people have bigger problems than Apple: it is likely that they are coming into conflict with most of the population on some issues. In that context, it makes little sense to criticise Apple, given that it is reflecting what is an increasingly mainstream view (even if a specific person disagrees with that increasingly mainstream view).
That's fine - what I mean is, there might be specific disagreements about policy approaches or whatever, but generally there are things on which most people tend to agree (for example, most people in the world agree that some sort of response is required to tackle climate change - but people disagree wildly on what that response should actually be).
In this case though, Apple is generally supporting civil rights based on fairly common shared values. That need not be controversial.
And even if it is controversial for some, then my earlier comment was suggesting that those people have bigger problems than Apple: it is likely that they are coming into conflict with most of the population on some issues. In that context, it makes little sense to criticise Apple, given that it is reflecting what is an increasingly mainstream view (even if a specific person disagrees with that increasingly mainstream view).
I disagree with Apple from time to time, but I also agree with them far more often than I disagree with them.
And even though I might disagree with Apple on a few issues, it's obviously not that huge of an issue to me, because I wouldn't own any Apple shares if it were.
I agree, which is precisely why I find it strange that some people try to give me a hard time, merely because they don't agree with my politics.
I like Apple, and that's all the reason that I need to be on this site.
That goes both ways.
I am pro death penalty.
I think life in prison is worse.
I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that.
Does that give me the right to tell someone else how to live their life? It's not illegal.
Even if you were religious...aren't those decisions Gods? I think it's quite arrogant to tell people "I know what God thinks".
I am pro marijuana.
Your choice. Smoke em if you got em.
I am anti-illegals.
We are a country of immigrants. So we need some kind of comprehensive solutions.
I am pro American supremacy.
Not sure what you mean by this.
I am anti-third world religious dictatorships.
Who isn't. Being the world's police...that's another issue.
I am pro first amendment and pro second amendment.
No issue here but there are limitations to both. "You can't run into a crowded theatre & yell fire"
I am pro capitalism.
Not at the expense of Democracy. Capitalism is not a form of government. A free market doesn't mean you have no rules. I have to follow laws, so should corporations. Working people also need a seat at the table. Ideas do not usually trickle down the usually trickle up. CEOs are not the only people in corporations that make a contribution to the well being of a company.
I am anti-socialist.
Including subsidies to corporations which is a form of socialism. I do believe in public education which is a form of socialism. Social Security, I have paid into this my whole life. I do not trust Wallstreet. There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them
I am anti-communist.
who isn't?
I am anti-nazis.
again, who isn't?
I am anti-Political correctness.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
"I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that."
Remarks like his is probably why you get so much flak. It's not about being politically correct. It's human nature to attack when being attacked. I have never read a post of yours that attacks conservatism or calls them names. I could be wrong. Who doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with everything that is said. I don't know anyone & have never met anyone that I 100% agee with on well, everything. That doesn't mean that we don't get along at all. That's just life.
Showing me something from dictionary.com doesn't tell me what point you are trying to make
Nevermind. I thought you had used the word in an earlier post that didn't line up with the actual meaning of the word.
I'm an independent so I will give this a shot. I disagree with conservatives when it come to war. The US has a bad habit of trying to police the world and attempt to create democracy. We need to worry about our country and stay out of others business. My one exception if people in another country need humanitarian relief due do a disaster, then we should help as much as possible.
I agree & also if there is a direct threat to our national security.
What bothers me from the liberal side has everything to do with the economy. Only half of our population pays federal taxes, we have the lowest employment participation rate in 35 years. We have 47 million americans in poverty and the same on food stamps. We need to get our shit together and get the government out of the free market private sector.
Why do you think these economic issues were caused by Democrats? I would argue this is the result of Reaganomics & trickle down economics. Manufacturing jobs have been outsourced. Not everyone has the privilege of being able to afford college. I work as a Graphic artist...my job was outsourced to India. Why are companies that move jobs overseas rewarded with tax cuts & subsidies? How much of half the public that pays federal taxes is retired, pays income taxes & state taxes, is in the military etc., etc., it's a bogus statistic. Some reasonable changes have to be made on the governments end in the private sector but no rules or regulations is insane. We are living through the results of that now. We all have to abide by laws & rules.
Immigration reform. Conservatives need to make peace with the fact we have 12 million people in the country that are illegal. There is no way in hell we are going to deport them so lets make it work so we can make them productive and get them on the books to pay taxes. If they haven't committed a crime then I don't see a reason to try and waste money on something we can't fix.
Yup.
For both parties get your shit together with border patrol. Lets use our military for that instead of sending them all over the world for no good reason.
There has never been more funds allocated to border security than there have been under this president. There have never been more deportations. The border will never be 100% secure. So what are the metrics for the Republicans that will constitute secure?
The big topic of this thread, social issues. Either make gay marriage legal or define it as two people of the opposite sex. I don't agree with gay marriage that is my point of view. If it became a federal law that was defined I certainly would't think about it or honestly even care. It's not my battle. I have stated my opinion but that doesn't mean others have to agree with it, and I respect their opinion when they can present it without flipping out.
Looking at this from the point of view of freedom & liberty for all; doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Liberty & freedom mean different things to different people. I don't agree with Nazis on anything, yet they constitutionally have the right to free speech & assembly.
I could go on with healthcare but this post would be 10 pages long. Healthcare for everyone really should be this hard or that much of an issue, we are the richest country in the world.
Agree.
So not exactly extreme posts of view.
as a public service, i am uploading more or less the entire san francisco parade to tpb.
its 3 hours 31 minutes long
720x400
i do not know if i am allowed to include a link so you will have to find it yourselves.
Race is not the same thing as ethnicity. As you sited an Englishman & an Irishman are from different ethnic groups or nationality. They belong to the same race - caucasian. So what you are trying to explain as the meaning of the word race is not the meaning of the word, anywhere.
Sorry but to be polite, you are as wrong as can be on the matter.
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Abortion & contraception are not illegal regardless of your religious point of view. You have the right to not practice those things because of your religious point of view. Who has an issue with that? What about the employees rights or their religious points of view? Are they paying for any of this healthcare plan?
Evangelical Christians have long argued that life begins at conception, and therefore that medical procedures that disrupt the first stages of pregnancy amount to murder. In the case of Hobby Lobby, this extends to a woman taking pills such as Plan B, Next Choice or Ella, any of which would prevent her ovaries from releasing an egg that could be fertilized after unprotected sex. Yet they have no issue with Viagra or vasectomies.
What exactly have I been Hypocritical about?
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I am anti-abortion (not for religious reasons, I am not religious.) But this issue is not really that big of a deal, as it is mostly liberals that are being aborted, so I am ok with that.
If you're anti-abortion, that's fine. Just don't have one. What gives you the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?
Apparently, you are also pro religious dictatorships on American soil.
I am anti-socialist.
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word. You're repeating what you heard on the radio. You couldn't even explain what it is without first looking it up in a dictionary.
I am anti-nazis.
What a cutting-edge, progressive position. Do you expect praise for this enlightened position?
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Yes, we do. You're the result of the dumbing down of the American education system. A complete ignoramus, an uneducated buffoon proud of his stupidity and shouting out loud "USA! USA! USA!". Depressing.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
Apple and Tim Cook are not pushing their views on their employees. When Apple added health coverage to domestic partners years ago, and when they took position against prop 8, it didn't take anything away from their straight or religious employees. What Hobby Lobby does pushes the religious values of the owners onto its 13,000 employees, and it's disgusting. There is no fundamental constitutional right for a company to have religious views and use them to bypass the laws in order to withhold benefits to their employees. Corporations are not people. But this supreme court is a disgrace, and Alito is a pig.
If you're anti-abortion, that's fine. Just don't have one. What gives you the right to tell women what to do with their bodies?
As long as wannabe totalitarian liberals are constantly attempting to pass silly laws governing what other people can and can not do, which is none of their business at all, and since I am a believer in fairness, and since this is not a one way street, then i believe that my view on certain things is equally as valid as theirs, and is fully deserving of being implemented.
Abortion is just not a very civilized thing to do, and since I am a civilized person, I am of course opposed to it. I just don't think that it's a cool thing to do, to murder your fetus. The people who've done it should surely feel pretty bad about themselves, and they deserve to.
Apparently, you are also pro religious dictatorships on American soil.
I am not at all. I don't even like many of the so-called Christian Conservative politicians and their moronic stances on many issues. If you can call anti-liberalism a religion, then sure, I am in favor of that kind of religious dictatorship. It sure beats a liberal dictatorship.
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word. You're repeating what you heard on the radio. You couldn't even explain what it is without first looking it up in a dictionary.
You have no idea what I know or don't know. You're obviously a very immature person, and I usually wouldn't take any time out of my day to converse with such a lowly specimen such as yourself, so you should feel extremely privileged that I am even bothering replying to you, and I will keep it short by simply saying that you are incorrect, as in dead wrong.
Yes, we do. You're the result of the dumbing down of the American education system. A complete ignoramus, an uneducated buffoon proud of his stupidity and shouting out loud "USA! USA! USA!". Depressing.
You are clearly the uneducated person here. An immature person who is too dumb to obey forum rules, as you are violating them by engaging in a childish personal attack. You sound exactly like a typical, low information liberal, one who is ignorant, one who is obviously not very well educated or well mannered, and you come across as a little chihuahua, all bark and no bite. I will not waste any more of my time responding to a poster which I have just designated to be a worthless specimen, and I hereby officially command that you are to be aborted from my sight, so off you go to the ignore list.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
Apple and Tim Cook are not pushing their views on their employees. When Apple added health coverage to domestic partners years ago, and when they took position against prop 8, it didn't take anything away from their straight or religious employees. What Hobby Lobby does pushes the religious values of the owners onto its 13,000 employees, and it's disgusting. There is no fundamental constitutional right for a company to have religious views and use them to bypass the laws in order to withhold benefits to their employees. Corporations are not people. But this supreme court is a disgrace, and Alito is a pig.
Stop trolling. The company doesn't have the religious views. The owners have them and are being mandated to take private actions with their private company. The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them. The government doesn't mandate you hire security for your employees to protect their home. It doesn't mandate they build you roads. They don't mandate the company you work for print and mail you a ballot.
The Supreme Court that made this decision is the same court that struck down DOMA. It is the same court that upheld Obamacare. Dial down your hyperbole and try some reasoning instead.
I think life in prison is worse.
Indeed, for both parties involved. The criminal has to live with no freedom and society has to pay to keep him alive.
It's not your choice to make me pay higher medical bills, however.
We are a country of immigrants. So we need some kind of comprehensive solutions.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with illegal immigrants?
I'm guessing it's just a poor choice of word to describe American exceptionalism. Or a good choice of word to describe some of the deplorable behavior he exhibits.
The largest military force on the planet inherently has a duty–to itself, its allies, and its enemies–to have a wider presence thereon. Isolationism, while enticing, is untenable.
who isn't?
Off the top of my head, the commies.
You don't even know or understand the meaning of the word.
From what I've seen, neither do the socialists.
This case has proven that we should go back to bloodletting via leeches. See, I can do it, too.
This case has proven that socialised medical care is the way forward for America.
I pay attention to the extent that you pollute and pervert so many threads with your racism, classism, enthno- and cultural centrism, depressing those better than you, sowing despair and discord, shaming humanity and common empathy. If I met you I would roll you into the gutter where you belong, by sheer force of elementary decency. You are a coward hiding behind your keyboard and your perverted employers. No one can be as stupid as you pretend to be, and still write in English.
Sorry but to be polite, you are as wrong as can be on the matter.
Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation. First used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations, in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits. Such use promoted hierarchies favorable to differing ethnic groups. Starting from the 19th century, the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
It goes on much deeper within the article but the point is the word is used in an array of ways, just as I indicated.
As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others. Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history.
So not to be an asshole but please give it a read to inform yourself.
Not at all. The ruling may have implications but only because the Constitution has implications. Abortion and contraception haven't become illegal because of this ruling. The company is paying for the health care plan. If they weren't then the court would have found that the company was without standing before the court.
You say they have no problem with Viagra or vasectomies. The objection isn't about sex or preventing pregnancy. They also have no issues with condoms, birth control pills, etc. The issue is about murder.
The ruling doesn't prevent the government from providing any and all services. The employees are not preventing from exercising their right to services or having someone pay for them who is not Hobby Lobby.
Explain for example how the government can provide subsidies for medical plans but not for contraception? How can someone apply for Blue Cross and get $400 back a month for it from the government but the government can't provide a subsidy or deliver cash for a contraceptive service provided privately?
That is what the court found for and it is right.
It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple.
I'm consistent. Apple and Tim Cook can push for marriage rights. Hobby Lobby can push for their religious rights. They are both fundamental rights per the Constitution.
I'm sorry as I said there is a distinction between Race & ethnicity. That is pretty much what you copy & pasted said. When someone starts a sentence with, not to be an asshole or anything...they usually are.
Now vasectomies don't help stop pregnancy! Yeah, good to know. Is it just women that are the issue here or is it the activist judges that Bush appointed that have an ax to grind with the Affordable Care Act. By the way the "Mandate" part of the ACA which conservatives tried to say was unconstitutional came from the Heritage Foundation, a CONSERVATIVE, think tank. I'm sure you knew that also. The case is about murder? How do you know a women is even pregnant when she takes one of these pills? There seems to be an assumption there with no proof of pregnancy.
"The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
"It is hypocritical because Apple can support a fundamental right and devote money towards it but Hobby Lobby can't in your view. Apple as a corporation does not have to remain neutral which is what many in this thread are advocating they do. Yet you demand Hobby Lobby do what you would not require of Apple."
?Ah nope...Apple is not making everyone in the company support what they are doing or forcing anyone to believe in Gay rights. The constitution does not allow unbridled religious rights. Religious rights stop when they start violating the rights of others. The government in this case has clearly taken a side. Big mistake based on ideology. Alito's explanation would be thrown out in a lower court. It's muddy.
Indeed, for both parties involved. The criminal has to live with no freedom and society has to pay to keep him alive.
People don't get sentenced to death & get executed the next day...it's usually quite a few years later.
It's not your choice to make me pay higher medical bills, however.
Who mention medical? Medical: So, you don't want your bills to go up but you are okay with someone else's bills going up to pay for your prescription needs? Okay. I get it.
Absolutely. What does that have to do with illegal immigrants?
What's your solution or are you just going to give me a bunch of empty rhetoric. What is the metric by which the border is secure.
I'm guessing it's just a poor choice of word to describe American exceptionalism. Or a good choice of word to describe some of the deplorable behavior he exhibits.
The largest military force on the planet inherently has a duty–to itself, its allies, and its enemies–to have a wider presence thereon. Isolationism, while enticing, is untenable.
What obligation do our "allies" have to this endeavor? Are they picking up any of the tab & cost in lives?
No one said anything about isolation but let's not have war as the first answer to everything.
Off the top of my head, the commies.
No shit? Of course the majority of people in this country are commies, right?
From what I've seen, neither do the socialists.
Apparently, neither do Americans. It's just a scary word that Conservatives throw out there. Like Unconstitutional.
This case has proven that we should go back to bloodletting via leeches. See, I can do it, too.
Great answer! Full of insight.
And that’s a travesty. 30 years on death row? Come on.
Come on.
Nice strawman. No.
That’s not what we’re discussing. Though your initial response was tenuous at best.
Not as much as I, personally, think they ought to.
I don’t recall that being the case for several millennia.
No shit? Of course the majority of people in this country are commies, right?
*cough*
*cough*
And that’s a travesty. 30 years on death row? Come on.
I don't make the rules. What worse gone in 60 seconds or a life of hell?
Come on.
Okay? Come on what?
Nice strawman. No.
What Strawman? You said you didn't want to pay higher medical bills for something that would be prescribed.
Maybe you should look up some of the medical uses for Marijuana.
That’s not what we’re discussing. Though your initial response was tenuous at best.
? I'm not sure how you deport 2 million people (find them) & the resources that it would take to do that. Maybe you have some insight?
Not as much as I, personally, think they ought to.
Agreed
I don’t recall that being the case for several millennia.
So US policy before GW was pre-emptive war? Why not invade North Korea - they had more of a Nuclear program than Iraq.
*cough*
*Pffffffffffffffffft*
*cough*
"Ack* Thanks for sharing your bodily functions.
The government should do it's job and it's job is to provide contraception if that is what it decrees the population should have rather than mandating a company take up the slack for them.
I just scrolled past this and thought it was very telling and interesting.
Government should "do its job" - but many people are opposed to any government options around healthcare, and say that it's the responsibility of the individual and/or employer. If you make healthcare coverage the responsibility of the employer, you must include all the relevant aspects of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
My view is that whoever provides the healthcare coverage is the one with the mandate to ensure appropriate access to treatments/services. Whether that's a company or the government is another issue entirely.
Could you quote properly?
Never said you did. There you go again. What’s worse: paying to keep a serial child rapist/murderer alive or not paying that money?
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on. Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
You have to be joking. 10 million, by the way.
Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
If the UN’s ineffectual nature in every other aspect of its functioning wasn’t clear enough, their refusal to act with regard to the Kim Jong family and their crimes against humanity should be all we need to see…
Thanks for the nonsensical ‘argument’ here.
Could you quote properly?
Never said you did. There you go again. What’s worse: paying to keep a serial child rapist/murderer alive or not paying that money?
Come on “we’re not talking about prescriptions at all” come on. Is this another one of those things where I’m apparently the only one who can see the end result of a conversation and so leaves it unsaid because I assume everyone else comprehends what’s going on?
You have to be joking. 10 million, by the way.
Is English not your first language? Nothing wrong with that; I just want to know so that I can explain things further ahead of time if need be.
If the UN’s ineffectual nature in every other aspect of its functioning wasn’t clear enough, their refusal to act with regard to the Kim Jong family and their crimes against humanity should be all we need to see…
Thanks for the nonsensical ‘argument’ here.
I think we're done with this conversation. Agreed?