|
On July 26 2012 20:25 PraetorianBigot wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 20:24 SnipedSoul wrote:On July 26 2012 20:21 PraetorianBigot wrote:
Maybe.
In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like.
It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world.
-tolerant -educated Swing and a miss on those two. Not tolerating another parties beliefs, and too stupid to realize that you're doing the same thing you're pissed off about somebody else doing. gg Being intolerant of intolerance is good. Being a bigot isn't. Being intolerant of intolerance is bigotry, pick up a dictionary.
I'm not sure I've ever responded to a troll named after myself...but here we go.
Intolerance begins with the first intolerant act.
-These people wish to impose their views and ban gay marriage
-They donate money towards organizations that advocate for banning gay marriage
-That is an intolerant, or supportive of intolerance, as it forces the religious views of a group on another
This is an intolerant act.
-Gay marriage is not an imposition of values, as it is the choice of an individual to follow it
-Therefore, taking action against intolerance is highly justified
|
On July 26 2012 20:27 ControlMonkey wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 19:31 Cel.erity wrote:On July 26 2012 17:58 ControlMonkey wrote:
I don't see how it is proper for an ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL to prevent a company from setting up shop in their town because they advocate against changes in the law regarding marriage, donate to anti-gay groups and say nasty things about gay people.
...
Is it the role of Government to prevent the business activities of any person or company because they are bigots, who advocate changing the law to discriminate against others, but are doing nothing illegal? Certainly not. Actually, that is exactly the role of the mayor, the elected representative and manager of the city of Boston, to project the will of his city's people. He's not doing this solely because he believes it's wrong, but also because he knows the people who voted for him believe it's wrong. That's the way US politics works. And for what it's worth, gay marriage is 100% LEGAL in Massacheusetts. This company is basically fighting to overturn a law that exists in this mayor's home city. It is totally reasonable and logical for the mayor to protect the interests of Boston--one of the most liberal cities in America--by keeping that company the fuck out. I don't believe it is the role of the Mayor to project the will of the people. It is his job to manage the city. That will usually involve doing what the people want, sure. But when you restrict the freedom of someone for no reason, other than the fact that their religious/political/personal beliefs conflict with the majority of the city, surely that is not appropriate? Surely the principles of individual freedom come before protecting the sensibilities of the people of his city?
Nobody's restricting anybody's freedom. Why do people in this thread keep restating the same dumb thing? It's not your constitutional right to own a business and be granted a license to do business in any city you damn well please. Whether or not you're allowed to conduct business is UP TO THE CITY, which is led by the mayor. This is a case where the mayor has decided not to allow Chick-Fil-A to conduct business in his city, as he is elected to do, which is no more or less restrictive to American freedom than me being told I can't work at a high-class restaurant because I have a tattoo of a spider on my face.
|
I'm sorry but I don't think a lot of people know what "extreme bigotry" is. In this case Chick-Fil-A is run by people who don't want gay marriage to be legal and are bigots, but that's not extreme bigotry. That's just run of the mill everyday bigotry. (Doubtless some employees share this stance, and some do not, but since we know the people running Chick-Fil-A have this viewpoint we'll focus on them.) I personally can't see any reason to ban gay marriage, I've always supported it since after my angsty teen years where I disliked anything different. Even from a religious perspective I don't really see it, and despite what the MSM and the internet tells me, most religious people that I know (Primarily Christians and Muslims) believe that homosexuaity is a sin but don't have a problem with gay marriage. So I guess people who are against it are just stubborn.
I'm straight, but I was overjoyed when my home state legalized gay marriage, because it's like the one decent thing that my state has done in the last 20 years.
As others have said when I read the article in the OP all I really get is "Your opinion disagrees with mine and so I want you out of my city." - And that's wrong. So so wrong. IF he did manage to kick Chick-Fil-A out of his city the only people that hurts would be the employees. Yeah, lets put more people on unemployment because we don't like what their bosses and some of them think.
On July 26 2012 21:16 SiroKO wrote:
America was never a tolerant nation.
You had the right to freely express yourself as long as you were a zionist and an economic liberal.
Now you have to be culturally liberal as well, in other words believing in the destruction of all patriarchal values among western nations, excluding Israel ofc.
By the way, it's kind of funny how some people want to physically shut down others merely voicing an opinion while complaining about bigotry.
I'm an American and I'll actually agree with most of that. At least now we're very far from tolerant, sadly.
Oh how I dream of a world where we can all just coexist and not get all bent out of shape and hateful towards each other over differences like political views, religious views, race, nationality, etc. Sadly that will probably never happen because people suck.
|
On July 26 2012 21:28 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 21:14 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 20:30 Mr Showtime wrote:On July 26 2012 06:01 Zaqwert wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Good to see someone gets it. I'm pro-free speech, unless someone says something I don't agree with, shut those people up! I'm anti-discrimination, unless I don't like the people being discriminated against, screw them! etc. Government policy should not be based on your own personal beliefs and preferences. This isn't Government policy based on personal preference. It's specifically to combat this disgusting level of bigotry. People who are anti-gay are as tolerated as the racists of the United States back in the early 1900s. It's only a matter of time before people realize how absurd this is and laws, such as the one passed in North Carolina banning gay marriage, are deemed unconstitutional and nullified. I understand that this is only my opinion and not a fact, but seriously. Look at the civil rights movement and this gay rights movement. It's the same fucking thing all over again, but people are too stupid to realize that everyone should be treated as equals. In the 50s, too many thought it should be 'all but blacks' are treated equal, and now, the same fucking thing, 'all but gays' should be treated equal. Absolutely moronic behavior. No no no. "Kill those faggots" is a disgusting level of bigotry. That's something you can stop. Civil rights and gay rights are siginificantly different. The civil rights of blacks in America were being consistently targeted. They couldn't get jobs, couldn't eat where they want, could barely exist in a reasonable capacity. This is whether or not gays can legally be recognized as married by the state. That's not even close to the atrocities to blacks. If a gay/athiest person applies at Chick-FIl-A, they can be hired. If they go in to eat, they will eat. The only thing chick-fil-a does not want is a recognition by the state of same-sex marriage. While this is a flawed stance, in my eyes, its perfectly within their rights to hold this stance. And while they should be ridiculed for being out dated, government leaders should stay out of it. It's absolutely the case that this is "Freedom of speech until I don't agree with you" As long as they aren't advocating harm to anyone, they are within their rights to express an opinion on what they believe the functions of government should be. For me? My opinion? I do not believe the state should have any role in the union of two people, regardless of sex. EDIT: I understand that no action has been taken by the mayor in this case. And I support his right to send out a letter to chick-fil-a voicing his opinion. However, I believe he stepped over the line in saying that the company was "Not welcome", as well as sending it on his official letterhead. The point is, they are not just voicing an opinion. They're throwing money at organisations who work active against gay-rights. Theres a huge difference, im sorry. Of course they can express their opinion, but as soon as you try to be active and change something, its not just an opinion anymore, but a "crusade" (its not the right word, but im not a native english speaker and i couldnt find the right one). Edit: for example, Sea Shephard is not just voicing an opinion. They are fighting against something (and they are right, but thats not the point here). And i donate money to them, so they can fight more/harder/again, whatever. I do not just express my opinion and say "they're doing the right thing".
Donating money is a protected version of free speech as upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm sorry you do not agree with their stance, but this is fact. I could easily make an argument that voicing your opinion is an attempt to influence others, as one does not voice an opinion in a vacuum, to themselves, there would be no need.
But I'm not sure what your complaint to me is. I disagree with them as well. And while I am not so put off that I will boycott them, I recognize and support others who might. My issue is that a government official has weighed in on the stance, not as a citizen, but in his role of political office. It is not professional for government officials to tell a company they are not welcome. It is not okay for a man to use his station to put pressure on an organization for differing beliefs.
If he wrote a letter of condemnation to Chick Fil A on his own letterhead and without saying "You are not welcome" then I would fully support him. As it is, I can't, I feel its a misuse of his power.
|
On July 26 2012 21:44 MVega wrote:As others have said when I read the article in the OP all I really get is "Your opinion disagrees with mine and so I want you out of my city." - And that's wrong. So so wrong. IF he did manage to kick Chick-Fil-A out of his city the only people that hurts would be the employees. Yeah, lets put more people on unemployment because we don't like what their bosses and some of them think.
Except that he's not shutting down an existing restaurant, just rejecting permits for future ones.
Forcing imaginary people into unemployment is ok methinks.
|
On July 26 2012 21:49 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 21:28 m4inbrain wrote:On July 26 2012 21:14 Felnarion wrote:On July 26 2012 20:30 Mr Showtime wrote:On July 26 2012 06:01 Zaqwert wrote:On July 26 2012 05:58 R3DT1D3 wrote:
For people who are in favor of this just because they agree with the position, what happens when another town does the same thing to say Starbucks for giving money to pro-gay marriage organizations?
Do we really want politics deciding business decisions as well. Good to see someone gets it. I'm pro-free speech, unless someone says something I don't agree with, shut those people up! I'm anti-discrimination, unless I don't like the people being discriminated against, screw them! etc. Government policy should not be based on your own personal beliefs and preferences. This isn't Government policy based on personal preference. It's specifically to combat this disgusting level of bigotry. People who are anti-gay are as tolerated as the racists of the United States back in the early 1900s. It's only a matter of time before people realize how absurd this is and laws, such as the one passed in North Carolina banning gay marriage, are deemed unconstitutional and nullified. I understand that this is only my opinion and not a fact, but seriously. Look at the civil rights movement and this gay rights movement. It's the same fucking thing all over again, but people are too stupid to realize that everyone should be treated as equals. In the 50s, too many thought it should be 'all but blacks' are treated equal, and now, the same fucking thing, 'all but gays' should be treated equal. Absolutely moronic behavior. No no no. "Kill those faggots" is a disgusting level of bigotry. That's something you can stop. Civil rights and gay rights are siginificantly different. The civil rights of blacks in America were being consistently targeted. They couldn't get jobs, couldn't eat where they want, could barely exist in a reasonable capacity. This is whether or not gays can legally be recognized as married by the state. That's not even close to the atrocities to blacks. If a gay/athiest person applies at Chick-FIl-A, they can be hired. If they go in to eat, they will eat. The only thing chick-fil-a does not want is a recognition by the state of same-sex marriage. While this is a flawed stance, in my eyes, its perfectly within their rights to hold this stance. And while they should be ridiculed for being out dated, government leaders should stay out of it. It's absolutely the case that this is "Freedom of speech until I don't agree with you" As long as they aren't advocating harm to anyone, they are within their rights to express an opinion on what they believe the functions of government should be. For me? My opinion? I do not believe the state should have any role in the union of two people, regardless of sex. EDIT: I understand that no action has been taken by the mayor in this case. And I support his right to send out a letter to chick-fil-a voicing his opinion. However, I believe he stepped over the line in saying that the company was "Not welcome", as well as sending it on his official letterhead. The point is, they are not just voicing an opinion. They're throwing money at organisations who work active against gay-rights. Theres a huge difference, im sorry. Of course they can express their opinion, but as soon as you try to be active and change something, its not just an opinion anymore, but a "crusade" (its not the right word, but im not a native english speaker and i couldnt find the right one). Edit: for example, Sea Shephard is not just voicing an opinion. They are fighting against something (and they are right, but thats not the point here). And i donate money to them, so they can fight more/harder/again, whatever. I do not just express my opinion and say "they're doing the right thing". Donating money is a protected version of free speech as upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm sorry you do not agree with their stance, but this is fact. I could easily make an argument that voicing your opinion is an attempt to influence others, as one does not voice an opinion in a vacuum, to themselves, there would be no need. But I'm not sure what your complaint to me is. I disagree with them as well. And while I am not so put off that I will boycott them, I recognize and support others who might. My issue is that a government official has weighed in on the stance, not as a citizen, but in his role of political office. It is not professional for government officials to tell a company they are not welcome. It is not okay for a man to use his station to put pressure on an organization for differing beliefs. If he wrote a letter of condemnation to Chick Fil A on his own letterhead and without saying "You are not welcome" then I would fully support him. As it is, I can't, I feel its a misuse of his power.
*clap* This is probably the best post I've read in ages. Congratulations to you. This explains my feelings on the subject better than I ever could. Thank you.
|
TL, DR: Political power needs to be allowed to sodomize fundi christian business if it feels like it.)
On July 26 2012 20:42 S_SienZ wrote:
When you say something it is just an opinion.
When you contribute lots of money to a certain cause, it's no longer JUST AN OPINION.
What is truly alarming is that business interests no longer even pretend to care about the truth. They simply pay think tanks to confuse people.
What is even more alarming is the way it is creeping closer to me. The Guardian "experts" on UK GDP data Third from the top: What this "expert" is saying is so utterly moronic, anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has ever taken a single class of undergraduate macro is going to scream bullshit at the top of their lungs. She is a liar, and she doesn't even bother to pretend to anyone who knows anything that she isn't a liar. She simply assumes that the gain from spreading mis-information is greater than any potential blow-back. She is a paid liar. A paid fucking liar.
Liberal democracy is going bust. Control the media, control the mind. Or just confuse the media, and render the mind inactive. Political systems are being incapacitated so the nobility can do whatever it pleases, without considering any collective interests.
(insert some ranting about de-regulated politically active money lender overclass)
Therefore, my conclusion is going to be that if we want to avoid a world of business-nobility ruining everything and ordinary people living tethered to the threat of destitution, thought crime is going to have to be crime again. Just stuff the damn anti-gay people into a wood chipper and be done with it. Political power needs to be power, otherwise it will wither and die in obsolescense.
The tyranny of the majority bitches, deregulate it.
Unlike with the banks, you will know when you have gone too far, and you can re-tract.
|
On July 26 2012 21:55 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 21:44 MVega wrote:As others have said when I read the article in the OP all I really get is "Your opinion disagrees with mine and so I want you out of my city." - And that's wrong. So so wrong. IF he did manage to kick Chick-Fil-A out of his city the only people that hurts would be the employees. Yeah, lets put more people on unemployment because we don't like what their bosses and some of them think.
Except that he's not shutting down an existing restaurant, just rejecting permits for future ones. Forcing imaginary people into unemployment is ok methinks.
You're right, I worded that incorrectly, I apologize. Serves me right for posting this early in the morning. Thanks for pointing that out. What I meant is that if he were to kick an already established business out of the city based on his political views and the owners of said business having different views, he would just be hurting the employees by costing them their jobs. In this case all he's doing is preventing more jobs from being created at a time when we need them.
|
On July 26 2012 22:00 MVega wrote:
In this case all he's doing is preventing more jobs from being created at a time when we need them.
Weeelllll.... we can't really conclude that either since it would involve speculation on who would get the now unoccupied plot of land / shoplot. Could be the next Mother Theresa, could be PETA, who knows?
This does however set a precedent and other businesses looking to expand into Boston would have to watch what they say.
|
On July 26 2012 21:28 sereniity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:59 Birdie wrote:
I don't understand why people are calling this bigotry; he's just standing up for what he believes in. He can't easily change what he believes in any more than homosexuals can easily change their sexuality; beliefs are much stronger than, say, what kind of burger you like. He's using his business to publicize his beliefs, and he's using his business to donate to anti-gay charities, therefore his business gets banned from a place that doesn't support the business' beliefs. If this company wants to be able to open everywhere, they shouldn't involve politics in their business. If they would open in Boston, some people would most likely buy food there which would mean that Boston is indirectly supporting their beliefs and contributing to their donations to anti-gay charities. It's simple really... KwarK said it best in the first page, shame people chose to ignore that.
Its simple really, government shouldn't have the right to force a business or a person out of a community for a political or cultural belief. It's a shame people ignore that.
|
On July 26 2012 19:51 r_con wrote:
Companies and people should be able to believe what they want to believe and support what they want to support without government putting thier foot down saying I can't hate "blank" group without you taking my ability to make money.
and the mayor believes that he doesnt want chic fil a in his city? why arent you letting him believe what he wants to believe?
|
On July 26 2012 22:00 Kontys wrote:TL, DR: Political power needs to be allowed to sodomize fundi christian business if it feels like it.) Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 20:42 S_SienZ wrote:
When you say something it is just an opinion.
When you contribute lots of money to a certain cause, it's no longer JUST AN OPINION. What is truly alarming is that business interests no longer even pretend to care about the truth. They simply pay think tanks to confuse people. What is even more alarming is the way it is creeping closer to me. The Guardian "experts" on UK GDP data Third from the top: What this "expert" is saying is so utterly moronic, anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has ever taken a single class of undergraduate macro is going to scream bullshit at the top of their lungs. She is a liar, and she doesn't even bother to pretend to anyone who knows anything that she isn't a liar. She simply assumes that the gain from spreading mis-information is greater than any potential blow-back. She is a paid liar. A paid fucking liar. Liberal democracy is going bust. Control the media, control the mind. Or just confuse the media, and render the mind inactive. Political systems are being incapacitated so the nobility can do whatever it pleases, without considering any collective interests. (insert some ranting about de-regulated politically active money lender overclass) Therefore, my conclusion is going to be that if we want to avoid a world of business-nobility ruining everything and ordinary people living tethered to the threat of destitution, thought crime is going to have to be crime again. Just stuff the damn anti-gay people into a wood chipper and be done with it. Political power needs to be power, otherwise it will wither and die in obsolescense. The tyranny of the majority bitches, deregulate it. Unlike with the banks, you will know when you have gone too far, and you can re-tract.
I'm sorry, but what? The hell?
Generally, people who write columns are payed.
And if we're to begin writing incoherent rants about liberal control of the media, I have two words for you.
News Corp.
|
On July 26 2012 22:07 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 19:51 r_con wrote:
Companies and people should be able to believe what they want to believe and support what they want to support without government putting thier foot down saying I can't hate "blank" group without you taking my ability to make money. and the mayor believes that he doesnt want chic fil a in his city? why arent you letting him believe what he wants to believe?
Its not his city, it's the peoples city, and government has limitations in power. Second off he can believe what the fuck he want, doesn't mean it should become policy.
|
On July 26 2012 22:11 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:07 turdburgler wrote:On July 26 2012 19:51 r_con wrote:
Companies and people should be able to believe what they want to believe and support what they want to support without government putting thier foot down saying I can't hate "blank" group without you taking my ability to make money. and the mayor believes that he doesnt want chic fil a in his city? why arent you letting him believe what he wants to believe? Its not his city, it's the peoples city, and government has limitations in power. Second off he can believe what the fuck he want, doesn't mean it should become policy.
I'm people of Boston!
The mayor is the mayor.
The mayor has certain powers.
ONE of those powers is the ability to make it hell for certain businesses to set up shop in Boston.
Hence, he is not limited.
|
On July 26 2012 06:05 KwarK wrote:
If someone openly politicises their company by taking a corporate stance on issues like this then they invite a broader social referendum on their operation. Whether or not it is the prerogative of the mayor to make that decision is another question but I have no problem with a company going "this is what we stand for" and a city going "we don't want what you stand for". If they stood just for good chicken then they wouldn't be having this problem.
I disagree, that infringes on freedom of speech. It's also a very slippery slope, if you disallow one buisness in particular, it opens the door for similar examples in the future.
At the end of the day, they are still a business, and what they do with the profit is up to them. If the people of Boston really don't like their opinion, they should make the business unprofitable via boycott.
On July 26 2012 21:38 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 20:25 PraetorianBigot wrote:On July 26 2012 20:24 SnipedSoul wrote:On July 26 2012 20:21 PraetorianBigot wrote:
Maybe.
In Boston, though, Menino and his predecessors have been known for loving Boston and doing anything in their power to make a nicer place, including using their positions to push over people they don't like.
It's made us one of the most educated and tolerant hubs of the world.
-tolerant -educated Swing and a miss on those two. Not tolerating another parties beliefs, and too stupid to realize that you're doing the same thing you're pissed off about somebody else doing. gg Being intolerant of intolerance is good. Being a bigot isn't. Being intolerant of intolerance is bigotry, pick up a dictionary. I'm not sure I've ever responded to a troll named after myself...but here we go.
Intolerance begins with the first intolerant act. -These people wish to impose their views and ban gay marriage -They donate money towards organizations that advocate for banning gay marriage -That is an intolerant, or supportive of intolerance, as it forces the religious views of a group on another This is an intolerant act. -Gay marriage is not an imposition of values, as it is the choice of an individual to follow it -Therefore, taking action against intolerance is highly justified
Intolerance is intolerance, the cause for it is irrelevant. "OMG they don't tolerate me" is not justification for not tolerating them. By taking the first step and tolerating them, you open the door for them to reciprocate some day.
|
On July 26 2012 06:20 KwarK wrote:This is basically a rehashing of the old "hah, how can you claim to be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance!!!" argument. The answer has always been the same, "quite easily and you're not as clever as you think you are".
Just to be clear, Chick-Fill-A is not being intolerant. Gays are welcome at their restaurants. It is the city of Boston which is being intolerant by preventing Chick-Fill-A's expansion into the city.
|
On July 26 2012 22:17 meadbert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 06:20 KwarK wrote:On July 26 2012 06:11 meadbert wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotrybigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices Banning a company from your city because you disagree with it is bigotry. This is basically a rehashing of the old "hah, how can you claim to be tolerant if you don't tolerate intolerance!!!" argument. The answer has always been the same, "quite easily and you're not as clever as you think you are". Just to be clear, Chick-Fill-A is not being intolerant. Gays are welcome at their restaurants. It is the city of Boston which is being intolerant by prevent Chick-Fill-A's expansion into the city.
I personally find it questionably evil tbh. Unless they make it explicit that they are funding anti-gay organisations I find it kinda shady that they "welcome" gays into their premises.
|
On July 26 2012 22:11 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:00 Kontys wrote:TL, DR: Political power needs to be allowed to sodomize fundi christian business if it feels like it.) On July 26 2012 20:42 S_SienZ wrote:
When you say something it is just an opinion.
When you contribute lots of money to a certain cause, it's no longer JUST AN OPINION. What is truly alarming is that business interests no longer even pretend to care about the truth. They simply pay think tanks to confuse people. What is even more alarming is the way it is creeping closer to me. The Guardian "experts" on UK GDP data Third from the top: What this "expert" is saying is so utterly moronic, anyone, and I mean ANYONE who has ever taken a single class of undergraduate macro is going to scream bullshit at the top of their lungs. She is a liar, and she doesn't even bother to pretend to anyone who knows anything that she isn't a liar. She simply assumes that the gain from spreading mis-information is greater than any potential blow-back. She is a paid liar. A paid fucking liar. Liberal democracy is going bust. Control the media, control the mind. Or just confuse the media, and render the mind inactive. Political systems are being incapacitated so the nobility can do whatever it pleases, without considering any collective interests. (insert some ranting about de-regulated politically active money lender overclass) Therefore, my conclusion is going to be that if we want to avoid a world of business-nobility ruining everything and ordinary people living tethered to the threat of destitution, thought crime is going to have to be crime again. Just stuff the damn anti-gay people into a wood chipper and be done with it. Political power needs to be power, otherwise it will wither and die in obsolescense. The tyranny of the majority bitches, deregulate it. Unlike with the banks, you will know when you have gone too far, and you can re-tract. I'm sorry, but what? The hell? Generally, people who write columns are payed. And if we're to begin writing incoherent rants about liberal control of the media, I have two words for you. News Corp.
She knows she is making a false statement and relies on the ignorance of the reader. She is doing the job of undermining public discussion as a way of making policy.
Stop, breathe, read through, then comment. What I'm taking a shot at here is conservative manipulation of the media. News Corp indeed.
Edit: You seem to think the writer I linked to is a liberal one. This is not the case.
Edit 2:
I must apparently state my cause in more explicit terms lest it be mis-understood.
There has emerged a business model in which talented writers and speakers will sell themselves to an interest, shall we say, for example an oil company. The oil company pays this writer, speaker or a group of such individuals (a "think tank") to take part in the public discussion, without any intention of contributing anything intellectually honest, but instead with the aim of disorienting and confusing the public. This then serves to disable political bodies (tethered to public opinion) from acting on the best interest of the public, furthering the private aims of the oil company.
My original point was that this threatens the democratic nation-state like nothing that has emerged in the past several decades: Something like this ---
If this is allowed to stand, politically active democracy will become obsolete. This then will lead us to a Laissez-faire society, and sooner or later to discover to be living in a right-of-birth-determined life tethered to servitude under nobility and money lenders, as if the 19th and 20th centuries never happened.
For democracy to work, political power needs to be more brutal and less-concerned with self-regulation. (end)
|
On July 26 2012 22:11 r_con wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2012 22:07 turdburgler wrote:On July 26 2012 19:51 r_con wrote:
Companies and people should be able to believe what they want to believe and support what they want to support without government putting thier foot down saying I can't hate "blank" group without you taking my ability to make money. and the mayor believes that he doesnt want chic fil a in his city? why arent you letting him believe what he wants to believe? Its not his city, it's the peoples city, and government has limitations in power. Second off he can believe what the fuck he want, doesn't mean it should become policy.
Why do people in this thread not understand that it's literally the mayor's job to decide who does/doesn't set up a business in his city? He has the RIGHT to deny them for whatever reason he desires. If the reason is deemed stupid, he will not be re-elected, or his decision will be overturned by the other checks and balances which are in place for the city. It completely baffles me that people are confused why an elected official is allowed to make decisions for the people he represents. Do you want them to open the polls and hold a vote every time somebody applies for a goddamn business license?
Bush and his administration decided to go to war in Iraq. Why? Who the hell knows. But still, that was his job, to decide when America goes to war and when it doesn't. This and many other decisions led to the republicans no longer being in power. You can argue the validity of the decision, but you cannot argue the man's right to make the decision; he was elected for a reason.
|
This mayor sounds pretty gay to me, maybe Chic-fil-a should ban him from their hometown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
