Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well then–as they elected Obama overwhelmingly, your 'trust” must be glowing with a hard gem like flame.
That may be the case. Powell was trained to make decisions–that is what Generals do!Obama, despite his credentials, had to learn to beg, plead and cajole looking for a consensus. Thegiving of orders is something one learns to do and you do not get an ORDER badge at Inauguration.Perhaps he will be more assertive in his second term.We Liberals admire assertive women--not all of course.
You have achieved your goal–no government involved.Government is necessary, but need not intrude in all things--the people decide.
What? Could this be that these same corporations who have no obligations, fight in no wars, have no responsibilities in the community are actually voluntarily giving back to the community? It could well be, but one must ask why? Altruism--perhaps? In response to a belief in a higher power--perhaps? To emulate Uriah Heep or a similar character in literature or life.
Just what people do you trust–some, all?The majority that elected Obama? The fifty percent that believe in a geocentric universe?
Disagree:Powell was a survivor of the military bureaucracy and as clever as an outhouse rat (that is a compliment). I think a Powell presidency would have been just as pragmatic, but less ideological.Powell would have inspired confidence, not zeal and I have no idea what that would mean. Ourpresent president seems as though he requires doses of stiffening from time to time--case in point--nopush from Nancy--no health bill passed. This is just an opinion or perhaps a demi-conclusion.
Quote from: willyD on Today at 02:19:16 PMWe had different teachers--mine were Jesuits which may be a factor.I don't see the relevance....?Have you had Jesuit instructors?
I don't think it means what you originally said: "Our Constitution guarantees that we are free of and from any religious belief." What the First Amendment says is that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. I don't equate that with a meaning of guaranteeing that people are free from any religious belief - something which is far broader in scope than what the First Amendment actually says.We had different teachers--mine were Jesuits which may be a factor.
As for me, I would rather have the individual shareholders use profits awarded to them to donate to the charity. The corporation's purpose is to make profits for the shareholders, and the shareholder's purpose - well, here we get philosophical/religious, and I do think they have a duty to help their neighbor. I think it allows for much more virtue for 1000 individuals to donate to a charity than to have it become a business decision for some officers to decide for the corporation to do this instead. ...Yet Corporations donate millions to charitable events and individual charities as well as scholarships,sponsorships and other things. I imagine they do this to show that they are good corporatecitizens and extend themselves beyond the boundary of what is mandated by rule or law. I alsoassume they do this with the full support of the Board of Directors as the funds will have an effect on dividends and profits.As for people having a duty to help--well Moslems, Jews, Christians and perhaps other faiths teach this and many embrace the practice. It is admirable.This reminds me of an historical joke:Marx and Engles are walking down a street in London when they are accosted by beggar seeking alms. Engles reaches into his purse for a shilling, but his hand is stayed by Marx who says-" NO NO Engles, you will delay the revolution."
Oh, well that may be because I may appear to be "liberal" on certain issues (not necessarily in the area you're thinking), though I would probably call it something else. In fact, in a recent WCF ranking, I was picked no higher than the fourth most conservative figure on this forum. So maybe I'm a closet leftist after all. AHA! I can sniff them out still!
Well, alright, here is a different way to look at it. Is it better that a corporation donates $1 million to a certain charity, or that the corporation issues dividends to 1000 shareholders, each of whom donates $1000 to that charity?Report to moderator LoggedA Corporation donates a million to a charity--great!Are the shareholders bound to do the same? I think not--More Hobbesians than RousseauiansSo--I would go with the first.
Our Constitution guarantees that we are free of and from any religious belief. We make our ownchoice--Huazzah!I would like to see where our Constitution says that.BTW this thread fits the bill for being "non-historical".Try this:Read article I of the bill of rights:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."I read the first part as a right not to have a religion and the second part as a right to have one--ergo:Freedom from and freedom ofDo I read this correctly?
So people need to go to HR Block to get their taxes done? How much does that cost $500? $1000? So the poor guy who can't do his taxes on his own will be precluded from getting help, while the rich guy gets help from HR Block. Well, at least this happens to the guy who is “rich” enough not to qualify for free tax advice. Last word: People have an option to go to HR Block--guy in the middle has a problem.It is our way.
