Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I feel that you are missing the distinction between a philosophical conclusion and a scientific conclusion. One does not need religion in order to accept intelligent design. And if you are wondering, yes, I "accept" evolution, and I don't think that it precludes the philosophical understanding of intelligent design.I am unwilling to pursue this--thank you.
People who disavow evolution are NOT unintelligent. What a horrid thing to suggest.They are adhering to a faith or they have arrived at a conclusion that cannot be sustained in the scientific community, but to which they cleave with fervor. Even Scientology deserves respect and toleration. Today's cult is tomorrow's dominant religion--e.g. Christianity. Mithra was defeated.Many of my people believe that on Sunday they eat the flesh and blood of God--not symbolically, butthe real thing. I do not scoff at them--it is their faith. So too with people who believe literally in theirbooks--Bible-Koran--it is their faith and my opinions are of little interest to them.Our Constitution guarantees that we are free of and from any religious belief. We make our ownchoice--Huazzah!
Well, if you can't trust the average guy to know about his own health care options, then you certainly can't trust him to know how to do his own income taxes.The coming VAT is not here yet.HR Block has lots of customers. I suspect there are some who are average guys.To comprehend your options under a health care problem would seem to be a very complex decision.Never having to make this decision myself I can only surmise the perplexity.Professional help is available in both cases-for now.
Mr. Hopper is a bit passe'. but Mr. Tarentino has nailed his segment of the population again and again with the two most obvious being Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown–a dialogue genius. I would call him a very astute if not reliable social critic. As you know, he did write the screenplay for the other film mentioned--also a startling exhibition of talent.Mr. Powell is too cool of a cat to run the gauntlet toward the POTUS position. I would have voted for him too, but then I am chained to a tradition.
.. and the term will be misused and hang around as long as we allow it to be used without comment. I'm pretty sure I know what Granny said and that term (as abhorant as it may be) can be applied to an ethnic group; main point I've always tried to make to the kids (and others, for that matter)… is that hating someone is allowed (not prefered, but allowed) if you hate them for something that is within their control. Color of skin, type of hair, etc. aren't allowed… no one gets to file an app to be born into a certain ethnicity or nationality (or crosses thereof either). As I also told them I'd have asked to look like Tom Sellick rather than my avatar.In an ideal world hurtful racial or ethnic comments would serve only those who use them as a boor.Regretfully we are not there yet it may take awhile. When it comes to skin color, one of the obviouscommon uses, we may have a long range solution. As we marry outside our own group, we might look forward to a future where we are all a little browner and a lot more tolerant of one another.There is a problem however. We have no language police as do the French and we have a richtradition of using slang and bending words sometimes in an ironic way, but sometimes not. Thereis no list of banned words. George Carlin is dead and premium cable and R movies have made the unusual commonplace. As an example--some of you may be aware of the inside joke that someItalians used to use to describe black people. To those not in on the joke the term was incomprehensible. Check out the Dennis Hopper death scene in TRUE ROMANCE.
Willy, you seem to have a serious problem with distinguishing between the legal construct of the corporation as "person" and the human being as person. Making complaints against corporations because they aren't called upon to go to war is downright silly. If you want to go that route, then corporations don't get to spend any of their own money, are deprived of food, never get to take showers, etc. etc. Do you see how absurd this becomes if we fail to make the distinction I mentioned?Of course we all know that it is the shareholders of that corporation who may be called upon to go to war. The officers may be held liable for the corporation's actions (look up the legal term of "piercing the corporate veil" if you don't believe me). The shareholders have added responsibilities in their communities and families. Your example about Hitler brings up an interesting point, one which should be examined for the ethical issues that arise, but that is clearly an exception, not the norm. I used a bit of satire. If Corporations are persons they escape some of the duties of persons(citizens) by virtue of their artificiality. They demand the good stuff, but are not called upon to do the bad stuff--that is left to us. As Smedely Butler, former Commandant of the Marine Corps said of his career " I was the muscle of Corporations in Central America and the Caribbean". In another case,when Corporations were looking for a place to grow rubber trees for the new cars rolling of the variousassembly lines, one wit was quoted as saying--"We must find not only a good place for rubber trees, but a place where our gunboats can get to." Both these quotes are rough, but essentially accurate.I suggest that since Corporations are chartered by the states there ought to be some obligation inreturn. When the FSS was assigning frequencies years ago there was a clause in the license whichrequired that they set aside certain times for public service broadcasts. I believe that is now passe'.I realize this is Federal, not state, but you do get the idea.So Corporations get service, you pay their taxes and the armed forces makes sure that debts arecollected--check history of Haiti and the US control of the Custom Houses--it was all just business.Now I am not like Canute raging against the Corporate wave. I recognize that they are needed and even desirable. My solution is more regulation so that the banks and auto companies do not have the President having to decide who lives and who goes into Chapter 7. Regulation is not a bad thing inand of itself--think of it like morphine--a little is good for the patient --a lot is bad.
Race may be a biologically meaningless term, but sociologically and culturally it is used and abusedregularly. As my grandmother said to my sister " Get that dirty............. .off my porch.
Corporations *do* have obligations to their shareholders, many of whom live in the United States. They also have obligations to operate within state and federal laws. Why should they have “community obligations” when that is not their task? Should the boy scouts have obligations to make X amount of profit per year? What is your basis for thinking an entity which is designed to sell a product needs to have community or national obligations beyond which they already adhere to? As I can see it, your gripe against corporations is because they can "buy" elections. Yet the same can be said about unions. I would argue that politician have free will and should be able to resist the lure of dollars. If they cannot resist the temptation of a campaign donation, then that is the candidate's problem, not the corporation's (or union's).Corporations, as artificial persons, are required to comply with law, rule an regulation at variousgovernmental levels and almost all do almost all the time. Further, many are involved in variouscommunity activites as it is good for business and employee morale. You and I are citizens as well as persons and have additional concerns and responsibilities. We vote, wedefend our nation, obey the laws, we pay taxes, unlike Corporations who pretend to, and concern ourselves with the long range health of the nation.Corporations do not vote although they do spend money, they are not called upon to fight and die for the nation, they do not go to jail for violations of the law and nothing requires them to have the interestsof the nation elevated over the interests of the shareholders. There is no need to speak of howsome banks and corporations profited from their relationship with Hitler's Germany prior to WWII, Itwas just business. Was it not Lenin who said that when the hanging began some Capitalist would sell him the rope? (This is not really accurate--but close).Our politicians cannot be elected without big bucks. From whence do these funds come--you? Me?If I resist temptation I lose the election--not a great strategy.
How exactly is it a chink in my armor? I never said anything about the government getting involved, which is something that liberalism would tend to want. Even conservatives want to protect the communities in which they live.Oh you cannot fool me. Like Bush II, I can peer into your computer eyes and see your soul. What Isee is a LIBERAL circuit. Don't deny it--you are outed!
The entire reason why the news story is bigger when conservatives get involved in sexual scandal is because they are held to a higher standard in the first place – which actually proves my point (I am not sure you were disagreeing with this in the first place, though). Can workers at a brothel be criticized for being involved in a sex scandal? It would be very difficult.Please enlighten me. Who or what entity establishes the standard to which Conservaties are held?I would not criticize workers in a brothel except perhaps on performance issues--never on being part of a process business.
Excellent question–today we have both. If I had to choose, I would choose let the Corporations be corrupt rather than the government. We may be in thrall to the Corporations, but we owe them no allegience and they owe us nothing if we are not a shareholder.
Well, this could go way off topic, but for example, liberals tend to reduce sexual morality to the issue of mere consent, whereas conservatives have a higher threshold of morality here.Don't you think it best if we do not speak of the morality of either group especially our politicians?I am sorry, but when I hear the words "higher threshold" I tend to giggle as testosterone and the DNAGod trump almost everything sometimes.
Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example. As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule. D'accord mon frereWe are in accord my brother--Conservatives like Liberals, but less so, have factions.
I think the difference is that conservatives do not see corporations or capitalism as the "enemy", and so there isn't much need for "protection" against them. But I don't think that you mean this simply, or at least not other liberals. The whole idea of a "windfall tax" that democrats threaten companies with every so often has more to do with socialist class-punishment rather than "protection". Also, I should ask when conservatives have felt the need for govt to take over car companies, per your example. As for the bank takeover, not all conservatives were on board with this, and that may be cited as an exception to the rule. I think corporations ought to be watched carefully. Because of their charter--no community obligations--no national obligations--just shareholders--we should view them as valuable and wonderous things that must be overseen lest they turn and bite us.
