This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
But, when the pressure got turned up by the Romney camp, he started getting hammered by criticism.
Selectively edited criticism, as evidenced
here
.
You at least didn't cut off the roads and bridges part he was obviously referring to (in homage to Elizabeth Warren, most likely), but you managed to leave this out:
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative...
Straight Dope also has a massive trainwreck of a thread about
Paterno, Sandusky and Penn State
.
Post by
MyTie
But, when the pressure got turned up by the Romney camp, he started getting hammered by criticism.
Selectively edited criticism, as evidenced
here
.
You at least didn't cut off the roads and bridges part he was obviously referring to (in homage to Elizabeth Warren, most likely), but you managed to leave this out:
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative...
Read this:If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.So, you think he is referring to building roads and bridges? You don't think he was talking about being successful in business, and that government helped you out in business by building stuff like roads and bridges, or by teaching you? I mean, really? The roads and bridges point was a facilitator to his greater point that community is the driving force behind individual accomplishment.
I actually, don't want to discuss this with anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with me on it. It's too... irritating for me. I see what he said. I've heard it over and over. I've read it. I know what he said. To think that he said something that he didn't say is counter to my common sense. So, I'm going to stop talking about it now. Further responses to that particular article are going to be ignored by me. Feel free to discuss them with others, though. I just don't feel I can explain what Obama said any plainer than big O himself.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Unless you were a feral child who taught yourself everything you know, then somehow earned enough money to start a business without getting a penny from anyone else, then you absolutely did get help from other people, and to deny it is quite silly. I really don't get the furore.
And I'm just going to leave this here:
You Olympians, however, know you didn’t get here solely on your own power. For most of you, loving parents, sisters or brothers, encouraged your hopes, coaches guided, communities built venues in order to organize competitions. All Olympians stand on the shoulders of those who lifted them. We’ve already cheered the Olympians, let’s also cheer the parents, coaches, and communities. All right!
Video
(quote starts at 1:40). So his criticisms of Obama for saying the exact same thing about businesses is wonderfully hypocritical.
Thanks Doc. I'm glad that you read it exactly like I do. Again, I understand that what he said falls right into line with his political views, and Romney may have said something similar in the past. MY PROBLEM with the whole thing was that Obama had an interview in the next few weeks and explained that he WASN'T talking about business, but was talking about "roads and bridges", which is so painfully and obviously false. He's clearly lying. My big deal is that there are actually people that buy the lie.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
I thought the issue was the antecedent of "that" in the most quoted line. People claimed the antecedent was "business", he answers it was "roads and bridges" or infrastructure generally. I don't think he claimed the
speech
wasn't about businesses, just that one word.
But the antecedent was business, quite obviously. No one thinks that people go out and build roads and bridges by themselves. That doesn't even make sense, and would be out of place in his speech. He is talking about building business with the help of others. That makes sense in his speech, philosophically and grammatically.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So, city governments are moving to ban "Chic-fil-A" resteraunts after the company CEO says that he supports traditional view of marriage, and thinks that to do otherwise would bring the wrath of God to the US. Now, say what you may about his views, but I don't think he should be banned from opening a business solely based on his political views. Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel said that he doesn't want to allow businesses that discriminate, but there is no indication that such a business would discriminate. In fact, the discrimination is AGAINST the political views of the owner. Why is such discrimination allowed? I don't care what the political views are. If some dude from the KKK, or the Black Panthers, wanted to open a chicken sandwich restaurant, then fine, let him. I won't eat there. But, there is something dangerous when we give government the right to punish people for their political views. Think about it.I think your politics are coloring your view. I just checked the passage and it's plainly defending infrastructure spending on on the grounds that the government builds the infrastructure businesses need to be successful. Hell, right after the bit about roads he says exactly the same about the internet. He says businesses didn't build the internet but they rely on it to succeed, which is precisely the same point as saying businesses didn't build the roads but they rely on them. You may not think it makes sense but it's pretty plainly what he said.
I think you're wrong. He didn't insert a one liner about how people don't build infrastructure single handedly in a diatribe about business. You think he did, I think he didn't. This isn't going anywhere. Drop it like it's hot.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I agree that they shouldn't be banning restaurants based on the owner's personal views. I think that some things are enforceable by law, and some are in the realm of social responsibility. If the restaurants were refusing to employ homosexuals, were refusing to allow gay employees with marriages legal in their state the same health benefits as other marriages, or were refusing to serve gay customers, I think there might be a case for the government to get involved. But not because of the personal views or voting habits of the employees or owners. As long as they follow the laws regarding discrimination, they're allowed to be prejudiced.
Granted, I think anyone who thinks that his statements were morally reprehensible can and should boycott, picket, write letters to the company, etc. But until the business is violating discrimination laws, the government shouldn't be involved.
Post by
MyTie
Granted, I think anyone who thinks that his statements were morally reprehensible can and should boycott, picket, write letters to the company, etc. But until the business is violating discrimination laws, the government shouldn't be involved.
I'm of the thought that a letter should be written in support of his views of marriage, but cautioning him not to presume to know the will and wrath of God. Support God's commands, but don't speak for him.
In the end, I'm much more likely to buy from their establishments and support them.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Granted, I think anyone who thinks that his statements were morally reprehensible can and should boycott, picket, write letters to the company, etc. But until the business is violating discrimination laws, the government shouldn't be involved.
I'm of the thought that a letter should be written in support of his views of marriage, but cautioning him not to presume to know the will and wrath of God. Support God's commands, but don't speak for him.
In the end, I'm much more likely to buy from their establishments and support them.
I'd imagine. But you're of the opinion his views about marriage are correct, and I am of the opinion that they're incorrect. So we're going to see the message differently.
You think he's mostly correct, and the government is way overreaching its bounds. I think his statements are reprehensible and wrong, but that the government is still overreaching its bounds. In the end, what we can agree on is that it's not a legal or legislative matter.
Post by
MyTie
You think he's mostly correct, and the government is way overreaching its bounds. I think his statements are reprehensible and wrong, but that the government is still overreaching its bounds. In the end, what we can agree on is that it's not a legal or legislative matter.
I completely agree. I think you and I see eye to eye on a number of matters, and I really appreciate your viewpoints.
Post by
Magician22773
If you look at the comments that the owner made, they are about as non-inflamatory as you can get. They call out no specific group, or say anything that I could see as "hatefull".
We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that...we know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Chic-fil-a has always been known for its Christian ownership, and it decision to not open on Sundays. So, why it came as such a surprise that they support the Biblical definition of marriage amazes me.
They also have, as far as I can find, never been discrimitory in hiring, or serving, gays.
Just like with the Oreo cookie issue, those that felt it was offensive for them to support GLBT issues with their company had every right not to eat Oreo cookies in protest, I believe, if GLBT groups want to protest Chick-fil-a, they have that right as well. But if a goverment agency decides to prohibit them from doing business in their district by way of zoning laws, than I hope they get their socks sued off, and those responsible should be removed from office.
Post by
gamerunknown
As long as they follow the laws regarding discrimination, they're allowed to be prejudiced.
No
employment discrimination legislation
in the state Chick-Fil-A was incorporated in.
I completely agree.
What happened to state's rights?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
What happened to state's rights?
Please quote me where a state has the right to discriminate against a business if they do not agree with their beliefs on a civil matter.
as long as his objection stays tied to something like a discrimination policy rather than just the fact that the owner is against gay marriage, I'm not sure it amounts to government overreach.
Thats the part you missed.....there is no discrimiation issue here. The alderman is only upset about their position on gay marriage. And he intends to deny them a zoning permit based on his disagreement with the beliefs.
Reverse the situation. If a Christian Alderman wanted to deny an openly gay company from building in their district, what do you think the outcome would be?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.