http://gamingtrend.com
September 18, 2014, 10:13:37 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
161  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: April 08, 2013, 07:40:49 PM
The sequester is like a lobster in a pot of water -- the lobster doesn't notice the water is getting warmer until it reaches a boil and kills it. Sequester will be the same way... a slow snowballing of small issues that develop into major problems for some of the most vulnerable folks in our society. We're a few weeks away from cycling furloughs of federal law enforcement officers, for example. That's not going to be good for anyone. And if the FAA does close thousands of small air traffic control towers in June, the eventual impact to our already frustrating air travel system will be immense.
162  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Pleased? on: April 07, 2013, 06:02:53 AM

Quote from: Ironrod on April 07, 2013, 04:13:42 AM

IRAs were supposed to be a way for the middle class to save for retirement. A loophole that lets billionaires use them as tax shelters needs closing.

Agreed.
163  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 13, 2013, 03:59:53 PM

Quote from: raydude on March 13, 2013, 01:16:10 PM

Quote from: Eco-Logic on March 13, 2013, 11:32:24 AM

See though, the difference between us is that if things ever got really bad i would take a second job before milking the bloated entitlement system.  Hep on the other hand would be first in line for an Obama phone I'm certain.

Dude, there are folks who are amazingly embarrassed about having to ask for help, and they feel like such losers because they are in a tough spot and cannot get back on their feet on their own. Don't you dare make a mockery of those people just because you are all high and mighty in your ability to find work. I say this because Karma has a way of biting people in the ass.

This times 1,000.

Also, those who fall down on their luck, realize they can't get out of their situation on their own, swallow their pride and ask for help that eventually gets them back on their feet and being productive again *are* being responsible. Sometimes the most responsible thing you can say is "I can't do this on my own."
164  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 08, 2013, 10:22:44 PM
What else could he have done? Continued to try to meet them in the "middle" and drift ever further right?
165  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sequestration on: March 06, 2013, 11:32:23 PM
My office's budget just got cut 8.5%. Probably won't have to lay anyone off (which would be bad for the economy, of course), but it will impact constituent services. There's just no way around that.
166  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: So How's Your Week Going to Be? 2/18 Edition on: February 18, 2013, 03:55:43 PM
Very busy. Flew with the entire DC staff back out to California this week. We have a series of meetings and press conferences, followed by an all day retreat at the end of the week, then an airplane ride back east.
167  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [USA] Who's off today? on: February 18, 2013, 03:47:11 PM
All Federal offices are closed, so I'm off.
168  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Star Trek 2, AKA Star Trek Into Darkness on: February 04, 2013, 05:39:59 AM
WarPig, I'm feeling the same drift.
169  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Gay Marriage 2013! on: February 04, 2013, 05:35:44 AM

Quote from: Arclight on February 03, 2013, 03:37:01 PM

You do realize some of you sound so hypocritical I'm amazed you can't see it yourselves. You can get all bent out of shape because of my beliefs. But If I so much as show any emotion negatively to your beliefs I'm put in a box with all other "christian crazies". I could care less if you think I'm following antiquated beliefs or not. I have as much right to say its not my belief that same sex should marry, as you do. Why then is my belief any less valid than yours?

You spit in the face of the gay people who post on this board by denigrating us as unworthy of marriage. It isn't about your beliefs. It's about the fact that you want me to live under your oppressive, gay-hating beliefs. I should not have to live by your morals. I am not less deserving of equal rights than you are.

Quote
To some of you, its time to let go of your hate of all things Christian.

I don't go to church every Sunday, but I am an Episcopalian, which last I checked made me a Christian. Detesting the fact that you want me to live under the precepts of your particular distorted view of Christianity is not "hating all things Christian."
170  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Gay Marriage 2013! on: February 03, 2013, 04:32:17 AM

Quote from: Arclight on February 01, 2013, 11:12:13 PM

I know in these times its not politically correct, but I don't indulge in politics. I say no to same sex marriages. What men and women do in the privacy of their homes, not hurting anyone, is their business entirely. But I just believe that the sanctity of Marriage is a Male-Female covenant. You may not like my answer, but you would like me less if I lied about my beliefs.

Absolutely nothing intended to offend Ritt. But you did ask.

Obama is saying what he thinks most people want him to say.


You have no more claim on the term "marriage" than I do. Why should I be forced to live under your beliefs? Me marrying someone of the same gender (hey Ritt, want to have dinner?) in no way changes your life.
171  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 18, 2013, 03:36:04 AM

Quote from: Alefroth on January 17, 2013, 05:28:15 PM

Quote from: Fireball1244 on January 17, 2013, 06:04:32 AM

Quote from: TiLT on January 14, 2013, 05:31:56 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 02:27:25 AM

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone.  He's being open and honest about his beliefs.  I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith.  I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

I realize that, and I'm not trying to insult him either, though I am being harsh on purpose. I don't see why he can attack the foundations of my world view (such as the Big Bang) if I can't attack his right back. Sometimes I get the impression that attacking science is okay, but attacking religion is unacceptable.

It's not just "the foundation of your worldview," either. Science is right -- not always in its conclusions, but in its process and approach. The framework of science is the only system we have in place for truly determining what is factual or not in this world.

If your religion is based upon ignoring or denying large bodies of rigorously-tested scientific data, then your religion is undeserving of respect.

Are the followers of that religion undeserving of respect?

Ale

Everyone as a person is worthy of respect. But not everyone's opinions on every issue is worthy of respect. Those who reject science also abdicate any right to having their opinions on matters scientific respected.
172  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 18, 2013, 03:29:12 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 17, 2013, 12:49:54 PM

The point is that we shouldn't make a sweeping statement that all religious people are backwards idiots.

Of course not all religious people are backwards or idiots. The vast majority of religious folks are neither. However, to reject evolution for creationism is a backwards and idiotic thing to do.
173  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 17, 2013, 06:08:43 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 06:40:09 PM

Quote
Again with the beliefs. Science is not faith! Everything science teaches you can be tested and proved by anyone who bothers to do so.

Do you know how many changes in theories there have been in science over the last 100 years regarding even the simplest of things, let alone the origin of the universe?  

The fact that science changes based on new data is it's STRENGTH. Science is open inquiry. Rejecting scientific data because of religious belief is to, quite literally, close one's mind to the truth because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.

We know for a fact that the world was not created as stated in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. We know for a fact that the world is older by orders of magnitude than would be possible if the Bible was literally true. We may not know the exact details of all the right answers to the questions about how the world physically came to be or precisely how old the planet is, but we know for a fact that the answers one would draw from a literal reading of Genesis are flat wrong.
174  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: January 17, 2013, 06:04:32 AM

Quote from: TiLT on January 14, 2013, 05:31:56 AM

Quote from: hepcat on January 14, 2013, 02:27:25 AM

Arclight isn't trying to insult anyone.  He's being open and honest about his beliefs.  I may not agree with them, but I see no reason to belittle him for his faith.  I disagree more with intolerance, truth be told.

I realize that, and I'm not trying to insult him either, though I am being harsh on purpose. I don't see why he can attack the foundations of my world view (such as the Big Bang) if I can't attack his right back. Sometimes I get the impression that attacking science is okay, but attacking religion is unacceptable.

It's not just "the foundation of your worldview," either. Science is right -- not always in its conclusions, but in its process and approach. The framework of science is the only system we have in place for truly determining what is factual or not in this world.

If your religion is based upon ignoring or denying large bodies of rigorously-tested scientific data, then your religion is undeserving of respect.
175  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 20, 2012, 02:45:05 PM

Quote from: hepcat on December 02, 2012, 08:35:14 PM

So am I to assume that you back ATB's belief that a Mormon president would lead to the apocalypse?    Tongue

But on a more serious note.

Quote from: Fireball1244 on December 02, 2012, 06:27:20 PM

That's the crux of the issue: traditional Christians and Mormons mean very, very different things when they say that Jesus is the Son of God. The traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the Mormon view of the Trinity are irreconcilable. From a theological point of view, this is the most important belief in Christianity. It forms the core of the historic Creeds (which themselves predate the established canon of the Bible)..

If you view Christians with that narrow a definition then you've effectively stated that the following groups are also not allowed to call themselves Christians:

Unitarianism
Binitarianism
Christian Science
Jehovah's Witnesses

You're ignoring the first sentence from my first post: "I want to preface by saying that no one gets to tell anyone else what they can consider themselves, in terms of religion. Catholics and Methodists, etc, are within their rights to say "Mormonism is not Christianity," and members of the LDS are equally in the right to say "Mormonism is Christianity.""
176  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Star Trek 2, AKA Star Trek Into Darkness on: December 06, 2012, 09:07:44 PM
That trailer screams "Gary Mitchell is the villain" to me.
177  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] Ender's Game on: December 06, 2012, 07:24:21 PM
I would be so excited about this movie if Orson Scott Card hadn't turned into a raging hateful homophobe in the last decade. Or perhaps he always was, but now he feels more free to rant about it.
178  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Walking Dead moonwalk onto AMC for Season 3 on: December 05, 2012, 10:23:25 PM
This season has been great. So much better than most of last season. The cliffhanger was very well handled.

And I think Chris Hardwick is cute.
179  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: xkcd is awesome on: December 04, 2012, 11:07:39 PM
I'm so glad she's doing better! When he did the huge, scrolling "how amazing is this world" comic, the dialogue and the bittersweetness of it made me worry that she had died.
180  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [Movie]The Amazing Spider-Man 2 on: December 04, 2012, 10:42:08 PM
I kinda hope they title the sequel "The Spectacular Spider-Man".
181  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 02, 2012, 06:27:20 PM

Quote from: hepcat on November 26, 2012, 03:09:32 PM

At the end of the day, Mormons believe Jesus was the son of God.

That's the crux of the issue: traditional Christians and Mormons mean very, very different things when they say that Jesus is the Son of God. The traditional Christian view of the Trinity and the Mormon view of the Trinity are irreconcilable. From a theological point of view, this is the most important belief in Christianity. It forms the core of the historic Creeds (which themselves predate the established canon of the Bible)..

Quote
They believe he was resurrected by God after getting offed for our sins.

That's a touchy point. Traditional Christian belief is that Jesus, who himself is God, raised himself from the dead through his own divine power. The statement that "God rose Jesus from death" is, from a traditional Trinitarian perspective, a statement reflecting Jesus's divinity as God the Son.

Quote
They use the Bible in their services...as well as additional text they believe in (are you going to tell me that the Bible HASN'T had chapters added by your definition of Christians over the course of time?).

The canon of the Bible varied wildly until the late 300s, after the Nicene Creed was formalized. The early Church, and today's Catholic and Orthodox churches, built their beliefs on the foundation of the Creeds, not the Bible.

In the Western Church, the Synod of Hippo is credited as establishing a finalized canon of only those books in harmony with the Nicene Creed, while a similar process occurred in the Eastern Church around the same time, producing an identical New Testament canon, and slightly different Old Testament canons. Those canons and their respective books have come down from that point fundamentally unchanged. During the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant Churches removed certain books from the Old Testament, and changed the order of the books of the Old Testament, but did not alter the New Testament.  

As to the content of individual books, setting aside translation disagreements, extant evidence shows that the content has remained the same since the time of the official canon being set forth. Some books, particularly the Gospel of Mark, show differences in text in the 100s and 200s, and modern Bibles tend to clearly note the section of Mark that is not found in the earliest extant copies.
182  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Rev. Graham: Obama won because Christians didn't vote on: December 02, 2012, 06:05:04 PM

Quote from: Blackadar on November 26, 2012, 02:36:29 PM

Mormonism is just yet another branch (or sub-branch) of Christianity, like Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Pentacostal or Protestant.

I want to preface by saying that no one gets to tell anyone else what they can consider themselves, in terms of religion. Catholics and Methodists, etc, are within their rights to say "Mormonism is not Christianity," and members of the LDS are equally in the right to say "Mormonism is Christianity."

However, there seems to be a lot of handwaving in this thread about *why* all Christian churches that hold traditional theological points of view hold the opinion that the LDS is something separate from Christianity. There are fundamental theological differences that cannot be bridged between the two groups.

If traditional Christianity is right about these fundamental things, then the Latter Day Saints are inescapably, fundamentally wrong about certain key issues. Likewise, if the Latter Day Saints are right about these fundamental things, then the Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Baptists, etc, are all themselves inescapably, fundamentally wrong about certain key issues.

Everyone has a right to consider themselves a Christian, no matter what he or she believes. Anyone can define their belief of what Christianity is in any way they like. That doesn't change the scale of the differences at play, or that these differences are regarding the key aspects of what it means to be a Christian.
183  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 25, 2012, 10:49:22 PM
Apple Maps has been fine for me. It got me to and from locations in Los Angeles and Palm Springs this weekend. It knows the roads and locations in Riverside pretty well.

So obviously the dataset they're building on top of is pretty good for this region. It'll get better everywhere as more people use the maps. With 100 million devices running iOS 6 already, they should get better rather rapidly, if not quickly.

Glad I don't live in Europe.
184  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 27, 2012, 08:20:10 PM

Quote from: Autistic Angel on August 24, 2012, 10:54:52 PM

Quote from: Calavera on August 24, 2012, 09:28:48 PM

To be perfectly honest, I actually don't care who the President is. Aside from military power, he can't impart change without Congress.


The repeal of DADT, the end of the American torture program, and the decision to stop deporting youths brought into the United States illegally at a young age are all changes affected without Congress.

That's not true. DADT was repealed by Congress in December 2010. It was a law, and had to be repealed by Congress.
185  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Pennsylvania Voter ID Law Threatens To Disenfranchise Nearly 10 Percent Of State on: August 16, 2012, 09:52:51 PM

Quote from: CeeKay on July 06, 2012, 01:29:33 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/pennsylvania-voter-id-law_n_1652469.html

Quote
Pennsylvanians will be required to show government-issued photo identification in order to cast votes in November, thanks to a GOP-supported voter ID law signed by Gov. Tom Corbett (R) earlier this year. While supporters argued that it was a simple measure meant to combat voter fraud, figures released this week show that the law may affect more than 750,000 Pennsylvanians who don't currently possess identification cards issued by the state Department of Transportation Department.

According to the report, which compared voter registration rolls with transportation department ID databases, more than 758,000 registered voters in Pennsylvania have no driver's license -- a primary form of identification. That's 9.2 percent of the state's 8.2 million voters, the Philadelphia Inquirer reports. In Philadelphia, the state's biggest city, that number balloons to 18 percent of the city's total voting population -- around 186,830 registered voters, according to the newspaper.

The Corbett administration maintained earlier that 99 percent of Pennsylvania voters already had proper identification, and therefore wouldn't need to take additional steps to cast their ballots. The voter ID law does allow for the use of other forms of identification, including U.S. passports, student ID cards with expiration dates and military ID. Because of that, state officials have shown little concern over the latest numbers.

“This thorough comparison of databases confirms that most Pennsylvanians have acceptable photo ID for voting this November,” Secretary of the Commonwealth Carol Aichele said in a news release. “This comparison takes into account only voters with PennDot IDs, and does not include voters who may have any of the other various acceptable forms of ID.”

it's hard to believe that that there are so many people there without any form of proper ID.  do those people just live totally off the grid?  it seems to do anything, like bank or have a proper job you'd have to have at least a State ID.

This is a common misconception. The working poor live in a cash society that involves little to no banking. They don't travel by airplane. They use other items for their limited ID needs -- in most cases, a utility bill will work. When you pay rent week to week, cash your paychecks at stores that exist specifically for that, don't save, don't travel and live effectively hand to mouth, you have no need for an ID.

Also, many, many elderly people don't have a valid ID because they don't drive or travel often, and most places accept expired IDs when dealing with the elderly.

Finally, many young people would also be prevented from voting because the addresses on your ID and your voter registration must match perfectly -- so young people, and poor people, who move repeatedly during the year would have to be extremely vigilant about updating all their registrations, and often updating your voters registration address requires trips to inconveniently located government offices during "normal" working hours.

These laws are a terrible regression of the right of people to vote. They are presented as an attempt to "solve" a problem that simply isn't an issue in American elections — fraudulent voting by way of voter impersonation. There *is* voter fraud in America, but these laws won't solve it, as most fraudulent ballots are submitted through the mail.

Of course, it just so happens that the hardship from this new law will fall almost entirely on people likely to support one political party. Surely a coincidence.
186  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 11, 2012, 11:28:11 PM
Ryan himself will not cost Romney votes, but he makes it harder for Romney to avoid problematic topics like the recent efforts of Republicans to dismantle medicare.

The people for whom this is a *disaster* are Republican Congressional candidates in marginal districts. They had been trying like mad to not talk about Medicare. Guess what just became topic number two in the election?
187  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Paul Ryan is the Winner! on: August 11, 2012, 07:41:26 PM

Quote from: msduncan on August 11, 2012, 06:14:10 PM

I can't believe what I'm reading in this forum:   Liberals hating the Ryan pick.   I'm SHOCKED I tell you.   SHOCKED.

My campaign raised a lot of money today off this pick. I was really afraid that Romney would make a sensible pick of someone clearly qualified but inoffensive: a Portman, Daniels of Pawlenty. This made my day.

This will no doubt consolidate Romney's base and give him a nice bump going into the Convention. But in terms of election narrative, Romney can't avoid a clear debate between "cut taxes for the rich and slash social spending" versus "raise taxes on the rich and cut spending up and down the budget" approaches to balance the budget. That's not a policy fight where a majority of Americans are on his side.
188  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: The Romney Veepstakes - Down to 3? on: August 08, 2012, 05:58:37 PM
Those three make sense. None of them is a game changer, though. My guess is Portman, as Romney is falling behind in Ohio, and if it starts to solidify away from him the way Pennsylvania seems to have, he really doesn't have a path to 270 electoral votes.
189  Gaming / Portable Gaming & Apps / Re: [iOS] Official Apple Podcast App (FINALLY!!) on: August 06, 2012, 07:31:10 PM
The new app does not require downloading podcasts from iTunes. It can automatically download episodes when connected via cellular or wi-fi, depending on the size of the file in question.
190  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Mars rover Curiosity lands tonight on: August 06, 2012, 01:23:40 AM
It's such a complicated landing. I hope it all works out okay. Seven minutes of terror indeed!
191  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 05, 2012, 08:47:00 PM
What bothered me about Victor's posts was the combination of ignoring what other people were saying so he could keep regurgitating tired, discredited canards, while at the same time announcing that he wasn't going to listen any responses to his last set of unfounded assertions because he was cutting and running from the thread.

I had written most of a response to his points when I noticed his earlier "I'm outta here" statement, and, frankly, that pissed me off. That, to me, is lecturing -- he's going to assert his point of view, and then flee before having to support any of his inane points. It's a lousy way to treat the other people in the thread who were actually trying to have a discussion.

Anyone who pulls the "I'm leaving the thread but now I'm going to take the last word" maneuver is behaving like an arrogant jerk, in my opinion.
192  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Bring forth thine desktop wallpapers! on: August 05, 2012, 08:33:18 PM
This is one of the new Desktop backgrounds in Mountain Lion. I really like it.
193  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [movie] The Dark Knight Rises - Impressions start page 12 on: August 05, 2012, 08:26:06 PM
Sure, there's political subtext in TDKR, but I didn't think it was particularly conservative. As a liberal, it certainly didn't feel as though my beliefs were being criticized. I thought the anti-War on Terror subtext in TDK was much more pronounced.

I need to see this film again.
194  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Cake Shop Refuses Wedding Cake To Gay Couple on: August 04, 2012, 02:00:34 AM
I doubt there are protections against such things based on sexual orientation in Colorado. If there are, the shop owner is potentially in real trouble. If there are not, he's in the clear.

Regardless, best of luck to the boycotters. I hope no LGBT person or ally buys another cake from that store until he changes his position.
195  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 11:24:21 PM
Victor, I'm getting tired of your lecturing tone. You are talking down to everyone else in this thread. Take your superior attitude and shove it.
196  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 10:11:12 PM

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 09:35:13 PM

Quote
Your example is problematic, because there is a fundamental difference between political opinion and intrinsic biological traits such as sexuality. The law in no way protects one from consequences due to their political opinions, and it can be argued that it shouldn't. The same is not true for intrinsic traits like gender, sexuality or ethnicity.

Dangerous defense, and here's why. First, disapproval of certain sexual acts, even inclinations, may well be at least partly biological in basis.

You could make the same argument for racial animosity being rooted in a biologically-ingrained xenophobia. We rightly reject such nonsense in an enlightened society.

Quote
Second, the degree to which sexuality is wholly biological is disputed.

It is intrinsic, whether biological, hormonal or genetic is immaterial. It is not chosen and cannot be changed.

Quote
A biological trait of sexuality != sexual acts. Your standard would make it an open question whether someone could or should be discriminated against owing to their sexual behavior, regardless of actual sexuality. In fact, for those guys running around opposing gay marriage for religious reasons, that's the formal, intellectual tradition: someone having same-sex attraction doesn't merit any kind of condemnation, at least no more than anyone who experiences any kind of temptation. Now, specific sexual acts? That's where the problem comes in, and that's where the argument would take place on that response - you can protect people with SSA while at the same time opposing people engaged in same-sex intercourse. Or hell, any kind of intercourse, since an act is an act.

This has nothing to do with sex.
197  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 09:09:31 PM
Your example is problematic, because there is a fundamental difference between political opinion and intrinsic biological traits such as sexuality. The law in no way protects one from consequences due to their political opinions, and it can be argued that it shouldn't. The same is not true for intrinsic traits like gender, sexuality or ethnicity.
198  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 08:30:11 PM

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 08:10:27 PM

Quote
I don't support government action against Chick-fil-A over this, but let's be fair: No one actually tried to bar Chick-fil-A. At most, a Chicago Alderman said he wouldn't support issuing a zoning variance, something that to me seems well within his rights -- declining to allow a company to opt out of a law isn't the same as using the law to persecute it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/13988905-418/ald-moreno-trying-to-block-new-chick-fil-a-over-boss-stance-on-gay-marriage.html

So, wait. You think it's "well within the rights" of a public official to say, "I don't like your political stance. So you know what? I'm going to use my position to harm your business."? And let's say it is legally within his rights - do you think this is ethical?

I would say that if someone applies for a *variance* -- that is, to have a particular law waived -- and if that variance is at the discretion of an elected official, that the elected official has a broad prerogative to approve or deny it. Under Chicago law, these things are not spelled out. An alderman can deny your variance because he doesn't like your haircut. Do I think he should? No. But it's not illegal, nor does it run afoul of ethics rules.

Quote
Again, just to put a point on it: straight-up "I don't like your political views, so I - the mayor/alderman/city councilman/whichever - will use my power to bar your business." is A-OK by you? Or is it not?

I will bet that hundreds of times each year, whether or not a variance is issued is directly related to whether or not the person requesting it supported the elected official in the last election. That's not fair, but then no one is entitled to a variance. I do not like it. But it's not illegal, and its not going to be.
199  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 08:01:07 PM

Quote from: VictorGrunn on August 02, 2012, 07:54:44 PM

Well, the "pro-equality people" are partly composed of public officials trying to bar businesses from their areas on the grounds that they disagree with the COO on a political/social subject.

I don't support government action against Chick-fil-A over this, but let's be fair: No one actually tried to bar Chick-fil-A. At most, a Chicago Alderman said he wouldn't support issuing a zoning variance, something that to me seems well within his rights -- declining to allow a company to opt out of a law isn't the same as using the law to persecute it. And again THIS ISN'T ABOUT CATHY'S STATEMENT. It's about the company's despicable donations.

Quote
See the list posted in this thread about the supposed list of things the groups Cathy funds have pushed.

"Supposed"?
200  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chick-fi-a Today on: August 02, 2012, 03:28:44 PM
This controversey is not about the stupid, bigoted things Dan Cathy said. It's about the fact that Chick-fil-A sponsors anti-gay hate groups. And it's not just about marriage. Chick-fil-A's sponsored hate groups lobby on these issues:

1) To prevent the passage of laws that would make it illegal to discriminate in terms of employment based on sexual orientation;

2) To prevent the passage of laws that would make it illegal for rental properties to discriminate based on sexual orientation;

3) To pass laws outlawing the creation of Gay Straight Student Alliances at high schools and public universities;

4) To prevent the passage of any law or resolution opposed to Uganda's "Kill the Gays" legislation;

5) To pass laws outlawing adoption or foster parentings by LGBT Americans;

6) To pass laws that give automatic preference in child custody cases to the straight parent in divorces where one parent is gay;

7) and, yes, to prevent any legal recognition or protection of gay couples, including rights to hospital visitation, joint child custody, communal property inheritance and so on.

That's what this is about. That's what the people rallying to eat chicken sandwiches are "standing up" for. Yet I suppose for calling Chick-fil-A out for giving money to FOTF, AFA, NOM and other hateful groups that support parts of the above, I'm a "hatemonger."
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.16 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.063s, 1q)