|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 23, 2009 10:42:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Jan 23, 2009 11:26:42 GMT -6
First, the Conservative Republicans spent tax dollars like drunken sailors on leave in Singapore (sorry MCPO, but its true).
Next, they tried to make government BIGGER by trying to regulate what is said on TV and radio while trying to regulate what goes on in the bedroom, or regulate who can pull the plug on a brain dead loved one.
THEN, they nationalized the banking industry.
And NOW Conservative Republicans want to join "Protected Class" status?....and are using the courts to get their way?
F-U-C-K-I-N-G P-R-I-C-E-L-E-S-S-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Jan 23, 2009 12:09:07 GMT -6
First, the Conservative Republicans spent tax dollars like drunken sailors on leave in Singapore (sorry MCPO, but its true). Next, they tried to make government BIGGER by trying to regulate what is said on TV and radio while trying to regulate what goes on in the bedroom, or regulate who can pull the plug on a brain dead loved one.THEN, they nationalized the banking industry.And NOW Conservative Republicans want to join "Protected Class" status?....and are using the courts to get their way? F-U-C-K-I-N-G P-R-I-C-E-L-E-S-S-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Jan 23, 2009 12:17:19 GMT -6
This is an interesting subject. I can see why you shouldn't exclude an applicant based on sex, age, race and sexual orientation. But those are all things that people are born into (I know the sexual orientation one is up for debate). No one should be discriminated against with respect to these.
But, should an employer have the right to discriminate due to political views? I can see debates on both sides of this one. If you got the entire faculty as democrats, then I don't blame them for not wanting to work with a conservative. Hardcore liberals and conservatives don't seem to get along that well and the work environment would be less then ideal.
Interesting..................very interesting subject matter. I'm going to have to ponder this one over a bowl tonight.
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 23, 2009 12:17:41 GMT -6
First, the Conservative Republicans spent tax dollars like drunken sailors on leave in Singapore (sorry MCPO, but its true). Next, they tried to make government BIGGER by trying to regulate what is said on TV and radio while trying to regulate what goes on in the bedroom, or regulate who can pull the plug on a brain dead loved one.THEN, they nationalized the banking industry.And NOW Conservative Republicans want to join "Protected Class" status?....and are using the courts to get their way? F-U-C-K-I-N-G P-R-I-C-E-L-E-S-S-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Perhaps it's absurd to you... but it's the truth to the rest of the world. What the hell are you talking about?Most likely those sodomy laws in TX (and elsewhere) Funny how you neglect to mention the wishes of every member of her family with the exception of her piece of garbage Husband.Does your sophist attempt mean you agree with a 3 member quorum being called in congress to enact legislation specific to an individual US citizen - or that you disagree? |
|
|
|
Post by The Flying Spaghetti Monster on Jan 23, 2009 12:23:29 GMT -6
Stating Republicans did those things, along with virtually every liberal Democrat, is fair game. Stating Conservative Republicans did is just absurd.
Earlier in this decade, the "Republicans" could not even blow their nose or wipe their ass without the blessing of the "Conservative Republicans". To think our deficit and pork barrel spending spiraled out of control without the "Conservative Republicans" approval and participation is plain ignorant.
What the hell are you talking about?
The Conservative Republicans went apeshit after the whole wardrobe malfunction fiasco....so far so that they tried to fine stations that inadvertently broadcast a US soldier who said fuck while he was getting shot at.....or when they try and dictate what privileges two men or two women can enjoy.....
the answer to it all? More legislation.
Funny how you neglect to mention the wishes of every member of her family with the exception of her piece of garbage Husband.[/quote]
I agree, the husband was a piece of shit. But Congress, lead by the Conservative Republicans, had no business sticking their nose into that matter.
The Grand Ole Party I joined in 1987 is a far cry from the one that I see today, one that was destroyed by "Conservative Republicans" and their stupid assed moral high ground social policies.
I seriously miss Reagan and Bush I.
|
|
|
|
Post by cmonhox on Jan 23, 2009 12:59:01 GMT -6
[/quote]But, should an employer have the right to discriminate due to political views? I can see debates on both sides of this one. If you got the entire faculty as democrats, then I don't blame them for not wanting to work with a conservative. Hardcore liberals and conservatives don't seem to get along that well and the work environment would be less then ideal. Interesting..................very interesting subject matter. I'm going to have to ponder this one over a bowl tonight. [/quote] This isn't an attempt to paint you into a corner. You mention in your post that you don't blame them for not wanting to work with a conservative if the majority of the faculty is hardcore liberal. From your perspective, could also reconcile that to Boy Scouts admissions, or employment of scientists that believe in a higher level or supreme existence? What I'm getting at is, I agree with you, in that there are distinct and very polar worldviews that will prob. never come to agreement. And if we're going down the path that maybe there is legitimacy in separation; shouldn't we be ok with faith based organizations not being required to hire or admit persons whose views are opposite of their worldviews as well? Do we really need to have a bunch of court costs and time spent on Boy Scouts not admitting when it's clear their organization has a distinct worldview? And if people are not in agreement with that worldview in the first place, why do they try to force their way into it? Never understood that concept. If you don't agree, why are you trying to get into it and essentially be surrounded by it? Gluttons for punishment??  For the sake of the article, it is interesting to see the argument go the other way. |
|
|
|
Post by roxxstar on Jan 23, 2009 16:03:08 GMT -6
"From your perspective, could also reconcile that to Boy Scouts admissions, or employment of scientists that believe in a higher level or supreme existence?" I agree. For the record I don't have a problem with Boy Scouts not allowing gays into their ranks. I think they are dumb for doing it. But they are a private organization and should be allowed to allow/block membership to whomever they wish. I also don't have a problem with scientists who believe in some form of God. I'm not a Christian, and I certainly don't believe the Christian God exists, but I'm not saying there can't be some form of "God". For example, I have no problem with scientists exploring the concept of intelligent design. There is actually a pretty interesting documentary on this by Ben Stein (No Intelligence Allowed) about how the scientific community is blacklisting scientists who are studying/teaching ID in any form. Pretty good documentary in my opinion. Although I don't think ID necessarily points to God exclusively (at least not the Christian God). It could just as easily be an alien civilization that planted life on Earth (certainly more plausible then "God" in my opinion). "And if we're going down the path that maybe there is legitimacy in separation; shouldn't we be ok with faith based organizations not being required to hire or admit persons whose views are opposite of their worldviews as well?" I don't really have a problem with faith based organizations not hiring people with their same beliefs either (kind of a similar subject as the one this thread is discussing). Why the fuck would an Atheist want to work at a Church anyway? LOL "And if people are not in agreement with that worldview in the first place, why do they try to force their way into it? Never understood that concept. If you don't agree, why are you trying to get into it and essentially be surrounded by it? Gluttons for punishment??" I agree with you here also. I don't see why anyone would want to belong to an organization that openly disagrees with what they are. But I understand trying to make a statement. They are essentially saying that they should be allowed into any facet of society (kind of like the first African Americans that enrolled in all white colleges knowing full well that most everyone there hated them). They are trying to break the mold so that the future "gays" can do fun boy scout stuff.  |
|
|
|
Post by iammrhawkeyes on Jan 23, 2009 21:59:34 GMT -6
THEN, they nationalized the banking industry. Yep, the big fiscal lib W did lead the charge. Good thing he had a republican congress to actually implement it though. Did anyone read the comment section? Our very own Thunder had a few choice nuggets of something to offer. Funny stuff, dude! |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 24, 2009 8:33:56 GMT -6
THEN, they nationalized the banking industry. Yep, the big fiscal lib W did lead the charge. Good thing he had a republican congress to actually implement it though. Did anyone read the comment section? Our very own Thunder had a few choice nuggets of something to offer. Funny stuff, dude! I see stuff like this and I don't know what the hell run of the mill Dems want. The national policy in the early 30's was to let the banks fail. Dems sure sound like they want that. That causes deflation, which the Dems must by implication want, another contributing factor to the Depression. Expansion of unions is another Dem mantra, the first foray into unionism by big gov is deemed by many economists to have been a substantial factor in causing the "Depression within the Depression." Trade protectionism - another Dem mantra, another failed Depression-era policy. It's easy to see why they'd want to cause another Depression, though, because the only way to get government spending as a percentage of GDP over the 60% mark that they want is to have another Depression and another round of massive knuckledragging. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Jan 24, 2009 11:17:59 GMT -6
I see stuff like this and I don't know what the hell run of the mill Dems want.... It's easy to see why they'd want to cause another Depression, though... Do you even know which direction is up? |
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Jan 25, 2009 8:48:44 GMT -6
I see stuff like this and I don't know what the hell run of the mill Dems want.... It's easy to see why they'd want to cause another Depression, though... Do you even know which direction is up? Well wasn't the Depression the greatest feeding frenzy for fiscal liberalism we've seen in the past 100 years? I'll admit, Dubya came pretty close to matching that, though. If the banks all go under, there will be another Depression, so every time the Dems piss and moan about the banks getting a capital injection from the Federales and some help with their portfolios, I can only come to one conclusion: Democrats are pro-Depression. |
|
