• filter:
  • 1172173174175 176
  • Page
  • Text Only
  • Search this Topic »
rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   Drumroll please... The first official entrant into the GOP clown car for the 2016 presidential election is...Ted Cruz. This tea party darling will be critical in pushing the eventual nominee much father right than he really is, making their election in the general election that much harder. An excellent start on what promises to be an entertaining GOP primary.
  Candidacy announced at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va, whose founder is Jerry Falwell.

rated:
kirbydog said:   
JorgeBurrito said:   Drumroll please... The first official entrant into the GOP clown car for the 2016 presidential election is...Ted Cruz. This tea party darling will be critical in pushing the eventual nominee much father right than he really is, making their election in the general election that much harder. An excellent start on what promises to be an entertaining GOP primary.
  Candidacy announced at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Va, whose founder is Jerry Falwell.

  
Ted Cruz is a very smart man.  He is knows his constituents.  He is an East Coast Ivy League Princeton and Harvard educated lawyer. 

Why didn't he announce his candidacy at Princeton or Harvard?  Because his constituents hate East Coast Ivy League educated elites.

Why didn't young Ted Cruz himself attend Liberty "University", rather than Princeton or Harvard?  Because he wanted to get a proper education.

Quite the tightrope walk Ted Cruz has to do here.  I hope he has his parasol with him    

rated:
It's going to a long campaign full of entertainment for us all -- interesting tibits of information will be flying from both Dem and Repub camps.  I do find it a little odd, though,  that the NY Times has all of a sudden taken up bipartisan reporting. Are they trying to play catch-up for their previous politically biased commentary or do they have another DNC candidate in the wings that they will be pushing should something serious about Hillary or Bill's prior behavior surface?

New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/03/20/rand-paul-calls-on-hillary-clinton-to-return-all-foreign-gifts/ "The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation restricted foreign donations while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state but quietly resumed accepting money from foreign countries after she left office. This month, former President Bill Clinton defended the practice, arguing that the foundation needed the funds to carry out its ambitious mission.“I think it is a good thing — for example, the U.A.E. gave us money,” he said, referring to the United Arab Emirates. “Do we agree with everything they do? No. But they are helping us fight ISIS, and they built a great university with N.Y.U., open to people around the world. And they have helped us support the work that this foundation does.”Mr. Clinton added: “Do I agree with all the foreign policy of Saudi Arabia? No.”Mr. Paul said there was no difference between funds accepted by Mrs. Clinton and by the foundation, and called on her to return all gifts received by either.“So Hillary Clinton needs to explain why she’s taking money from foreign countries that abuse the rights of women,” the senator said, “and frankly I think today she should announce that she’s going to give the money back.”" 

rated:
Any guess on serious or non-serious candidate on the demo side?

rated:
I can tell how successful Ted Cruz will be in his campaign just by looking at his website:

http://www.tedcruz.com/ 

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   Any guess on serious or non-serious candidate on the demo side?
Sen. Liawatha Warren keeps saying she's not running.  Hopefully she's telling the truth about this.  If not, that means I'm voting for Clinton in the primary, again.

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   Any guess on serious or non-serious candidate on the demo side?
I can get you a list of female and minority junior senators, if you want to just throw a dart

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   Any guess on serious or non-serious candidate on the demo side?
  Errr Hillary?

Bernie Sanders will run, but not serious contender, just trying to push the conversation further to the left.  Biden I think would like to, but likely will not after taking a serious look at his actual prospects.  I think Martin O'Malley will run, and at least be a serious enough contender to make Hilary have to work for it a little.  It is too bad Jerry Brown is as old as he is, I think he would be an excellent candidate.
 

rated:
Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare.
Text

rated:
^
I saw that.

I'm still waiting to be able to buy one of Ted's official coffee mugs. Nothing on his website. I guess it takes a while a spool up the factories in China?

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   I can tell how successful Ted Cruz will be in his campaign just by looking at his website:

http://www.tedcruz.com/

Good post,JorgeBurrito.  

It might interest you that Huffington Post emphasized the race card in the previous election too.  That scheme could play well again a second time around provided Hillary's political ground troops beat the drum hard enough.Watch Ted Cruz's Dad Compare Obama To Fidel Castro Repeatedly (VIDEO)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/15/ted-cruz-fidel-castro_n_4101974.html
 

rated:
kamalktk said:   Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare.
Text

  I'll give him some slack here, even through the massive hypocrisy.  He is following the law, as he should be.

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
kamalktk said:   Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare.
Text

  I'll give him some slack here, even through the massive hypocrisy.  He is following the law, as he should be.

  I believe he can pay the penalty and not go on the exchange. That too is part of the law, after all.

rated:
kamalktk said:   
JorgeBurrito said:   
kamalktk said:   Presidential candidate Ted Cruz is signing up for Obamacare.
Text

  I'll give him some slack here, even through the massive hypocrisy.  He is following the law, as he should be.

  I believe he can pay the penalty and not go on the exchange. That too is part of the law, after all.

  I didn't think TX participated in the Exchange. There was some sort of uproar about it, anyway.

EDIT: Sort of correct.  Texas doesn't administer.  They refer out to HHS for administration. No state run exchange...only federal.

rated:
No one has to buy through the exchange, but I have found the prices there even without the subsidies are cheaper than going directly to insurance company. While I wont lose my subsidies when the Supreme's rule against them because we have a state exchange it probably will cause 0bamacare to collapse. People will hate the Republicans for causing this and the Democrats for not being able to write the law correctly. And this incompetent  administration is negotiating a deal with Iran? Great we see how good they did with swapping 5 Taliban commanders for a deserter/trader who is now facing life in prison.  Glad it's almost summer so I can break out my cooler and continue my 6 year run of sitting on the beach laughing at this mess 

rated:
Salesforce comes out against religious freedom in Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-a...

I wonder how many atheists Salesforce will be laying off in Indianapolis because of their stand against religious freedom.

rated:
scrouds said:   Salesforce comes out against religious freedom in Indiana.

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2015/03/25/business-leaders-a... 

I wonder how many atheists Salesforce will be laying off in Indianapolis because of their stand against religious freedom.

   An excerpt from article that Scrouds cited:
"Salesforce, a cloud computing company headquartered in San Francisco, acquired Indianapolis-based marketing software company ExactTarget last year for $2.5 billion. Pence signed the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a private ceremony Thursday. Business leaders in the tech community had addressed a letter to him urging him to veto the measure. "As leaders of technology companies, we not only disagree with this legislation on a personal level, but the RFRA will adversely impact our ability to recruit and retain the best and the brightest talent in the technology sector," the letter reads. "Technology professionals are by their nature very progressive, and backward-looking legislation such as the RFRA will make the state of Indiana a less appealing place to live and work." In a tweet sent out to his 150,000 followers Wednesday night, Benioff said his cloud computing company would be "forced to dramatically reduce (its) investment in IN based on (its) employee's & customer's outrage over the Religious Freedom Bill.  A request for clarification of the statement and how RFRA's passing would impact Salesforce customers and employees in Indiana was not immediately returned"

I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.

For those who see an opportunity to short the stock, Salesforce is publicly traded NYSE NYSE : CRM 

Background history from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salesforce.com :   "The company was founded in 1999 by former Oracle executive Marc Benioff, Parker Harris, Dave Moellenhoff, and Frank Dominguez as a company specializing in  Harris, Moellenhoff and Dominguez, three software developers previously at consulting firm Left Coast Software, were introduced to Benioff through friend and former Oracle colleague Harris and team wrote the initial sales automation software, which launched to its first customers in the fall of 1999.[l=[]][/l] In June 2004, the companywent public on the New York Stock Exchange ... raising US$110 million. Marc Benioff and Magdalena Yesil were the initial basic connection investors and board members.Other early investors include Larry Ellison  Halsey Minor  Stewart Henderson, Mark Iscaro, and Igor Sill of Geneva Venture Partners, as well as Nancy Pelosi."

 

rated:
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

  How ironic your wording is, as the indiana law allows people to curtail their business with customers based on their religious beliefs.

See this whole freedom thing.  Its a good thing.

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

I agree with you.  If Scott McCorckle's, Salesforce's CEO, opinion does in fact mirror the majority sentiment of Salesforces' public stockholders,  he is entitled to voice his objection on behalf of those Salesforce stockholders; however, if it doesn't mirror the stockholders opinion, or the company suffers a financial loss on the huge investment they undertook in Indiana (because operating in Indiana is far cheaper than moving that operating division to San Francisco) the shareholders can choose to sell their stock at a loss or replace Scott McCorkle as CEO.

rated:
scrouds said:   JorgeBurrito said:   
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

  How ironic your wording is, as the indiana law allows people to curtail their business with customers based on their religious beliefs.

See this whole freedom thing.  Its a good thing.


Not ironic at all, unlike bighitter I am being very consistent. Corporation are people my friend, and we have given them the same rights that rest of us have. It would be ironic to claim support of this legislation while simultaneosly offering criticism to salesforce or suggesting they should be shorted for making a statement like this. At least it is if you believe in corporate person hood. Besides, I don't think I've ever claimed freedom isn't good, but it gets tricky when one persons freedoms infringe on another's.

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   
scrouds said:   
JorgeBurrito said:   
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

  How ironic your wording is, as the indiana law allows people to curtail their business with customers based on their religious beliefs.

See this whole freedom thing.  Its a good thing.


Not ironic at all, unlike bighitter I am being very consistent. Corporation are people my friend, and we have given them the same rights that rest of us have. It would be ironic to claim support of this legislation while simultaneosly offering criticism to salesforce or suggesting they should be shorted for making a statement like this. At least it is if you believe in corporate person hood. Besides, I don't think I've ever claimed freedom isn't good, but it gets tricky when one persons freedoms infringe on another's.

I suggest you carefully re-read my post, JorgeBurrito -- you will find that there is no inconsistency whatsoever on my part.  

rated:
scrouds said:   
JorgeBurrito said:   
bighitter said:   
I'm not familiar with the legislation, nor am I particularly religious,  but I'm sure Indiana residents are capable of deciding for themselves what is appropriate for their state and should be free to support (or not support)  their political representative's legislation accordingly.


 

  Agreed, and businesses (or anyone else) are free to decide to curtail their  associations with those that live or are based in Indiana because of that legislation. 

  How ironic your wording is, as the indiana law allows people to curtail their business with customers based on their religious beliefs.

See this whole freedom thing.  Its a good thing.

If that passes, look for the following statement about a day later from some group to try to push farther:
"It's also against my religious beliefs to do business with blacks, why can't we do that?"

rated:
kamalktk said:   
If that passes, look for the following statement about a day later from some group to try to push farther:
"It's also against my religious beliefs to do business with blacks, why can't we do that?"

It's already signed into law. U didn't hear that though. Did you?

While we're on the topic, have any other boogeymen you want to drag out of the closet?

rated:
JorgeBurrito said:   

Not ironic at all, unlike bighitter I am being very consistent. Corporation are people my friend, and we have given them the same rights that rest of us have. It would be ironic to claim support of this legislation while simultaneosly offering criticism to salesforce or suggesting they should be shorted for making a statement like this. At least it is if you believe in corporate person hood. Besides, I don't think I've ever claimed freedom isn't good, but it gets tricky when one persons freedoms infringe on another's.


It does get tricky, but the privilege of buying something from another person is not a right and not a freedom. It's a transaction. People should be free to enter into a transaction, or to not enter into a transaction as they see fit.

Just like it is well within salesforce's right to pull all business from a state. I think it's misguided, I think they deserve criticism, but I support their right to determine their own business practices.

rated:
Ya, it's a tricky one and I'm not firmly committed to one side or the other yet. I see a lot of hypocrisy on both side of this divide.

People who usually advocate for personal moral objection now ask the government to snuff it. People who love to shove their believe down other's throat now ask for freedom of believe. Lovely display all around.

rated:
Oh please, both sides want to shove their righteous opinion down everyone's throat.

Neither side can stomach freedom if it means letting someone do something they think they shouldn't do.

rated:
scrouds said:   kamalktk said:   
If that passes, look for the following statement about a day later from some group to try to push farther:
"It's also against my religious beliefs to do business with blacks, why can't we do that?"

It's already signed into law. U didn't hear that though. Did you?

While we're on the topic, have any other boogeymen you want to drag out of the closet?

You're probably not aware, but there is at least one religion that believes black people are black because their ancestors were marked by God with that skin color for sins against God. The skin color marks their disfavor with God.

That makes it a valid question.

rated:
kamalktk said:   
scrouds said:   
kamalktk said:   
If that passes, look for the following statement about a day later from some group to try to push farther:
"It's also against my religious beliefs to do business with blacks, why can't we do that?"

It's already signed into law. U didn't hear that though. Did you?

While we're on the topic, have any other boogeymen you want to drag out of the closet?

You're probably not aware, but there is at least one religion that believes black people are black because their ancestors were marked by God with that skin color for sins against God. The skin color marks their disfavor with God.

That makes it a valid question.

  So my pale translucent skin means I'm favored by God? Funny, I don't feel favored.

rated:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

There. The idea of black skin as the mark of Cain, placed on Cain and his descendents by God to mark God's displeasure. So people could discriminate against blacks now, citing they have religious reasons for it and God has conveniently marked them for easy identification as not worthy of God, so we're totally cool with it, right? Religious freedoms and such.

Edit:fixed typo.

rated:
kamalktk said:   http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

There. The idea of slack skin as the mark of Cain, placed on Cain and his descendents by God to mark God's displeasure. So people could discriminate against blacks now, citing they have religious reasons for it and God has conveniently marked them for easy identification as not worthy of God, so we're totally cool with it, right? Religious freedoms and such.

While your example is valid it's begging the question.

What if I wear a T-shirt that says "<race> for devil"?  Does a business still have the obligation to serve me?  If marriage "equality" is now a protected class what about some guy marrying a twin-sister (both of them), does the business still have to serve them?  As people been pointing out,, only if it's so simple as framing the right question.

rated:
ZenNUTS said:   kamalktk said:   http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

There. The idea of slack skin as the mark of Cain, placed on Cain and his descendents by God to mark God's displeasure. So people could discriminate against blacks now, citing they have religious reasons for it and God has conveniently marked them for easy identification as not worthy of God, so we're totally cool with it, right? Religious freedoms and such.

While your example is valid it's begging the question.

What if I wear a T-shirt that says "<race> for devil"?  Does a business still have the obligation to serve me?  If marriage "equality" is now a protected class what about some guy marrying a twin-sister (both of them), does the business still have to serve them?  As people been pointing out,, only if it's so simple as framing the right question.

Your first example of the t-shirt is a visual example that people have a choice in the matter of. "No shirt no shoes no service" is allowable as far as I know. As for the marriage example, three people being married to each other is not legal, so yes you could refuse to serve them, you dont even have to cite religious reasons, you have no obligation to aid someone in carrying out an illegal act (if a carjacker gets in your car and tells you to drive and you refuse, your refusal is legal).

"But my religion says I can ignore the law", if accepted as a principle, it will give rise to all sorts of new religions created for the purpose of doing whatever you want ("my church says meth is sacred"), or finding support for otherwise illegal behavior inside existing religions ("mark of Cain means I can discriminate against blacks because it's my religion").

The idea establishes religious beliefs as superior to the regular laws of the nation. That's very dangerous, it makes the country into a multi-theocracy.

rated:
My religious rights are above the law.

If in doubt, read the US Constitution amendment 1.

rated:
The law needs to be overhauled. If I go into a coffee shop wearing the aforementioned racist t-shirt, the shop owner has every right not to serve me and ask me to leave.

If I walk into a coffee shop with a t-shirt that reads "homo love is the best love" , the shop owner should have the exact same right to not serve me and ask me to leave.

It's their shop.

rated:
scrouds said:   My religious rights are above the law.

If in doubt, read the US Constitution amendment 1.

  The supreme court, rightfully so, have made it clear that this is not true.  Doing otherwise "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."  Reynolds v. United States  ​

If ones religion believes that murder is OK, certainly you would agree that doesn't mean you have the right to go out and go and kill your neighbor just cause you feel like it.  After all I can't think of a more egregious breach of ones freedom than killing them.  If you accept this limitation it just becomes a matter of where the line should be drawn..and like I said earlier, becomes much more complicated

  • Quick Reply:  Have something quick to contribute? Just reply below and you're done! hide Quick Reply
     
    Click here for full-featured reply.
  • 1172173174175 176
  • Page


Disclaimer: By providing links to other sites, FatWallet.com does not guarantee, approve or endorse the information or products available at these sites, nor does a link indicate any association with or endorsement by the linked site to FatWallet.com.

Thanks for visiting FatWallet.com. Join for free to remove this ad.

TRUSTe online privacy certification

While FatWallet makes every effort to post correct information, offers are subject to change without notice.
Some exclusions may apply based upon merchant policies.
© 1999-2015