Ohio miners forced to attend Romney rally without pay...

[eppie]

Incorrect, they work because their survival depends on it. Workers do not have self determination under Capitalism.

I've walked out of multiple jobs without a minute's notice when an employer has made a choice that doesn't sit well with me. And yes, I'm from a 'capitalist' country.

Well, workers need to work, in any system. Cavemen needed to catch animals and gather fruits etc. Later people started to grow crops etc. etc. All because their survival depended on it.

In capitalism there is a share of the population that doesn't really live on the edge, such as Lennylen, or myself and most people here on the lounge I guess.

But let's not forget that for many people in our capitalist societies it isn't that easy. And loosing a job might end up costing you your life. (more so in the US than in western europe).

Having the choice to stop working and just collect welfare is not to perfect because just profiting from society is not good, but this image is an image that is created by rightwingers. We have the same in Holland (election time)......some people make it look like people without a job are all profiters.......this is so terrible for all those people who lost their job and kind find a new one.....I mean it is not that the economy is doing so great right now.

[shoju]

I believe you entirely. But that seems to make my point, not yours. Isn't this threat extremely credible? They tell you the rally is mandatory. You don't show up. They notice. Then they fire your ass on some flimsy excuse, or no excuse at all - downsizing being very common. That's not an empty threat. That's the opposite of an empty threat.

What makes it any more credible of a threat than any "fear/threat" on the job? They make it mandatory, someone who they didn't like, and knew wasn't going to show up, doesn't.

So they fire him. When they do, they claim it was for something else.

Or, he throws a fit, and screams and draws attention.

So they fire him. When they do, they claim it was for something else.

The problem doesn't lie within the threat of being fired over a mandatory, partisan political rally.

The problem lies with the employment laws of the state.

When someone who they like, who is a "good worker", and does his job, says "Hey boss, I can't make it, I'm sorry. I need to either work, or be at home because I can't afford to go somewhere that isn't putting gas in the tank". The boss puts his arm around him, and says "Hey, I understand." And he doesn't get fired.

I guess I shouldn't say that it's not "Credible". It's that a threat like that was never meant to be credible to everyone.

I'm confused. You say it's terrible, but you don't care unless someone is fired? Part of the problem of crappy employment law is that it lets employers walk all over their employees, which they go along with out of fear of losing their job. That doesn't make it right. That actually seems to make it extra-wrong.

I don't care anymore about this than I do any other employment problem in Ohio. I care about the employment laws that allow this to happen. Caring, about this one case isn't going to fix the problem.

I'm not sure I understand your position. You're hard-boiled cynical about it, which seems very reasonable, and seem to think this is a travesty, which it is... and therefore, you don't care, doesn't matter, what's the big deal? I can't put those two things together. If you're telling me the system is screwed up, and employers can abuse it? I agree entirely. If you're telling me that it doesn't matter? I don't see why not.

I don't care about this one case. i care about the laws, that allow all the cases like this to happen in Ohio. I'm telling you the system is beyond screwed. It's in full meltdown, screw your empoylees, and bleed them dry, **** you and your mother who is having surgery, but I don't have to give you time off (let alone paid) unless she dies, or you qualify for FMLA. (even then, it doesn't have to be paid, it just means they can't fire you for not showing up)

I'm telling you that the "cases" of it happening don't matter. If you get hot and bothered at people who abide by the letter of the law (no matter how awful that lets them be), you are getting hot and bothered at the wrong thing.

Instead, you should be hot and bothered with a state laws, and legislative body who have put the laws forth that allow this type of terrible behavior to exist.

[kandrathe]

Threatened with what? Breaking your legs? Or striking? It's illegal to threaten someone with violence.

Yes, it is. You do know about the "alleged" connection between unions and the underworld? I'm not sure what it is like elsewhere, my only experiences have been in places like Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan, and New York where most union leadership have a cozy relationship with the underworld forces who corrupt business, unions, and government.

So, in the time I've worked since about 1980; I've been followed after work, and watched as my "shadows" write down my license plate number. I've had my car vandalized. I've been followed on the road. In the workplace; I've been "sabotaged" by unionized workers, have have veiled threats against me, and numerous "conversations" to intimidate me for unionization votes.

Did "the muscle" overtly threaten to break my legs? No, more on the order of suggesting that I be sure that my insurance is paid up. But, my legs have never been broken, my house hasn't been torched, and I haven't awoken to a severed horse head in my bed.

[FireIceTalon]

Reading some of these posts, I'm not sure you guys (in particular you, comrade shoju) understand the role of the State and how it works in conjunction with and to maintain social relationships in Capitalism. I'll break it down for you.

The very presence of the state is reliant on the separation and division of peoples into classes, as an organ exercising the predominating interests of its ruling-class. These interests are fundamentally rooted in material developments and historical circumstances which, believe it or not, DO require a state. The state and the market are not polar opposites operating independently of each other, nor is it a question of one dominating the other and bending it to the other’s will. The market is exploitive, regardless of what anyone here believes.

Putting aside values, let’s look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism produces a variety of goods and services not according to human need, but according to the profitability of commodities and their subsequent fetishization in relation to economic relationships and concepts of value. The role of the market is not to meet human demand, but to extract from this process of production, and distribution profit. Profit, then, supersedes social need; and it subjects the latter to the intrinsically chaotic nature of the market. In addition, this also turns not only goods and services into commodities, but the workers themselves also become commodities, through division of labor and alienation.

The state does not arise independently of these circumstances, but in conjunction with the historical and economic developments of the market. While political and media pundits speak endlessly about the natural dichotomy of the market and the state, the two overlap quite a bit - and do so naturally. A market must encourage growth and expansion if it is to continually profit from the extractive properties of private capital. This requires a state, a military, and the means of guarding against competitive foreign interests. Thus you have clashes, skirmishes, and war - not as an expression of the moral failure and inherent ambition of humanity, but as an example of market expansion edging out the competition. WWI, WWII, and various other armed conflicts are certainly results of the inner workings inherent in the functioning of the market. This is why I never understood the utopian vision of Libertarians (and many Democrats also), who are apologists for Capitalism but are anti-war, a paradox. After all, war is good, and ultimately necessary, for the expansion of Capital.

Capitalism creates and perpetuates the very antagonisms that weaken and expose it to periods of instability. More concretely, it subjects the vast mass of society to the demands of an economy reliant on a continuous stream of profits in order to sustain and expand itself. This throws the working-class, itself a product of capitalist market relations, into opposition with those reaping the benefits from their collective labor: the ruling class. Such a conflict necessitates the creation of a police force capable of subduing the restive movements of labor, the perpetuation of artificial divisions to keep workers separated along racial and religious lines (among others), and a body that can oversee and exercise this process - the state. The state legitimizes Bourgeois law, because it has to: without it, Capitalism would fall on its face almost immediately. It does not exist on its own merit or because it is an efficient economic system, it exists through state force and deceit.

Privatized safety nets are a result of personal idealism with little to no basis in basic conditions. The market does not operate according to human need, but profit. Why do you think banksters, lobbyists, and politicians constantly rail against “entitlements”, social nets like social security, medicare, and other programs? Why do you think Obamacare received such fierce backlash and pushback from the medical-pharmaceutical complex? Lobbyists for the insurance industry weren’t happy until it became clear their profits wouldn’t be on the chopping block - in fact, Obamacare expands profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies (but that’s another topic).

Let’s look at some examples of the private market at work: in cities where figures are nominated and installed by businesses (like Detroit), conditions have worsened, schools closed, evictions skyrocket, charter schools replace struggling public ones, entire communities live without electricity or running water, and political “representatives” are wholly responsible for ensuring each devastating cut be carried out. This still happens where the institutions remain in state hands, but situations like what’s happening in Detroit and elsewhere are pushed through by unaccountable financial figureheads with startling rapidity. This is because, as I’ve highlighted above, markets are dictated by the profitability of commodities (goods and services), not the needs of society. It’s not a matter of good vs. bad, crony vs. “free” market capitalism, or the market vs. the state or any other so-called Idealist paradigm - these are irrelevant factors that find little to no basis in the material realities confronting societies for centuries now.

At the end of the day, changing the laws wont do a damn thing - that is wishful thinking at best, complete misunderstanding of the role of the state in Capitalism at worst. If it were that simple, these problems would have been gone ages ago, and I wouldn't be typing this post. The working class and the ruling class have diametrically opposite interests - and they cannot be reconciled. The ruling class is who makes the laws, and of course, they are going to make laws that preserve and expand their class interests. Capitalists try to justify their system by saying it is simply 'natural law' - but history has shown it is anything but. Ultimately it produces very corrupt, unstable, hypocritical markets and racist social divisions (as a necessary element to its continued existence).

[kandrathe]

Having the choice to stop working and just collect welfare is not to perfect because just profiting from society is not good, but this image is an image that is created by rightwingers. We have the same in Holland (election time)......some people make it look like people without a job are all profiters.......this is so terrible for all those people who lost their job and kind find a new one.....I mean it is not that the economy is doing so great right now.

Ok, so first, there isn't a monolithic "employer" who decides whether you work or not. Most places have multiple ways of being employed. Second, if the work you are qualified for and want to do dries up in your locality, you can a) move to a place that needs you -- like the tundra of North Dakota b) lower your standards and probably your quality of life, or c) go get more qualifications. Not easy choices, but still choices. As for state run "unemployment" systems, they are great if they focus on moving people back into "usefulness". My criticism for this latest recession is that they've probably erred on not investing in mechanisms of growth resulting in higher costs for sustenance of the unemployed. If you believe the government should have a central role in managing the economy (and I'm not so sure), then our government should have invested more in stimulating the private sector economy (as opposed to government spending on unproductive, or counter-productive things).

The universe of vocations is always in transition -- e.g. since the advent of the motor car, we haven't needed as many stables or buggy whip manufacturers. With automation (computerization, robotics, lasers, etc.) we've seen vast improvements in the productivity of every industry. This has displaced many "qualified workers" where in all likelihood, their chosen profession is an anachronism. People who seek employment need to be mindful of the need to remain useful to the society.

It has been a nagging question in my mine for many years (and I've mentioned it on the Lounge before). What happens to society when due to productivity, the amount of employment needed falls below the amount of employment supplied? The mechanism (the employment system) by which most of our society has access to products and services is through the exchange of labor for money. We produce (in the production system) all the food, clothes, housing, and sundries for our society, with an ever diminishing amount of employment. Our society is stuck in a paradigm where we value and sustain people via a 40 hour work week, which may no longer be needed.

In monetary policy we've myopically emphasized a slight inflation of goods and services, while from a productivity stand point everything should cost much less. The result is a gradual depreciation of not just savings, but also in earning power. (see Hayak -- The Road to Serfdom). In any case, our governments have failed us. It is a structural error to think a stochastic politicized central authority can perpetually provide both high levels of stimulus and high levels of regulation without causing chaos in flow. Government has a role to play in the economy through limited mechanisms of the monetary system (supply, reserve currency), minor labor regulations to prevent abuse, enough of a social safety net, and institutions for the flow of proper information. They err dually in both over and under playing their proper role depending on the whimsy of the party in power.

I just don't think the outcomes are good for a society that no longer needs people.

[Jester]

The problem doesn't lie within the threat of being fired over a mandatory, partisan political rally.

The problem lies with the employment laws of the state.

Why can't they both be wrong? Surely, if the laws of Ohio are so terrible that they allow employers to basically force workers to support their own partisan affiliations - and Robert Murray surely has those - why is it right for a presidential candidate to take advantage of that? Shouldn't Romney at the very least disown such practices, once they're called to his attention?

-Jester

[shoju]

Why can't they both be wrong?

I'm not saying that they both aren't wrong. But I look at it more like an infection. The laws that allow this, are an infection.

The business practices that result from it, are symptoms. Fever, nausea, chills, etc...

If you have an infection, you don't (or at least shouldn't) spend all of your time being caught up in the symptoms. You should be spending your time with some good antibiotics that will deal with the "Cause".

I don't see the point in getting upset about what this company is doing, when it is just a symptom of terrible policy.

Surely, if the laws of Ohio are so terrible that they allow employers to basically force workers to support their own partisan affiliations - and Robert Murray surely has those - why is it right for a presidential candidate to take advantage of that? Shouldn't Romney at the very least disown such practices, once they're called to his attention?

-Jester

I'm going to try and temper my comments here so that I can convey my point, without being as "partisan" on the issue as I am.
I tried. I can't. Romney is just a tard.

Warning. The rest of this post comes from a rather "liberal" leaning "former" Pentacostal Christian in the midst of a decade long crisis of Faith. (talk about a long story...)

The reason is simple. Given the documented history of Romney's business practices, IF he did know about the practices, he probably (I wont say "For Sure", but his record would indicate that he "probably") doesn't have a problem with them doing this, or with the laws that govern that allow it to happen.

You have to remember/understand, that Romney's campaign is being run counter to your very example. He is running for the republican party, a party that has founding ideologies in less government intrusion in personal life, less government oversight, less government "control", yet he is threatening to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, introduce legislation that would put the government in the business of regulating a woman's body, and denying civil rights to a group of people because of the person that they love.

He is running implicitly on a campaign that puts governmental regulation into people's lives, and in their bodies, and cuts them off from valuable resources, because those businesses (planned parenthood) and rights (Gay marriage) conflict with his personal religious beliefs, while running as a member of a political party that holds almost the very opposite to be their core values.

I should clarify, that this isn't strictly, "A Romney" problem. The republican party, is far less "republican" by standard definition right now, and far more "Religican" Party, and the "Bible Belt Religican's" Have an overwhelming feeling that if you aren't with them, you are a hell bent heathen. (Remember, only the Sith deal in absolutes)

I was recently witness to the "Religican" thinking in all of its sadness, when a prominent Christian Pastor in the area proudly proclaimed on facebook that any "Christian" who supports the Democratic Party, has been swayed to the causes of the devil, and is lost. Did people stand up and say "No Way! Religion =/= Politics!" No. His followers lapped it up, and whipped themselves into a good old fashioned fervor over it, and went on to make wild accusations about the Democratic Convention, and Obama.

When I messaged the "friend" (who shared the link with me) that I would love to talk to him about the inaccuracies in the discussion, and that I was worried about him being so gung ho about it, I was promptly defriended, and blocked, so I can't give you a facebook link to it. (God I would love to see some of the lounge tackle that topic... Not really.)


{EDIT}

A problem that I DO have with this is the idea that corporations are extended First Amendment Rights. A Corporation isn't a person, and I seriously have a problem with it being treated as one. It has no right to the same civil liberties that the first amendment grants me. I have a problem with the companies who have come out against Gay Marriage, and even though I support Gay Marriage, I have a problem with those that come out in support of it. You are a company. Keep marketing products, and I will keep buying them. If the Owners, CEO's, Board of Directors want to fund Anti-Gay campaigns, or Pro-Gay Campaigns, or Marry your pet Spider Campaigns, allow them to do so on their own, without involving the company. The minute that they do so with the company letterhead, and the company checks, I have a SERIOUS problem with it.

[kandrathe]

Why can't they both be wrong?

If we believe this kind of political coercion is morally wrong (if not legally) -- it should be equally wrong for anyone who benefits from it.

I can understand Bob Murray's possible intent, in that the coal industry's bread is buttered with a Romney presidency, and probably toasted under Obama. It's still wrong. Then again, he is a guy who can sleep at night while promoting the gradual heavy metal poisoning of the planet.

...yet he is threatening to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, introduce legislation that would put the government in the business of regulating a woman's body, and denying civil rights to a group of people because of the person that they love.

If he supports get the government out of the concerns of deciding/influencing 'Birth Control' or 'Marriage' then he is practicing less government. I'd like to see them cut off funding for many things that I think should be done, but just not by my federal, state, or local government. For example, in a fascist society the government tells you what to eat. In my sons (government run) schools this year -- when they go through the school lunch line if they refuse to get a serving of fruits and vegetables -- they are charged 50 cents more. Instead, they get the serving, and throw it away, thus saving 50 cents. I guess eventually, they'll have to hire another Nazi to police the garbages to charge them for waste.

But, you are right in that there is a block of the Republican party that is just as fascist as the Democratic party in trying to use government to control peoples lives. I don't want the government making birth control decisions. I don't want the government making health care decisions. I don't want the government making decisions on whom I might associate with, or whom I decide to marry. There should be no legal advantages or laws that favor or discriminate based on marital status. The opposite of government control is liberty, something we should attempt to preserve.

[eppie]

It has been a nagging question in my mine for many years (and I've mentioned it on the Lounge before). What happens to society when due to productivity, the amount of employment needed falls below the amount of employment supplied? The mechanism (the employment system) by which most of our society has access to products and services is through the exchange of labor for money. We produce (in the production system) all the food, clothes, housing, and sundries for our society, with an ever diminishing amount of employment. Our society is stuck in a paradigm where we value and sustain people via a 40 hour work week, which may no longer be needed.

But this is already happening kandrathe. At least in the west. That why professions like lawyers, professional athletes and boy bands are created. We make so much wealth (among others by taking it from the rest of the world) that we can permit it to create all kinds of useless jobs

[kandrathe]

The minute that they do so with the company letterhead, and the company checks, I have a SERIOUS problem with it.

I guess the problem, as described by recent SCOTUS briefs, is that free speech and association are FREE. The government can't censor the free speech rights of a corporation, because a corporation is just a bunch of people freely associating. If the board, ergo majority of stockholders, are OK with the speech, then what right does the government have in censoring the speech? Most importantly when that speech is political, because in a tyrannical system political speech would be the first type of speech to be censored. Can any group express their political viewpoints, such as "The Catholic Church of America", or "The Teamster's Union"? If they can have a collective opinion, then why censor any other organization (even if their motives are profit driven)?

---

But this is already happening kandrathe. At least in the west. That why professions like lawyers, professional athletes and boy bands are created. We make so much wealth (among others by taking it from the rest of the world) that we can permit it to create all kinds of useless jobs.

Ah, the 1%. Possibly then we could just make it more fair by having a government run lottery, where the winner is rewarded with an obscene amount of cash, but also taxed at a 99% rate. Thus, funding the next lucky winner.

[shoju]

If he supports get the government out of the concerns of deciding/influencing 'Birth Control' or 'Marriage' then he is practicing less government.

The problem is, He isn't supporting that.

He has decided that Gay Marriage is wrong, and that you shouldn't be allowed to marry the same sex. Thus ensuring that the government can tell you who you can and can't marry.

He has determined that if you work for a company, they can use their "standing" as a "religious entity" to determine if you can get your Birth Control covered by your insurance.

He has vowed to gut Planned Parenthood, and thus remove a vital aspect of women's health care, and well patient visits from the picture.

Get the government out of the picture. Hold EVERYONE to the same standard.

I'd like to see them cut off funding for many things that I think should be done, but just not by my federal, state, or local government. For example, in a fascist society the government tells you what to eat. In my sons (government run) schools this year -- when they go through the school lunch line if they refuse to get a serving of fruits and vegetables -- they are charged 50 cents more. Instead, they get the serving, and throw it away, thus saving 50 cents. I guess eventually, they'll have to hire another Nazi to police the garbages to charge them for waste.

Nazi? Really? Come on now. How old is your kid? Is he going to make the right decisions on what to eat on his own without someone there? If you have a problem with your child's school enforcing a healthy eating plan, then maybe you should just home school him. When you send your kid to a "Government Run" school, you are in fact trusting that they will do their best to make sure that your child is learning. Part of learning is learning how to eat properly, and healthy.

But, you are right in that there is a block of the Republican party that is just as fascist as the Democratic party in trying to use government to control peoples lives. I don't want the government making birth control decisions. I don't want the government making health care decisions. I don't want the government making decisions on whom I might associate with, or whom I decide to marry. There should be no legal advantages or laws that favor or discriminate based on marital status. The opposite of government control is liberty, something we should attempt to preserve.

I don't want the government making birth control decisions either. Roe V Wade was decided. Let's move on. Let's make sure that your citizens ALL have access to the SAME health care choices, no matter where they are employed.
Let's make sure that all people have a chance to HAVE Health Care.
Let them marry whoever they want.

I'm not quite sure I follow you on the "Opposite of government control is liberty", and your claims that Democrats are Facist. If you are going to debate my partisan remarks, you could at least not jump the shark with nazi's and facism.


EDIT:

I guess the problem, as described by recent SCOTUS briefs, is that free speech and association are FREE.

The government can't censor the free speech rights of a corporation, because a corporation is just a bunch of people freely associating.

This is what I disagree with. A Corporation, is a set of Legal Documents that bind together a group in a contract, most commonly used in commerce of some shape or form.

A Corporation is a bunch of paper documents. The people are more than welcome to have their free speech as people. Not as a conglomerate of people under the name of a pile of papers.

When they start wading into political and religious waters with their corporate policies, they can (and do) run afoul of the personal beliefs of the people who comprise the corporation, or are employed by the corporation.

I don't care if the owner/CEO of Chick-Fil-A wants to be a bigot. But I don't think that he should be able to endorse his bigotry with his fast food restaurant.

Likewise, I don't care if the owner/CEO/Board of Directors of OREO wants to be "Pro Gay". I don't think that they should be making cookies about it though.

I'm a huge fan of advertising. I understand the implications that these statements can have, and the amount of "extra" funding that can arise from things like this, and the loyalty generated in a group of people from it as well.

That doesn't mean that I think it should be acceptable business practice. Personally? I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A. I never will either. Because I know that a portion of the profits that they make from me is going to go to fund things I don't believe in.

People shouldn't be faced with "moral questions" about the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc...

Companies, shouldn't be able to try and build a brand based on the stances of the CEO's / Board / Owners, either.

If the board, ergo majority of stockholders, are OK with the speech, then what right does the government have in censoring the speech?

The government isn't censoring them. They are more than welcome to say whatever they want. Just not with their brand name.

Most importantly when that speech is political, because in a tyrannical system political speech would be the first type of speech to be censored.

And in a wide open deregulated system, the first type of speech that is allowed is from lobbyists, and those who have the biggest check books, writing the biggest checks. Sorry, I don't want Chick-Fil-A, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Perdue, Swanson, Campbells, or any other food company capable of making a public statement about the rights of human beings.

Can any group express their political viewpoints, such as "The Catholic Church of America", or "The Teamster's Union"? If they can have a collective opinion, then why censor any other organization (even if their motives are profit driven)?

I don't think any of them should be able to. I don't want businesses, Religious groups, Unions, etc... advocating for or against "My rights". Because in the end, the pile of papers isn't what has to deal with the fall out. It's the human beings.

So, If Bill Gates would have wanted to lobby for some legislation, I don't care. He has tons of cash. As long as it has his name on it, I don't care.

I care, when MIcrosoft, the Brand, is pushing the issue.

[LennyLen]

Having the choice to stop working and just collect welfare

This is something I could have done any of the times I quit. However, I just found a new job instead.

[kandrathe]

Sorry about the size of the post, but we are covering quite a bit of ground.

He has decided that Gay Marriage is wrong, and that you shouldn't be allowed to marry the same sex. Thus ensuring that the government can tell you who you can and can't marry.

The problem is that the government has its hands in marriage, which grants certain rights and privileges -- and then discriminates on who can participate in it. Many peoples religious convictions also define marriage as between a man and a women, such as the Catholic Church and protestant groups who adhere to scripture. We don't want them to foist their definitions on us, but I don't think you should force your definition of marriage on them either. If two adults wish to sign a contract granting each other joint power of attorney, property rights, and etc. Then they should -- and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. If people wish to form a "family" to raise children within the laws of the state protecting children, then they should and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. I'd say we need to step back and re-address the wall of separation here.

He has determined that if you work for a company, they can use their "standing" as a "religious entity" to determine if you can get your Birth Control covered by your insurance.

As opposed to... The government forcing the Catholic Church to offer contraception in opposition to their beliefs. It makes about as much sense as forcing the peace corps to have a paramilitary wing. If you work for a religious organization, then you should probably be willing to adhere to the stipulations of that organization. Otherwise, you are probably working for the wrong organization. Free association, again, is a two way street. The Catholic Church doesn't need to worry about catering to it's protestant or atheist employees, since it has the constitutionally protected right to "discriminate" based on religious orientation.

He has vowed to gut Planned Parenthood, and thus remove a vital aspect of women's health care, and well patient visits from the picture.

Or, has he vowed to gut the $487 million government funding for PP (whose budget is about a $1.05 billion)? If he were to vow to abuse his power to destroy an individual or an organization, then it would be similar to Obama vowing to destroy private health insurance industry or using the power of government to go after Donald Trump. Why is this different than someone vowing to cut food stamps, or military funding according to their ideas about what the government should fund? I'd say it makes a good sound bite that caters to the base of the Republican party who are rabidly anti-abortion -- but since Congress writes the checks, a president can suggest all he wants about defunding -- and, from the reality chair, it's not gonna happen.

Get the government out of the picture. Hold EVERYONE to the same standard.

Now you are talking... What are you willing to give up?

Nazi? Really? Come on now. How old is your kid? Is he going to make the right decisions on what to eat on his own without someone there? If you have a problem with your child's school enforcing a healthy eating plan, then maybe you should just home school him. When you send your kid to a "Government Run" school, you are in fact trusting that they will do their best to make sure that your child is learning. Part of learning is learning how to eat properly, and healthy.

My kid... is a kid. And, so, sometimes he follows my teaching, and sometimes he doesn't. Ok, so let's do away with school lunch, and kids can go back to brown bagging it. Move the money necessary for the poor into the "food aid for the poor" bucket so poor families can send their brown bags to school too, and defund the school lunch program. I use the term "Nazi" in the vernacular, as in "Soup Nazi" from Seinfeld. I doubt the lunch lady is really a Nazi. But, yes, if this BS gets bad enough I'll have to move him to a non-government run school. Consider that they aren't allowed to have candy at all, even for Valentines day or Halloween. Nazis!

Edit: Check out the backlash -- #BrownBagginIt -- just another brick in the wall...

I don't want the government making birth control decisions either. Roe V Wade was decided. Let's move on.

They did. They've pretty much followed the principle of stare decicis, and only revisit old decisions if new information renders the precedent suspect. The SCOTUS is what enables the Constitution to remain a flexible legal basis since we can adapt our framework to the modern age. I do think the government has a role in determining at what point a human being deserves constitutional protections.

Let's make sure that your citizens ALL have access to the SAME health care choices, no matter where they are employed. Let's make sure that all people have a chance to HAVE Health Care.

Why? Is it the governments job to ensure that all citizens have the same choices for caloric intake? I can't afford to eat the same quality of food as a rich person, so should the government give me a special allowance to level the playing field? Is it the governments role to ensure we all live equally, or just that the laws are applied equally? Do we stand for equal protection, or egalitarianism?

I'm not quite sure I follow you on the "Opposite of government control is liberty", and your claims that Democrats are Facist. If you are going to debate my partisan remarks, you could at least not jump the shark with nazi's and facism.

What I mean by Liberty.

And, fascists... Yes. I think our system is increasingly become fascist, and it's both the Democrats and Republicans who are doing it. So, yes, I think we are really becoming a fascist form of government, akin to pre-WWII Italy or Spain. Who owns GM? Who owns Amtrak? Who owns and sells the rights to use communications channels? How many banks does the US government own? Who owns Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? Who up until recently owned 92% of AIG? The government is comfortable stepping into take over private corporations at will, and coercing them to surrender control. Right?

And planned government violence... Consider Oliver Stone's interview of Nestor Kirchner, who said "I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war." Then, what happened?

We are not going the way communists would like, towards a model of common ownership and central planning. We are going the way of fascist Italy or Spain, where we elect saviors who will wield the power of government to save us from our bad decisions. The only difference between 1930 and now is that it hasn't gotten bad enough yet where some idiot can get elected by suggesting that we can save ourselves by giving the government more or ALL power.

This is what I disagree with. A Corporation, is a set of Legal Documents that bind together a group in a contract, most commonly used in commerce of some shape or form. A Corporation is a bunch of paper documents. The people are more than welcome to have their free speech as people. Not as a conglomerate of people under the name of a pile of papers.

The set of documents describe the association, but they aren't the entity. It's the association of stockholders who own the corporation, and employ the workers. The speech rights are given to the owners to defend their rights and interests. A private corporation may only have one person who owns 100% of the stock. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't like junk mail, or phone solicitations either, but I respect the rights of companies who are trying to advertise their products and make a profit.

That doesn't mean that I think it should be acceptable business practice. Personally? I have never eaten at Chick-Fil-A. I never will either. Because I know that a portion of the profits that they make from me is going to go to fund things I don't believe in.

People shouldn't be faced with "moral questions" about the food they eat, the clothes they wear, etc...

They aren't. Dan Cathy was asked about his beliefs, and he exercised his rights to free speech. He gave his opinion, and because the corporation also uses their money to support causes they believe in, they were pilloried by the 24 hour news. They don't espouse their views in any other way than to donate money to organizations they believe in. Do you check on every product you buy as to what that corporation funds with it's donations? I don't. In fact, the way that Chick-Fil-A was treated reminded me of brown shirt tactics.

Edit: A short list of corporations you might also want to look into: Exxon Mobil, Urban Outfitters, Domino's Pizza, Walmart, Carl's Jr., White Castle, Wafflehouse. And, those are just the ones who have principle ownership who support organizations who are supposedly against gay marriage. By the time you are done with all your beliefs, you might be making your own soap.

The government isn't censoring them. They are more than welcome to say whatever they want. Just not with their brand name. And in a wide open deregulated system, the first type of speech that is allowed is from lobbyists, and those who have the biggest check books, writing the biggest checks. Sorry, I don't want Chick-Fil-A, McDonalds, Burger King, Subway, Perdue, Swanson, Campbells, or any other food company capable of making a public statement about the rights of human beings.

From Wikipedia on Citizens United... "the majority found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." So, yes, according to the SCOTUS interpretation of constitutional law, the BRCA was censoring a group of people from exercising their rights to free speech.

Can any group express their political viewpoints, such as "The Catholic Church of America", or "The Teamster's Union"? If they can have a collective opinion, then why censor any other organization (even if their motives are profit driven)?

I don't think any of them should be able to. I don't want businesses, Religious groups, Unions, etc... advocating for or against "My rights". Because in the end, the pile of papers isn't what has to deal with the fall out. It's the human beings.

They aren't speaking for you. They are exercising free speech and defending their own rights. Even though I don't like coal at all, and think it is should be abolished, I believe in the right of the coal company to express its opinion on Romney vs Obama. They have the right to give people the day off (without pay) to attend the rally. They have the right to send out letter to all their employees suggesting that their future might be tied to electing one candidate over the other. We should also have the right to ignore them and vote for whomever we like, quit our job at the coal company, or sell our stock if we don't like what they are doing.

Where they erred was in intimidating/coercive behavior linking attendance at the rally to their future employment.

[FireIceTalon]

Shoju is absolutely right here when it comes to corporations (and unions) not being people, and thus not having "freedom of speech". You're the CEO of Coca-Cola? So the hell what. You aren't special. You can go out and vote (or not) like the rest of us, and that's it. Nothing more, period.

Kandrathe is right about one thing, AmeriKKKa is becoming Fascist, and the Citizens United decision is a perfect example of that. Truth be told, I don't think there has ever been a better time since at least The Depression to become a Communist. The further our society moves to the right, the further I move to the left, although if I go any farther now I would become a full-blown Anarchist.

[Jester]

The universe of vocations is always in transition -- e.g. since the advent of the motor car, we haven't needed as many stables or buggy whip manufacturers. With automation (computerization, robotics, lasers, etc.) we've seen vast improvements in the productivity of every industry. This has displaced many "qualified workers" where in all likelihood, their chosen profession is an anachronism. People who seek employment need to be mindful of the need to remain useful to the society.

It has been a nagging question in my mine for many years (and I've mentioned it on the Lounge before). What happens to society when due to productivity, the amount of employment needed falls below the amount of employment supplied? The mechanism (the employment system) by which most of our society has access to products and services is through the exchange of labor for money. We produce (in the production system) all the food, clothes, housing, and sundries for our society, with an ever diminishing amount of employment. Our society is stuck in a paradigm where we value and sustain people via a 40 hour work week, which may no longer be needed.

In monetary policy we've myopically emphasized a slight inflation of goods and services, while from a productivity stand point everything should cost much less. The result is a gradual depreciation of not just savings, but also in earning power. (see Hayak -- The Road to Serfdom). In any case, our governments have failed us. It is a structural error to think a stochastic politicized central authority can perpetually provide both high levels of stimulus and high levels of regulation without causing chaos in flow. Government has a role to play in the economy through limited mechanisms of the monetary system (supply, reserve currency), minor labor regulations to prevent abuse, enough of a social safety net, and institutions for the flow of proper information. They err dually in both over and under playing their proper role depending on the whimsy of the party in power.

I just don't think the outcomes are good for a society that no longer needs people.

I don't see what the Hayek inflation story has to do with the Marx-ish obsolescence of labour story, but nevertheless, here goes...

The amount an individual produces now, when compared with 300 years ago, is almost absurdly great - on the order of 30x on average globally, and more like 120x in high income countries. We are so much more productive it would blow the minds of Adam Smith and Karl Marx alike.

And yet, we are richer to match it. We don't seem to be any worse for wear, as people, now that we no longer need to hire scribes to illuminate manuscripts, that we no longer use slide rules to do logarithms, and a farmer with a tractor can do the work of a whole peasant village. Was any of that wrong? I can't see why, even if it meant taking far less human labour to do those jobs. Indeed, it is good *precisely* because it takes less labour to produce more stuff.

Why would the future be any different? The purchasing power of an hour of labour is going up not down, and in the scenario you describe, where producing almost anything requires almost no labour, it would go up to almost unfathomable levels. Prices will fall to match, and since real wages are wages/prices, we will get richer and richer.* Why not?

-Jester

*Barring, of course, some unfathomably stupid future, like nuclear war, or runaway warming. But that's not what you're describing.

[eppie]

Having the choice to stop working and just collect welfare

This is something I could have done any of the times I quit. However, I just found a new job instead.

I am happy for you.

[kandrathe]

Why would the future be any different? The purchasing power of an hour of labour is going up not down, and in the scenario you describe, where producing almost anything requires almost no labour, it would go up to almost unfathomable levels. Prices will fall to match, and since real wages are wages/prices, we will get richer and richer.* Why not?

Well, what you say is true on the productivity side. But, it is the good news, cup is half full part of the story.

The other side is that the remaining 99% of the village now has nothing to do, and no way to earn the money to buy the corn of the 1% lucky farmer who owns the combine. And... prices have not fallen to match the increases, far from it. They've been forced by government manipulation to follow a 3-6% increase per year to prop up price supports so that the lucky farmer who owns the combine can afford to pay back the loan on his combine.

Extrapolate this to all the other silliness of government intervention in manipulating the natural ebbs and flows of supply and demand, and you see the roots of the mal-investment resulting in these endless boom and bust cycles. Housing seems to be the favorite culprit, and it amazes me that they never seem to learn from their repeated mistakes in manipulating the demand for housing and removing the controls that prevent banks from taking on too much risk.

[Jester]

Well, what you say is true on the productivity side. But, it is the good news, cup is half full part of the story.

The good news seems to have worked for our whole historical experience so far. What's changed?

The other side is that the remaining 99% of the village now has nothing to do, and no way to earn the money to buy the corn of the 1% lucky farmer who owns the combine.

If this were true, why are the 99% not unemployed? Farmers are overwhelmingly more productive than they were before. Those "weren't the lucky farmer" go off and do something else - probably an easier job than farming. This isn't a theoretical claim. This is the historical experience of almost every country on earth, now even including India, which used to be the poorest of the poor.

And... prices have not fallen to match the increases, far from it. They've been forced by government manipulation to follow a 3-6% increase per year to prop up price supports so that the lucky farmer who owns the combine can afford to pay back the loan on his combine.

This is a fascinating story, but deeply confused, and entirely at odds with both historical evidence and economic theory.

On the theory side, nominal price increases are essentially irrelevant, so long as they are approximately predictable. Milton Friedman called this rational expectations. What really matters are real wages - wages/prices.

On the historical evidence side, the question is: What can I buy for an hour of labour? Real prices have been falling for almost everything that matters. My hour of labour buys more food, more goods, more luxury, more information, more of almost anything I could care to buy than at any point in the past - even 2007, by now. We are richer. Economic growth is a fact.

200 years ago, almost everyone was a farmer. Now, in the rich countries of the world, almost nobody is - despite this, food production increases year on year, even in those same rich countries. We have already gone through the process you are describing. It did not turn out the way you say it must (and, coincidentally, Marx said it would.)

Extrapolate this to all the other silliness of government intervention in manipulating the natural ebbs and flows of supply and demand, and you see the roots of the mal-investment resulting in these endless boom and bust cycles. Housing seems to be the favorite culprit, and it amazes me that they never seem to learn from their repeated mistakes in manipulating the demand for housing and removing the controls that prevent banks from taking on too much risk.

All quite beside the point. Do you have any evidence or theory to defend the central argument, that as incomes rise, people will simply become unemployed, rather than shifting their labour to other sectors? That real prices are rising, not falling? Which is the equivalent of saying people are getting poorer and poorer, year in and year out? Because this all sounds crazy to me, completely at odds with even the most basic empirical facts about economic growth.

-Jester

[Bolty]

All quite beside the point. Do you have any evidence or theory to defend the central argument, that as incomes rise, people will simply become unemployed, rather than shifting their labour to other sectors? That real prices are rising, not falling? Which is the equivalent of saying people are getting poorer and poorer, year in and year out? Because this all sounds crazy to me, completely at odds with even the most basic empirical facts about economic growth.

This is a pretty interesting discussion here. I'm wondering what you mean, Jester, when you say that incomes are rising. It's been my understanding that historical income rise in the US is mostly due to an increasing number of women who enter the workforce, and that per person, incomes have actually been going down (adjusting for inflation). The real gain in income has actually come from the reduction in price for almost all common goods. Essentially, food is much cheaper than it was decades ago. Same with clothing, "basic" appliances, and so on. This naturally increases the buying power of every dollar earned, so in that sense, incomes have been rising.

But why is everything cheaper? With food, advances in farming technology have most certainly made production and distribution of food cheaper. A solid theory as to the cause of the obesity crisis in the US is the drastic reduction of food prices over the last few decades, but I suppose that's a separate discussion. With clothing, appliances, and other expenses, it could be argued that the cheaper prices are due entirely to the exploitation of foreign economies (e.g. China) for cheap labor combined with low distribution costs (transport).

What happens when the cheap sources of labor around the world dry up? What happens when the "Western" countries can't find 3rd world countries to abuse anymore? It does seem reasonable (at least to me, who is by no means an economist) that the world can reach a point eventually where due to productivity increases and automation, there is literally nothing for most of the population to do. Maybe we'll all just play World of Warcraft all day.

Be right back, grinding some cloth.

[shoju]

The problem is that the government has its hands in marriage, which grants certain rights and privileges -- and then discriminates on who can participate in it. Many peoples religious convictions also define marriage as between a man and a women, such as the Catholic Church and protestant groups who adhere to scripture.

Well, I could tell you how they are contradicting themselves with their own scripture, and how they are wrong (or at least hypocritical depending on what part of the bible they use to defend it) for their stance on Homosexuality using the bible and nothing else, but that's really a topic for another time.

The government needs to get out of the business of marriage, and into the business of civil unions. Period. "Marriage" is technically a religious institution, as it's roots are in the judeo/christian faith. I can accept that. Get the Government out of that, and into recognizing and giving the same rights that married copules currently have to any "couple" and I'm good.

We don't want them to foist their definitions on us, but I don't think you should force your definition of marriage on them either. If two adults wish to sign a contract granting each other joint power of attorney, property rights, and etc. Then they should -- and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. If people wish to form a "family" to raise children within the laws of the state protecting children, then they should and the government doesn't need to call it marriage. I'd say we need to step back and re-address the wall of separation here.

I'm not forcing my definition on them. I'm not telling them that they have to marry someone of the same sex. I'm not telling them that their marriage means nothing. I'm not telling them that they are going to some nightmare place that may or may not exist when they die because of who they love.

As opposed to... The government forcing the Catholic Church to offer contraception in opposition to their beliefs. It makes about as much sense as forcing the peace corps to have a paramilitary wing.

If you don't want to deal with the laws of the land, then don't hire employees. Simple as that. If you choose to hire employees, and act "as a business" then yes. Your employees deserve the same insurance coverage that any other employee in the nation gets. Hiding behind being a guise of being religious organization is a load of foul smelling Offal.

If you work for a religious organization, then you should probably be willing to adhere to the stipulations of that organization. Otherwise, you are probably working for the wrong organization. Free association, again, is a two way street. The Catholic Church doesn't need to worry about catering to it's protestant or atheist employees, since it has the constitutionally protected right to "discriminate" based on religious orientation.

I absolutely disagree. People shouldn't take jobs with the fear of being relegated to a lesser degree of being an employee, because they end up working for a "religious" Company. Especially in the economic/employment climate of today's US.

Or, has he vowed to gut the $487 million government funding for PP (whose budget is about a $1.05 billion)? If he were to vow to abuse his power to destroy an individual or an organization, then it would be similar to Obama vowing to destroy private health insurance industry or using the power of government to go after Donald Trump.

He wants to GUT the budget of a company that does more work (For free, or donation I might add) of a company involved in women's health, because for some reason, the Religicans have decided that since Planned Parenthood gives you the information about abortion, that they are in some way shape or form the devil.

The truth of the matter is, that most religicans have absolutely NO IDEA what planned parenthood is all about. They see the name, and they see that "ZOMG DEEZ PEEPL R DOIN ABORSHUNZ" and they don't look any further than that. Sorry, My wife has used Planned Parenthood multiple times in our life. Once, yes, was when we found out that she was pregnant, and we had no insurance. So they helped us find an OBGYN, who was able to talk with us about the very real dangers that she was facing due to her T1 Diabetes, and being pregnant. They didn't push us to abortion. They didn't push us towards anything. They gave us ALL the information. And When she went for things that weren't pregnancy related, they gave her great "well woman" visits, at a price that she could afford.

And now, Mittens wants to come in and gut it, because he's too stupid to understand what Planned Parenthood is all about, and has bought into the religious propoganda.

Why is this different than someone vowing to cut food stamps, or military funding according to their ideas about what the government should fund? I'd say it makes a good sound bite that caters to the base of the Republican party who are rabidly anti-abortion -- but since Congress writes the checks, a president can suggest all he wants about defunding -- and, from the reality chair, it's not gonna happen.

Because, as I just laid out, It proves that he bought into the propoganda. Also, it shows that he flip flopped on the issue to be president, since as a governor, he has documented support, and donations to them.

Now you are talking... What are you willing to give up?

No. I'm not giving anything up. That's not the way this works, or at least, it's not the way it's supposed to work.

My kid... is a kid. And, so, sometimes he follows my teaching, and sometimes he doesn't. Ok, so let's do away with school lunch, and kids can go back to brown bagging it.

I hate posting Blogs as reference material But this is a pretty good cost estimate. Now, if you figure in where I live, The cost is greater.

My Elementary Aged Children pay $2.50 each per day, for $5 a day. (To be fair, they also get vastly superior school lunches, and free breakfast compared to the "public" elementary schools in the area. My kids attend a charter school.)
My High School Child would pay $2.75 per day. He normally just eats a la cart items, Salad, lean meat, etc... As an athlete, he's more interested in making sure that his dietary needs are met than the "average" student. (At the local public high school, and also receives free breakfast)

$7.75 per day. It would be cheaper to "Brown Bag" it, even if you passed along some sort of "assistance" to those families who can't afford it. The problem that you run into, is that Not every child is going to have parents who can help them pack a lunch, or care to help them pack a lunch, or have other extenuating circumstances. So by adding that back on the parents, you are only serving to exacerbate a hunger problem that is very real, and does affect children in the U.S.

And last time I checked, there is nothing that stops you from "brown bagging it", and not having to deal with the "School Lunch Gestappo".

Sorry, I didn't get the Seinfeld reference. I hated the show. (I seriously didn't understand what people found so funny)

They did. They've pretty much followed the principle of stare decicis, and only revisit old decisions if new information renders the precedent suspect. The SCOTUS is what enables the Constitution to remain a flexible legal basis since we can adapt our framework to the modern age. I do think the government has a role in determining at what point a human being deserves constitutional protections.

Sure they do. And they did. I bear issue with politicians who continue to make that a basis for their "platform" when running for office, and that is all the more important to me right now, when there are so many other things that need to be handled in this country. You want to debate RvW? Fine. Do so when there aren't other more pressing matters, like economy, jobs, etc... that are going on.

Why? Is it the governments job to ensure that all citizens have the same choices for caloric intake?

I was referencing health care, not caloric intake, so my response is the going to stay in that vein. Yes. I think that the government should make sure that every citizen has access to affordable, comprehensive, health care. Health Care shouldn't be "afforded". It should be a right. We shouldn't have people who die, because they can't afford to deal with very treatable, very non life threatening illness and disease. They shouldn't have to live in pain, or agony, because they can't afford to be taken care of by a doctor. I hold that as a right that should extend to every citizen of the world, not just the U.S. or Europe, or Asia, Or Canada, or Australia, or whatever. Every human being should be able to access care. We as human being should strive to make sure that this happens. We shouldn't sit and watch as people die. We shouldn't wish that they had more money to get the care they need. We should wish that the care was available to all.

It's a helping my fellow human beings type of stance. Right up until they do something that proves that they aren't capable of being part of society, like murdering 77 people. Then, they can die. Sorry, if bringing that up is a no no, but I wanted to explain my point.

I can't afford to eat the same quality of food as a rich person, so should the government give me a special allowance to level the playing field? Is it the governments role to ensure we all live equally, or just that the laws are applied equally? Do we stand for equal protection, or egalitarianism?

Living equally, and having equal access to health care are not even remotely the same thing.

What I mean by Liberty.

That is a pretty good definition of liberty. I still don't think that it stands in contrast.

And, fascists... Yes. I think our system is increasingly become fascist, and it's both the Democrats and Republicans who are doing it.

Fascists seek elevation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. They are united by suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics. Fascism seeks to eradicate perceived foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture......

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Fascists have commonly opposed having a firm association with any section of the left-right spectrum, considering it inadequate to describe their beliefs, though fascism's goal to promote the rule of people deemed innately superior while seeking to purge society of people deemed innately inferior is identified as a prominent far-right theme.

Hmmmm I'm not seeing where this is what the current Democratic platform is working towards. I think the first sentence is pretty interesting, since I feel at times that "American Exceptionalism" borders on this. I think the second sentence gives way to speak volumes towards the Tea Party, and religious movements who have become phobic of other cultures in the U.S.

And If I wanted to get "really" into it, I could say that your comments about the wealthy and their "Right" to have better health care and food, would fit in highly with the second section that I quoted.

So, yes, I think we are really becoming a fascist form of government, akin to pre-WWII Italy or Spain. Who owns GM? Who owns Amtrak? Who owns and sells the rights to use communications channels? How many banks does the US government own? Who owns Fannie Mae, and Freddy Mac? Who up until recently owned 92% of AIG? The government is comfortable stepping into take over private corporations at will, and coercing them to surrender control. Right?

Would you have been OK with the U.S. had they not? I wouldn't have been. The Government stepped in and saved the U.S. from itself. Maybe they shouldn't have. But I'm glad that they did. Have you stopped to think of what would have happened had the Government not stepped in and bailed out GM, Chrysler, Amtrak, and the banking industry?

I have a problem with the government being involved in communication, but the problem is, TV and Radio can't be "governed" in the same way that ICANN "governs" the internet, and it's "Channels" Radio at least has too finite of an area to cover. TV is getting close to a point where it doesn't need government oversight, but it still isn't there yet.

And planned government violence... Consider Oliver Stone's interview of Nestor Kirchner, who said "I said that a solution for the problems right now, I told Bush, is a Marshall Plan. And he got angry. He said the Marshall Plan is a crazy idea of the Democrats. He said the best way to revitalize the economy is war. And that the United States has grown stronger with war." Then, what happened?

I wont argue that point. For the most part I would agree.

The set of documents describe the association, but they aren't the entity. It's the association of stockholders who own the corporation, and employ the workers. The speech rights are given to the owners to defend their rights and interests. A private corporation may only have one person who owns 100% of the stock. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I don't like junk mail, or phone solicitations either, but I respect the rights of companies who are trying to advertise their products and make a profit.

They aren't. Dan Cathy was asked about his beliefs, and he exercised his rights to free speech. He gave his opinion, and because the corporation also uses their money to support causes they believe in, they were pilloried by the 24 hour news. They don't espouse their views in any other way than to donate money to organizations they believe in. Do you check on every product you buy as to what that corporation funds with it's donations? I don't. In fact, the way that Chick-Fil-A was treated reminded me of brown shirt tactics.

And I disagree. The corporation is the stack of documents. The people still have their rights, but it is being extended to the ability to exercise these rights as a company, that I have a problem with.

I have no problem with advertising. Advertise to your hearts content. Just don't get into "special interests", and Politics.

In my Opinion, Dan Cathy crossed the line when he started signing checks from Chick-Fil-A that were going to those companies. I don't care if Dan Cathy is a bigot. That's his idiocy. I have a problem that his company is being a bigot.

I check more than most, but I don't check all. I don't think anyone could check all. The problem that I have is, people shouldn't have to worry about whether or not the company that they are patronizing is working for against their rights. It shouldn't be an issue, because the company shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Edit: A short list of corporations you might also want to look into: Exxon Mobil, Urban Outfitters, Domino's Pizza, Walmart, Carl's Jr., White Castle, Wafflehouse. And, those are just the ones who have principle ownership who support organizations who are supposedly against gay marriage. By the time you are done with all your beliefs, you might be making your own soap.

I already go out of my way to not use Exxon, I don't wear Urban Outfitters, and I've not eaten at Dominos voluntarily in years. I've never heard of Carl's Jr, there isn't a wafflehouse within 80 miles of me. White Castle, is one of the tough ones, because as a college kid, I lived on it, and love it. I try to go whereever I can besides Walmart, but sadly, they have driven out most of the other businesses around here that would compete.

And like I said, No one should live in a society where they should feel the need to check and make sure that the companies they patronize are not being bigots, and on the other side of that, they shouldn't have to check and make sure that the company isn't undermining their religious beliefs.

Because the company shouldn't be allowed to. I have a serious problem with it. I have a serious problem that they can then (by way of donation) get tax breaks because of it.

If the owners, board, CEO, Director, etc... wants to have that stance, Fine. BY ALL MEANS, it's a protected right as a citizen of the United States. But the company is not a citizen, it's not even a person. It's a collection of papers that give a group of people the right to engage in commerce together.

From Wikipedia on Citizens United... "the majority found that the BCRA §203 prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech." So, yes, according to the SCOTUS interpretation of constitutional law, the BRCA was censoring a group of people from exercising their rights to free speech.

And I'm in disagreement with them.

They aren't speaking for you. They are exercising free speech and defending their own rights. Even though I don't like coal at all, and think it is should be abolished, I believe in the right of the coal company to express its opinion on Romney vs Obama. They have the right to give people the day off (without pay) to attend the rally. They have the right to send out letter to all their employees suggesting that their future might be tied to electing one candidate over the other. We should also have the right to ignore them and vote for whomever we like, quit our job at the coal company, or sell our stock if we don't like what they are doing.

Where they erred was in intimidating/coercive behavior linking attendance at the rally to their future employment.

And I could possibly see a difference in this. A company working to protect its interests, its livelihood, its ability to stay in business could be acceptable. Not the way that they went about it, but it could be.

But as the laws are currently written, interpreted, and enforced, the same right that allows that, is the same right that allows a company to write checks to "hate groups" (the Southern Poverty Law Center labeled the group that Chick-Fil-A sponsors as a "Hate Group"). I'm just not ok with that.