Sunday, July 20, 2014

Part II...

If Phil Robertson loses his job for expressing his opinions which he claims stem from his religious beliefs then is it wrong for a company to fire someone who is, say, catholic? What about any other minority?
35LikeLike ·  · Promote · 
  • Sherry Ross I guess if he says "I hate that Catholic faggot", then sure. 
    December 19, 2013 at 5:48pm · Like
  • Darren Coleman All Phil said was he didn't think being gay was logical he has had gay people on the show that he treated with respect he never treated them wrong..he didn't say they shouldn't exist or have rights...he just stated his opinion...
    December 19, 2013 at 11:51pm · Unlike · 3
  • Darren Coleman What if the Catholic employee stated in an interview for a magazine article about Catholicism that all Popes have decreed abortion is wrong? Then went on to say that he/she belives that pro-choice proponents should look to God for the right answer. Is it right if that employees were fired?

    One better if an Aethiest employee in the same kind of article stated that God doesn't exist and all people who believe in the existence of God are crazy and should seek psychiatric help! Can the Aetheist be fired?

    For arguements sake let's say in each scenario above, the person in question has signed a contract with an ethics clause in it. Let's also say the clause is determinent upon the employer's opinion on ethics (don't even try to argue that ethics is anything but an opinion). I'm a veteran who a big reason for going in was the idea of protecting the bill of rights and your freedoms. As someone once said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!" The right of free speech is simply freedom to say what you believe or to state your opinions.
    December 21, 2013 at 1:30am · Edited · Unlike · 1
  • Sherry Ross I'm still waiting for the tie in to beastiality in those arguments . 

    However, I really agree with your statement about you laying your life on the line to protect the freedom of speech. A few years ago, when I was a dean, a teacher came to me upset. She said students in her class would stand for the pledge but not recite it. She'd lost her fiancée in Vietnam and to her, it was a personal insult. 

    I thanked her and her fiancée for the huge sacrifice they'd made and then explained that it was the actions of brave men and women that protected those kids rights to refuse to pledge. It wasn't them making it less valuable, it showed just how valuable the sacrifice was and how more significant it was, fighting and dying for someone's right to disregard your sacrifice. That makes for a very selfless person, and a real hero. 

    I very much disagree with his statements, and yours. But, I do wish to thank you for fighting for my right to be FREE to believe the polar opposite as you. Thank you.
    December 21, 2013 at 7:34am · Like
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

History Test - Don't cheat... (the answers are below) Six trivia questions to see how much history you really know. Be honest, it's kind of fun and revealing. If you don't know the answers make your best guess. Answer all of the questions (no cheating) before looking at the answers. And no, the answer to these questions isn't all “Barack Obama”.

Who said it?
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...... And to replace it with shared responsibility, for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

3) "(We).....can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev B. Joseph Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong II D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. Barack Obama E. None of the above

(Scroll down for answers)

Answers
(1) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) E. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
Want to know something scary? She may be the next president if you don't forward this to everyone that you know!!!!
262 SharesLikeLike ·  · Promote · 
  • Carl Stevens and Mark Maloney like this.
  • Rick Rudman Actually the cheat is taking things out of context: Here's the context for the first one:
    February 1 at 8:43pm · Like
  • Rick Rudman Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters — some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend — to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress.

    "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
    Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp...
    February 1 at 8:44pm · Like
  • Carl Stevens And that context makes that statement...better?
    February 1 at 9:05pm · Like
  • Hannah Thein VTwoodchuck Jim just give up and move to a country where you don't have these expectations you seem to have..
    February 1 at 11:46pm · Like
  • Ed Mcgrath Anyone quoting ANYTHING from Snopes is about 2 years behind the curve since the couple running it has not only been discredited , but also found to be taking money from the George soros foundation .
    February 2 at 7:18pm · Like
  • Hannah Thein propaganda from the right, propaganda from the left..it's all propaganda
    February 2 at 9:48pm · Like

Posted by at No comments:

Misc - to sort of catch up...

Some posts from my FB account:

 This, to distill the issue, is what we are faced with. If the Senate were not able to change the rules of filibuster - which has very good reasons to exist - then the U.S. would not be where it is today. 

As Heinlein writes in one of his books: 

'I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent — the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

-- Professor Bernardo de la Paz, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".'

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If you believe in equal rights, then what do "women's rights," "gay rights," etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all."
Thomas Sowell

471 ShareLikeLike ·  · Promote · 
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)