What scares the f*ck out of you?
 

Ted Cruz, White House, maybe I over-react...

No, no, no over-reaction. Scares the f*ck out of me.

No matter who becomes President, we are screwed.

I believe your assessment to be accurate, although I'm hoping the GOP hasn't sunk that low... yet. :unsure:

That scares me about as much as Killary getting the nod.

Anyone who starts running this early is just a money and publicity grab. The viable candidates come later.

He could be running for VP, locking down the nutty right. Not someone I'd be comfortable with as a running mate if i were a middle right GOP candidate because I wouldn't want to get assassinated the first time I signed some normal bill.

Hillary is another deranged neo-con cut from the same cloth as Bush III Return of the Rich Guy. She's obviously unacceptable but for different reasons than Fox News promotes.

He isn't going to run, but I think Mark Warner would be a good choice. He was a good Virginia governor back in the day. If they didn't have term limits, he would have easily been reelected.

It was a different time back then, but I still think he would make a better president today than any of the other names being kicked around.

He doesn't have a big ego though. I feel like presidents have to have big egos. The trick is to balance that with some substance to back the big ego up.

Cruz's speech at Liberty University was saturated with:
But he left out one extremely important vision: .

thread moved

Ted Cruz is a walking, talking pile of smarm.

Any politician who's been successful in Virginia would make me ask why, since it contains the richest and poorest counties in the nation.

My favorite story about him is that when he was at Harvard Law, he didn't want to study with students from the "minor Ivies".

[quote=Happy Monkey;924538]My favorite story about him is that when he was at Harvard Law, he didn't want to study with students from the "minor Ivies".[/QUOTE

Dear heaven ... Justin Bieber AND Ted Cruz? I fold my Canadian flag.

Don't worry, he claims he was born in Canada, but I know people who know people who have solid evidence he was born in Kenya. :thumb:

I'm sure the birthers will be consistent on this one. ;)

I agree.
After all, Hillary was born and raised in Chicago,
and that's where Obama comes from too.

That can't be just a coincidence.

Srsly, I don't like any of the "potential candidates" right now at all. In a country of 300,000,000 the best we got is another Clinton and Bush? We R Suck.

The system as it is, is not a meritocracy - so no: they are not the best you have. They are just what you have.

w^Dana^s

So, follow Dr Phil's advice
... Figure out what each one has done in the past,
... Expect them to do the same in the future.
... Then decide which comes the closest to what you would want.

It does no good to just complain about not having the perfect candidate.

( This is why I have to be a dick ) :runaway:

Nobody would want to suffer the slings and arrows of higher office if it weren't for an overblown ego and /or an ulterior motive.

I disagree - 'nobody' is too absolute. There are and will always be a small number of people in political office, even at the higher echelons, who are true believers with a strong desire for civic service.

But they are, and always will be, outnumbered by those motivated by personal ambition, tribal or corporate influence, greed, and/or self-regard.

And both seem outnumbered by those who combine elements of the two.

I generally get more pissed about the stuff politicians get wrong than pleased with the things they get right. I suspect I'm not the only one. It isn't a great atmosphere to work in for normal people.

:headshake Altruism doesn't make it past local politics over here.
Any office above that (county, state, national), are candidates who are bought & paid for "guided".

BIG D AND THE KIDS TABLE LYRICS
"Try Out Your Voice"
I was talking to a young man at a party in these war days
And he asked me my thoughts
I talked about peace, fighting for the people,
he scowled then walked away
Told me my views are fucked

We screamed, we cried, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
We scream, we cry, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
Come on suits it's time to show us something
You know it's time for better days
Come on suits it's time to show us something
Just get your hearts out front, and prove you're something

Remember being proud, remember feeling loved,
remember when leaders gave sacrifice
I believe all men don't have a price
Truth in the state of the union address
Truth in this political process
I should not have to sing for this

We screamed, we cried, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
We scream, we cry, the message has amplified
But they won't hear the people's voice
Come on suits it's time to show us something
You know it's time for better days
Come on suits it's time to show us something
Just get your hearts out front, and prove you're something
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, now use it, now use it, we are the people
Try out your voice, try out your voice, just try out your voice
Now use it, now use it, we are the people

You THINK you have to be a dick because you THINK you are morally or ethically or some other bullshit better than or smarter than others. You are wrong.
You have to be for only one reason, because you are.

?

Refers back to post 20, glatt.

Yeah, and it's a hard life.

You know what you are supposed to do in this situation, don't you?

Run. For election, or, away.

how about Ted Cruz on climate change and/or history?

I give you a reprint of an Open Letter From Galileo to Ted Cruz.

An extremist Senator from NC wants legislation that removes washing hands laws for all food industry employees. He says they should have freedom from government regulation. An obvious characteristic of extremists (such as Ted Cruz). Freedom is more important than responsibility.

That law exists due to irresponsible adults (who think like children) who did not wash their hands. We know this problem still exists (ie Hepatitis C, Listeria, etc). But extremists (ie Ted Cruz) get elected by attacking responsible adults for requiring 'adults who are still children' to act in an adult manner.

These same extremists are now promoting laws called 'Freedom of Religion'. Another example of how extremists pervert words such as Freedom and Liberty. "Freedom of Religion" says anyone can impose their religious beliefs on anyone else. As even PA Senator Santorum did. So we threw the scumbag out.

But extremists love this Catholic who also advocates imposting Catholic Church doctrine into all American laws. To impose his religion on all others as ordered to by the previous Pope. Santorum is another extremist who endorses a now peverted expression "Freedom of Religion".

it's a property issue, not a religious one
 

tw,

Should an atheist printer be legally obligated to print flyers for Christian fundamentalists (who proclaim in the text of the proposed flyer 'atheists will burn in hell!')?

If yes, why?

If no, why?

My answer is yes. Here's why. I don't believe "Christian fundamentalists" or "atheists" or any other religious tradition, are a protected class, and therefore don't deserve such kind or "protection against discrimination".

I think protected classes should be for aspects that aren't voluntary, like a religious tradition is voluntary. Being of a particular racial appearance, or gender, or age... those things aren't voluntary. Discrimination based on such unchangeable, unchosen aspects is unfair, though it happens anyhow. Anti-discrimination laws are a valid effort to ameliorate the damage from such discrimination.

Furthermore, creating a protected class for Christian fundamentalists, or atheists, or FSMers or whatever, goes against my understanding of the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

V, It's much easier to decide.

If you have a business license to sell to the public... you sell to all of the public.

(Printers may have an out in refusing what is legally pornographic;
but that is a different issue, not legally dependent on who is the customer.)

What if you own a law practice and your big IP client is Apple, and a small porn company that specializes in realistic simulated extremely brutal rape porn wants you to represent them in a copyright dispute? It's a case that has drawn a lot of media attention because the starlet claims it was a real rape, even though she signed a contract earlier consenting to it in detail. The case isn't about the alleged rape, it's about another website streaming the video of it and violating the copyright. Anyway, can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?

Seems to me: the issue is neatly dealt with if one drops the whole religious freedom angle and gets down to the root, which is 'property'.

A business is property, it's owned. The owner, I think, should use (or misuse) his or property as he or she sees fit.

If such use (or misuse) offends the market (customers, potential and actual) then the owner will be punished through loss of profit. If such use (or misuse) pleases the market, then the owner will be rewarded through improved profit.

Not seein' how a focus on religion (freedom or restrictions on) serves any purpose 'cept to muddy the waters.

What I'm sayin': the atheist should be able to refuse the job for whatever reason (or for no reason) he cobbles together. The print shop is his to use or misuse as he sees fit.

Now, if I were the printer, I'd print anything and everything that comes across the threshold of my shop (if the money is right).

Monday: lesbian (I love her vulva!) wedding invitations.

Tuesday: KKK Holy Rollin' (don't forgit yer chewin' tobbacee!) Revival flyers.

Wednesday: Pro-choice (kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Thursday: Anti-abortion (don't kill them babies!) pamphlets.

Friday: Obama is my Lord and Savior (I'll blow him!) bumper stickers.

Saturday: Obama is the Anti-Christ (I'll blow him up!) bumper stickers.

Sunday: whatever comes through the door (and can pay).

But my mercenary bent is 'my' bent...can't see any good comin' from forcing that print shop across the way to do the same (besides, his principled stand [or prejudice] against 'this or 'that' may mean more profit for me).

This only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

Again: the religion angle that both (all) sides run through the legal machinery just muddies the issue.

But: of course, that's the way the chess board is currently set for play (and why, in the end, not a one will be satisfied with the short- or long-term results).

"...can the law firm turn down the job for the porn company so they don't lose squeaky clean Apple's $500M a year worth of business?"

In my view (outlined above): yep.

I'm not clear on your example... I'm assuming the following
Apple is your existing client.
The porn company is a prospective client.
The copyright issue is not between Apple and the porn company ?


I don't know what sort of formal ethics the legal community has set for itself.
Likewise for physicians deciding who will be their patients.
But there is the concept that everyone in need is entitled to an attorney and/or physician.

In your example, my first decision would be along the lines of
"Is there a conflict of interest or exposure of proprietary information" by representing the porno company.
If not, then a business license is to serve all of the public.

I suspect these kinds of issues occur frequently...
but I do not see a "religious freedom" issue in this specific example.

That's all well and good if you're a mercenary. But what if you're a bigot? You didn't mention any situation in which you as the business owner should be compelled to do business with a particular customer despite the desire of the business to NOT deliver the product or service.

Only if you are King on your own wholly-island could you make such an argument. (pun not intended)
And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King.

But like it or not, our laws require a business license to sell to or service the public.

You may try to make the trivial argument that the government just wants to make $,
but license fees are not the sine qua non of issuing a business license.

A license is a "statement" that each licensee agrees to abide by certain Laws, Rules, and Regulations.

And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S.

V,

As I say: Th(e) only exception I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

So: if you're the only pharmacist in town, denying life-saving medicine cuz you object to the way it's produced (or, cuz you don't like the customer) is a no-no.

But: denying lesbians a wedding cake cuz you think gay marriage is immoral is a-ok (as would be refusing to do business with a, for example, Republican [if that’s the burr under your saddle]).

Again (repetition is good!): Th(e) only exception (and coherent objection) I can see to Laissez-faire is if the owner, in denying a service or product, endangers the life of the customer (and I'm talkin' about a real, direct, threat to life, not just an inconvenience).

Lamp,

"And non-descrimination has become one of the laws of commerce in the U.S."

As is the religious freedom restoration act (federally and, increasingly, on the state level).

Bad law is bad law, yes?

#

"And you'd lose that argument the first time you tried to buy something from another King."

Nope. Covered that in my original post. The market (potential and actual customers) decides...let it (them).

The question is simply, do you think it's just fine for a law firm to turn down a distasteful potential client simply because they don't want to be seen as a law firm that works with distasteful clients? Nothing to do with ethics or the law or conflicts or any of that crap. Simply "we aren't that kind of law firm" even though it's the field they specialize in. They want to turn the potential client down because they find the client repugnant. It's a personal belief kind of thing. But backed up over the very real concern that Apple may go with another firm if these guys get into bed with pornographers, because Apple doesn't do business with porn people. But don't get hung up on Apple. Pretend the lucrative client is ChickFilA.

... if these guys get into bed with pornographers ... (pun intended ?)

No, I don't think "it's just fine for a law firm..."
That's not to say I don't think it happens.

But, were the pornographers able to bring a discrimination suit against the law firm,
I believe and hope this law would have a hard time giving legal
arguments to defend their firm's actions based on PR or religious freedom.

To me it comes down to a question of "type of business" vs. "type of customer."

In my ideal world, you can say "we don't do that type of business," as long as you are consistent in that. You can't say "we don't want business from you personally" if you have performed that exact business with a different customer.

Or in the case of wedding cakes, you can say, "I don't put two brides or two grooms on top of my cakes," but you can't say "I won't bake you a cake identical to other cakes I have baked for other customers."

Clod, I do agree with your arguments , but then came your last example...

Had you said "We are a cake business. We don't do pies" = OK

But for wedding cake businesses, traditionally, their customers
want and have had a say in how their cakes are decorated.

So now it's back on shaky ground.
Is 1 ornament OK, but 2 ornaments of one kind or another are not ?
What is the argument ?

The situation seems closer to the owner saying "No" to these specific customers ...
because of what the owner believes these customers are going to do in the future ?
e.g, is the "religious freedom" issue that the customers are going to sin ?
or, who the customers appear to be in the eyes of the owner ?
How does that then differ from discrimination against any ethic group?

It seems (to me) the "wedding cake", "photographer", etc. situations are
only contrivances to divert attention away from "what" the business does....
It engages in commerce to serve the public.

The argument is that, in the land of discrimination, the two lesbian ladies could say, "Fine, stick a traditional topper on since that's all you carry, we'll take it off and put our own on after we leave," and the shop owner would still refuse to make the cake because the shop owner's problem is with the people ordering the cake. You can't legislate the types of products and accessories the cake shop provides, just like you can't make the porn shop sell "gay" dildos, but you can make the porn shop sell a gay man a "straight" dildo just like he does for the straight people.

Ethics for the legal community? Bwahahahahahaha :lol2:

http://cellar.org/2015/guilty.jpg

Not that simple, maybe they object to the bride fucking a horse on the cake.
Where do you draw the line?

"...they object... = ... business owner objects... ?

That's the point, exactly. You don't draw the line according to the customer.

If your religious beliefs keep you from treating your customers equally,
don't get a business license to do commerce with the public.

( Some people don't believe in paying taxes ... Ask the IRS how that's working for them. )

BYW, Larry Archie's bill board is quite correct.
It's up to our legal system to say whether you're guilty, or not.

Of course the business owner objects, for Christ's sake, why the fuck would the customer object to their own request? You do realize it's the customer that makes the request for a cake, right?

OK, so you draw the line according to the customer's request? Or you can't refuse any request? If they can refuse, and don't give a reason, how do you claim it was because of religion or because the customer belongs to a group?
Bullshit, you're presumed innocent in the eyes of the law until convicted, but if you did it, you're still guilty as a motherfucker.

Look closer... we're saying the same thing.

No we are not. No matter how many Shapiros, Cochrans, Baileys, Dershowitzs, Kardashians, or Archies you can afford, if you did it you're fucking guilty.

OK, you win. Peace.

>>>"what" the business does....It engages in commerce to serve the public<<<
 

No sir, it (business) does not.

You confuse means with ends.

The only purpose of a business (what 'it' does) is to make a profit for the owners of the business.

How does 'it' do this?

By selling products and/or services to folks who want those products or services (or who have been convinced [by way of marketing] they want those products or services).

Business is not about selflessness or altruism or 'service'...it -- again -- is about making money for the owners of the business.

Now, I understand why this ('a business engages in commerce to serve the public') is attractive to some folks (I'm entitled, I'm owed, I deserve, etc.) but it's a false notion, a pernicious lie, and you'd do well to disabuse yourself of it.

Your basic premise is completely wrong. The purpose of communism is to enrich the Central Party. The purpose of the mafia is to enrich the godfather. The purpose in GM is to protect bonuses of top management. In every case, that is corruption.

The purpose of the electric company is to move electricity. The purpose of the water company is to move water. The purpose of banks is to move money. In every case, profit are only a reward - not the purpose.

When a company exists to enrich itself, then it is no different from the mafia. The mafia will break your legs if necessary to make a profit. Mafia does not care about destruction to the economy, peoples lives, and their long term survival. When profits become the purpose, then corrupt exists.

A company can either work for better products or for profits. Those that are patriotic Americans advance mankind by innovating - making better products. Those who have done so much harm (ie GM, AT&T, HP under Fironia, IBM under Akers, AIG, Ford under Henry Ford and Nasser, etc) were only interested in profits. GM is the perfect example. They even covered up the murder of Cobalt drivers for 14 years to only protect profits. Jeep explode for the same reason Pintos also burned their occupant alive. Because profits (not the product) was imporant.

The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals. Lawyer are taught to defend people who they do not even agree with. The Civil Liberties Union defended Nazis (in Wisconsin?) because that is the purpose of that law firm. They need not agree with Nazis. But that is their job. That is what they said they will do. Defending clients you might hate is called professionalism.

Meanwhile, your religion is only between you and your god. It does not belong anywhere that it might be imposed on others. Once anyone does anything to others in the name of their religion, then their religion is Satanism. Religion is only a relationship between you and your god. It must never affect anyone else. America was founded (populated) by people who believed exactly that. By people who were fleeing from scumbags who would impose their religion on others.

Does not matter what your religion says. Patriotic American believe all people (no matter what their color, religion, sex, dimensions, etc) are equal. Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is.

"profit are only a reward - not the purpose."

The end is profit; the means is the selling of product or service.

The means serve the end.

#

"A company can either work for better products or for profits."

The only reason for a company to improve a product or service is to increase profit.

#

"The purpose of a law firm is to represent individuals"

No. Its purpose is to make money for the lawyers...these 'fine' men and women (lawyers) make money though the practice of 'law' (navigating systems of rules).

#

*"Only scumbag people like Hitler, Crusaders, ISIS, and Likud made judgments based in religion. Same people can also be brainwashed in the lie about what a company's purpose is."

HA!

If you believe any business exists for any reason other than profit, then you’re naive...and a nitwit.

Also: (for this*) I believe, tw, you can go fuck yourself...hard...deep...with a broom handle (no lube).

Please avoid threats statements involving personal violence in this forum. Thanks

This thread is out of order! This whole court is out of order! :lol:

Can I facetiously threaten personal violence in another thread? Or rather, should I suggest someone personally violate themselves in a different thread? Should I start a "What personal violence would you like to facetiously tell someone to inflict upon themselves RFN?" thread or perhaps "What is making you facetiously suggest someone inflict personal violence to their personal private parts TODAY?" thread? ;)

Hop off! (Is that allowed, if, when hopping off, you are likely to break something?)*

*disclaimer: This statement is used for example only. It does not expressly imply my desire that you or any of your subsidiaries in any way, shape, or form, actually hop.

(here is where you ignore, dismiss, or otherwise discount me...with impunity.)

HA!

Since when do you, toad, give a flip about such things?

*shrug*

As every one else here: I'll post what I like, as I like, when I like.

'nuff said.