![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Damn, I was hot there for a sec.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Person who doesn't update the user title
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 12,486
|
Capitalism is the Devil, IMO, but there are worse things...better the Devil you know.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Capitalism is supposed to pit competing evils against each other to promote good. i.e., the consumer picks the lesser of the available evils.
It doesn't always work.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
It worked until the self-centered me,myself&I's came along.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
To whom are you referring? The robber barons?
Self-centeredness and selfishness shouldn't be a problem in a capitalist society (as far as the capitalism goes, other aspects of the society will suffer). What breaks capitalism is the concentration of wealth and power in small groups, eliminating the competition that is supposed to keep them honestish.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
I was referring to the consumers, when making their choices of evils consider only themselves in the immediate future, without a thought to the effects on anyone else or even the long range effects to themselves.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
I'm pretty sure that such laws have already been declared unconstitutional, and whatever states still have them do so out of laziness and/or pigheadedness.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
Quote:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth." It specifically says nobody can be denied office for his religious convictions. It absolutely does not say, must hold them to be qualified. that's not misinterpretation, it's an outright lie.
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#10 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Quote:
Who can? Everyone else. It does explicitly leave atheists open to disqualification, though I don't think it actually disqualifies them. I'm not a lawyer, though, so I'm not sure whether the exclusionary style of the sentence has such implications. And here's a better list than the last one.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#11 | |
The future is unwritten
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 71,105
|
No it doesn't, it doesn't even imply that.
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth." they would have to leave out "on account of his religious sentiments' for that to be true. Quote:
__________________
The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump. Last edited by xoxoxoBruce; 04-02-2007 at 08:16 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 | |
I think this line's mostly filler.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 13,575
|
Quote:
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth." "No person shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust under this Commonwealth." As long as you acknowledge the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments, you can't be disqualified on religious grounds. If you don't, you can. And yes, I know this is moot, thanks to the Supreme Court, as I said earlier.
__________________
_________________ |...............| We live in the nick of times. | Len 17, Wid 3 | |_______________| [pics] |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Makes some feel uncomfortable
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,346
|
Just like there are benevolent dictatorships, there should be benevolent capitalism. Unbridled capitalism gets toxic waste in your water and hot and cold running sewage from your faucet, among other evils. A successful capitalism would increase the middle class and reduce the wealth gap.
__________________
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#15 | ||
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|