Obama '08?

Next time I need something, I will pay no attention to signs for stores, ci, because you said it doesn't matter. After all, if you say it, it is totally logical.

No wonder Obama and his policies seem logical to you!

In some cases it would make no difference. But if somebody is posing as a Salvation Army bell ringer soliciting contributions for the Salvation Army, it makes a huge difference to me if he is actually misrepresenting who he is and is in fact collecting contributions for his own use or some other cause.

If somebody claims to be a 'starving artist' and I buy his painting to help him out, and it turns out that he was in fact selling stuff for a prominent gallery, I would feel cheated.

If a person is dressed up like a campaign worker and selling bumper stickers supporting the campaign, I expect the proceeds of the merchandise to be going toward that campaign.

I just hope there aren't many other people who would have no problem with that kind of ethics.

okie, When are you going to get it through your thick skull that ACORN can register mickey mouse, but it's up to the registrar of voters to eliminate them. ACORN is not breaking any laws. It's your brain that's broken.

The ONLY reason I would buy a campaign button or bumper sticker would be to support a cause as I wouldn't wear the button and I wouldn't put the bumper sticker on my car. I would probaby give both away.

But if you can't see the ethical problem in all these scenarios, there is probably no way to educate you about that. I just hope there aren't many other people who would have no problem with that kind of ethics.

Foxfyre wrote:

The ONLY reason I would buy a campaign button or bumper sticker would be to support a cause as I wouldn't wear the button and I wouldn't put the bumper sticker on my car. I would probaby give both away.

That's your personal decision, but ultimately immaterial to the discussion we are having. I have bought political and many other types of merchandise, for no other reason than the fact that I wanted it. I knew the money wasn't going to the candidate; who cares?

You are using your personal decision to try and color an entire group of legal and free transactions, and that's really not a smart thing to do.

Quote:

But if you can't see the ethical problem in all these scenarios, there is probably no way to educate you about that. I just hope there aren't many other people who would have no problem with that kind of ethics.

Unless a vendor clearly states that a certain portion or all of their proceeds are going to a certain cause, you are foolish to assume that it does. And it is not duplicitous on their part. It isn't a question of ethics at all, as the person didn't mis-represent themselves.

You didn't answer the question though. Are conservative entitled to that market exclusively?

I can laugh if I want aidan.

It's not so much that these people got "duped," as much as it shows that was poetic when juxtaposed against what the conservative on this forum were saying then and even still now.

You act like these people are victims? They got exactly what they wanted. They felt very smug with their purchase, and just because the vendor got to walk away feeling just as smug, doesn't make her a crook.

Since I did not attempt to color an entire group of legal and free transactions, your attempt to paint me into that mold is the unsmart thing. I believe I can defend my point of view. You cannot competently defend yours.

Well in some circles you are correct. Your circle apparently. But in my world if a vendor intentionally IMPLIES that a certain portion o all of their proceeds are going to a certain cause, I can perhaps be forgiven for choosing to trust him/her. I don't ask that Salvation Army bell ringer if he represents the Salvation Army. I don't ask the cashier at Micky D's if the change I toss into the Ronald McDonald House jar will be used for that purpose. Sometimes you just trust people's better qualities.

What makes that phony campaign worker so reprehensible is that she dishonestly exploits the trust of the people and thereby adds one more incident to encourage the world to be a less humane and hospitable place.

Beyond that, you insult my integrity.

I bet your Dad was one of those really wierd types who measured character by how one behaved even if he wouldn't get caught or punished.

No - just smug. How unpleasant. A bunch of smug people walking around laughing at each other getting duped, tricked, suckered....(anything but cheated).

There's nothing wrong with separating marks from their money, it's economic Darwinism.

They weren't duped, tricked, or suckered. They simply failed to ask the appropriate questions - and you are assuming that they would even give a ****.

I saw a lady spouting anti-Obama slogans