Obama '08?

@okie,

okie wrote:

Debra, with most liberals, the end justifies the means, and you along with others continue to demonstrate that really well here. Thanks.

If it's your position that only ultra-conservative, right-wing extremists may sell anti-Obama merchandise to consumers who want to buy that merchandise, aren't you betraying your meme about capitalism and the free market?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I find the stance of Fox to be a little strange in light of her posting the article about the business that sells political merchandise didn't get the lease renewed at a mall. Can people sell what they want where they want or not?

2 Replies

For people that don't like Rasmussen, Here's Gallup:

http://www.gallup.com/tag/Gallup+Daily.aspx

President Obama’s average job approval rating fell to 56% for the seven-day period ending Sunday, from 59% the previous week -- the largest one week decline in approval of Obama seen thus far. Obama’s current three-day average, 54%, is the lowest of his administration.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I find the stance of Fox to be a little strange in light of her posting the article about the business that sells political merchandise didn't get the lease renewed at a mall. Can people sell what they want where they want or not?

I only posed the question of whether the vendor had a free speech case. I didn't make any judgment whatsoever whether the vendor or the mall management was in the right in that particular case. I just thought it an interesting topic.

In the case of the vendor at the rally, there was no issue of legality. The woman obviously broke no laws. But I think some of us, while we know that a nation of laws must be able to enforce those laws, we do not look to the law to inform us of what is right and what is wrong.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

You think unethical business practices are okay if the customer gets what he or she wants. Aidan and I were arguing that if the vendor misrepresents who or what s/he is, and the customer intended to support a particular cause, the customer isn't getting what he or she wanted.

How does selling merchandise misrepresent anything? Lots of people sell things they wouldn't use themselves. It's the way the free market works. People sell things to make money. What ethical requirement is there that the seller has to support what he is selling?

The vendor didn't misrepresent the merchandise. It was exactly what the people that bought thought.

Are you for the free market Fox? Or are you against it?

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I see. 'Holier-than-thou bullshit' is not playing judgey judge of others? To conclude that there is "little doubt" about my motives is not playing judgey judge of others?

No, 'Holier-than-thou bullshit' IS when you play judge of others. You are acting as if you are somehow coming from a purer moral stance than we are, but you're not.

Quote:

You think unethical business practices are okay if the customer gets what he or she wants. Aidan and I were arguing that if the vendor misrepresents who or what s/he is, and the customer intended to support a particular cause, the customer isn't getting what he or she wanted.

I don't think unethical business practices are okay, but then again, I don't think the lady did anything unethical here.

Once again you are changing the issue when you state:

Quote:

and the customer intended to support a particular cause

There is no indication that the money going to this lady would have supported any particular cause other than her pocketbook. We aren't talking about donating to a group or cheating people out of donated money. Both yourself and Aidan have consistently made this mistake when judging this issue.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@parados,

Read my illustration of the Nestle boycott, Parados and Cyclop. And maybe you will then understand. Or not.

The basics of the issue have been thoroughly aired now, and the two of you will probably continue to ignore the points made that don't fit with your point of view and will continue to misrepresent those arguments. I choose not to continue the circular argument at this point as I don't think there will be any new ground plowed.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

I find the stance of Fox to be a little strange in light of her posting the article about the business that sells political merchandise didn't get the lease renewed at a mall. Can people sell what they want where they want or not?

It is isn't it? It's why I shared the story in the first place.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

So.. you are saying the vendor was using grievously unethical marketing practices? We have asked repeatedly, why you think so.

Do you think anyone that doesn't support or use the product they sell is unethical?

1 Reply

@parados,

Already asked and asnwered Parados. Please peruse my previous comments on this subject on this thread and you'll find your answers.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Please read my tagline and apply it to yourself.

1 Reply

@parados,

Ditto my tag line.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

But the difference Fox is what you said made no sense. I made no attempt to translate anything into Latin.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Nope. While I do attack others from time to time, I certainly have not been in this case.

"From time to time" has meant (in my experience at least) every post of yours I've read in the last two days. Maybe I'm just unlucky to stumble onto all the "you are stupid if you don't agree with me" ones.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Si quid habet mammas vel rotas, res habebis difficiles aliquando.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Nope. While I do attack others from time to time, I certainly have not been in this case.

"From time to time" has meant (in my experience at least) every post of yours I've read in the last two days. Maybe I'm just unlucky to stumble onto all the "you are stupid if you don't agree with me" ones.

While I have been in discussions on various topics over the last two days, I think this is erroneous. Naturally, you are free to hold whatever opinion you like, regarding the quality or direction of my posting.

For the record, I do not believe I have written 'you are stupid if you do not agree with me' or anything to that effect, in any of the conversations I have been having. I have demanded that others either explain their logic or provide evidence to back up their position, and I have given those who fail to do so a hard time. However, they are not 'stupid' for disagreeing with me.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Obama's been a big failure in many things that are being exposed after the election; he doesn't want to prosecute any of the Bush gang that broke both domestic and international laws which makes him an accessory to those crimes, and sets a precedence for future presidents to break the laws.

It's too early to rate him on his overall performance, but he's showing a side of himself that is not in the best interest of our country. He's also guilty of spending money as if the till is limitless, and transfers all those debts to future generations. I used to think he was a smart man, but he's showing that's not true in many respects.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

They (Foxie and aiden) believe that if they tag something as unethical, it has to be true - without them having to prove it is unethical. They will do everything in their meme to express negativity without having to show proof.

That's the MAC-conservative way!

They still haven't proved it's unethical; will they ever?

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

. . . For the record, I do not believe I have written 'you are stupid if you do not agree with me' or anything to that effect, in any of the conversations I have been having. . . .

That's not your modus operandi, Cyclops.

On the other hand, it is Foxfyre who repeatedly tells us that we make no sense, we don't understand what she or her favorite commentator has written, we're incapable of understanding intellectually complex matters, etc., etc., etc., if we don't agree with her . . . yet RG singles you out for condemnation?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Obama's been a big failure in many things that are being exposed after the election; he doesn't want to prosecute any of the Bush gang that broke both domestic and international laws which makes him an accessory to those crimes, and sets a precedence for future presidents to break the laws.

It's too early to rate him on his overall performance, but he's showing a side of himself that is not in the best interest of our country. He's also guilty of spending money as if the till is limitless, and transfers all those debts to future generations. I used to think he was a smart man, but he's showing that's not true in many respects.

He needs to shape up or else all those millions (myself included) who made a special effort to vote for him in 2008 won't be so willing to race to the polls to re-elect him in 2012.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know