0
   

Free speech for me but not for thee. ACLU busted!

 
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 10:06 am
I like your attitude, Foxfyre. You didn't go get a lawyer to sue the excursion company, but you probably have told many people about this since then, and perhaps the excursion company has lost some potential customers because of it? We need more old fashioned "buyer beware" attitudes, wherein people apply common sense to things. In other words, if you build a house in a creek bottom, don't blame the builder 100% for not telling you it is in a flood zone. After all, everyone should have eyes in their own head to make simple observations. In other words, we should have sense enough to come in out of the rain without the government or some other person telling us. If the abortion service isn't the kind of service you want, simply walk out and go somewhere else. Problem solved. Nothing complicated about this. Then tell all your friends that also want abortions without any counseling concerning alternatives to avoid the place. Meanwhile, the people that end up liking the service and benefit from this kind of abortion counseling as an abortion service are benefited as well.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:20 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
But Okie's point is well taken that advertising does not have to be truthful in order to not be fraudulent. You can't promise a result that you can't deliver, but you can use whatever means is necessary to attract people to your product or service. You can say your product is best when it isn't, but you can't say it cures cancer if it won't.


I'm enjoying the knots you two are tying yourselves into to make this OK. Does the expression "bait and switch" ring a bell?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 02:35 pm
While you can discuss the morality of it til the cows come home, D, bait and switch is a perfectly legal marketing technique. I doubt there is a retailer that exists anywhere that hasn't done it at least once. The issue isn't 'right' vs 'wrong' but legal vs illegal. And there is a subplot here too of interjecting one's own sense of 'morality' into an issue at a different standard than you would hold something about which you didn't feel judgmental.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Nov, 2006 03:17 pm
Quote:
I doubt there is a retailer that exists anywhere that hasn't done it at least once.

Yes, there is. And I'm certainly not alone.

But at least you are correct to differentiate legality and morality. If I act illegally, I am not troubled (other than the factor of risk of punishment) unless I conceive the act/ommission is also immoral. On the other hand, if I act in a manner I consider immoral, then I will be deeply troubled by my act regardless of its legal standing.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 08:44 am
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I doubt there is a retailer that exists anywhere that hasn't done it at least once.

Yes, there is. And I'm certainly not alone.

But at least you are correct to differentiate legality and morality. If I act illegally, I am not troubled (other than the factor of risk of punishment) unless I conceive the act/ommission is also immoral. On the other hand, if I act in a manner I consider immoral, then I will be deeply troubled by my act regardless of its legal standing.


Make that at least two Blatham not that it would make any difference to the "conservative" (bu$h) types though. They seem to think that just because they are crooks, everyone muct be a crook.

I'm doing part time work (apt Mgmt) for one of those vermin right now but at least he has an excuse. He is Arabic! While there is no doubt that he thinks women are as dumb as dirt he has no problem with asking me to do all kinds of extra work that has nothing to do with the mgmt of this property. He trusts no one. I save receipts left, right and sideways, shop for bargains, & oversee the work done so that it's done right, yet this jackass questions every penny. At one point I made a $10 adding error on a bank deposit and he had a hissy fit even though every actual penny was accounted for. Another time he spent money out of the maintenance account without telling me, then wanted me to pay the overdraft charges when I paid for a repair job thinking that the money was there. If I convince someone to do a job for $10 an hour he wants me to talk them down to $5.00 an hour. Just yesterday the a**hole sent a service person to my apt with a bill for work that was done at his home to be paid from the miserly maintenance account that I have. Not only did he want me to pay it but he wanted me to argue with the guy because the bill was $5.00 more than what he thought it was going to be.

I gave my notice a few days ago & told him that if I ever decide to steal anything that I am going to make it worthwhile.....bu$h style.... and rob a Well's Fargo truck on payday!

The past 6 yrs have certainly exposed a large portion of the population of this country for the crooks they are. They have followed the lead of their corrupt, lying, sneaky, low-life, scumbag of a pResident to a 'T'.



0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 02:14 pm
Mags, you did tell him to jump on his camel and ride???

kudos Very Happy
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 2 Dec, 2006 09:06 pm
Magginkat wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I doubt there is a retailer that exists anywhere that hasn't done it at least once.

Yes, there is. And I'm certainly not alone.

But at least you are correct to differentiate legality and morality. If I act illegally, I am not troubled (other than the factor of risk of punishment) unless I conceive the act/ommission is also immoral. On the other hand, if I act in a manner I consider immoral, then I will be deeply troubled by my act regardless of its legal standing.


Make that at least two Blatham not that it would make any difference to the "conservative" (bu$h) types though. They seem to think that just because they are crooks, everyone muct be a crook.....



You obviously have not read the posts, nor do you apparently understand the point.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Dec, 2006 09:39 am
okie wrote:
Magginkat wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
I doubt there is a retailer that exists anywhere that hasn't done it at least once.

Yes, there is. And I'm certainly not alone.

But at least you are correct to differentiate legality and morality. If I act illegally, I am not troubled (other than the factor of risk of punishment) unless I conceive the act/ommission is also immoral. On the other hand, if I act in a manner I consider immoral, then I will be deeply troubled by my act regardless of its legal standing.


Make that at least two Blatham not that it would make any difference to the "conservative" (bu$h) types though. They seem to think that just because they are crooks, everyone muct be a crook.....



You obviously have not read the posts, nor do you apparently understand the point.


Nor did Blatham apparently, but he did raise an interesting point from his perspective which I interpret to say: It is okay to be illegal if you do not think it is immoral to do so and you can get away with it; but you should not be immoral even if it is legal to do so.

So how is it moral for the ACLU to gag its staff who think some of the things the ACLU is doing is immoral?

How moral is it for the ACLU to hunt up somebody willing to be the plaintiff in a suit to go after a tiny cross on a seal of a tiny village that can ill afford to defend itself in such a suit? No unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right of that plaintiff is compromised by that tiny cross, nor is the plaintiff in any way coerced by it. Yet the ACLU stands to profit enormously should they prevail.

The same would apply to the ACLU's involvement with 'abortion services' that do not provide or recommend abortions.

All such practices by the ACLU are entirely legal however.

My point is that the person who dislikes the cross or the 'abortion services' place will praise the ACLU's involvement. Should the ACLU tread on the same person's own similar type preference or sacred cow, however, then the ACLU will be condemned. It is the double-standard, i.e. hypocrisy based on personal prejudices that my post addressed.
0 Replies
 
Magginkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 11:42 am
Okie & Fox are telling the rest of us that we don't understand the responses???

ROTFLMAO! Can you two silly things read?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Dec, 2006 01:05 pm
You imply that by drawing the distinction between being illegal or fraudulant and being misleading, that we are somehow crooks, and that we advocate such, which is of course nonsense and ignores the point of the discussion here. And if you have read the posts, you should be able to grasp the simple concept that although we may think something is legal, we would not necessarily personally endorse it or do it ourselves.

If you wish to make all misleading advertising illegal, good luck. If I ever decided to try, I would consider making the ACLU change their name, as I think it is misleading.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 01:08:28