(02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 07:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:
Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?
Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?
Either way. You choose.
In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.
For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.
No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.
For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.
Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
(02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 07:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Musing about Mitch Romney, I came to the following question:
Apparently Democrats favor following one’s conscience. Yet when people like Hobby Lobby, Chik -Fil-A, and the Little Sisters of the Poor, follow their conscience that is bad. Why?
Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?
Either way. You choose.
In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.
For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.
No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.
For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.
Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.
You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.
(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Do you actually want to have a conversation about this? Or are you just looking to ask a rhetorical question?
Either way. You choose.
In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.
For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.
No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.
For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.
Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.
You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.
Where did I say there is a very superficial thread?
(02-09-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-08-2020 09:38 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Either way. You choose.
In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.
For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.
No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.
For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.
Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.
You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.
Where did I say there is a very superficial thread?
Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
One group is related to how far the government can go with respect to forcing you to cover healthcare issues that support activities against your religious beliefs, one is about the public support/opposition because of the actions that charities a company supports carry out, and the other is about a person's ethical foundation that is based upon their religion.
So it's the religious belief connection exists, but it's a pretty superficial connection with respect to "someone following their conscience."
(02-09-2020 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 01:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]In my eyes, the difference is how the following of one’s conscience manifests itself and who it affects.
In the case of Hobby Lobby, the following of one’s conscience directly affected the employees of the store, and those choices were based on religious grounds. Hobby Lobby used religion to affect basic healthcare (birth control) of their employees, who were not necessarily working there because of their religious beliefs.
For Chick-fil-a, they were donating to some groups with rather questionable stances/activities that were based on religious beliefs.
No idea what the Little Sisters of the Poor references.
For Romney, his decision didn’t manifest itself in a way where it took away access to anything. It really didn’t affect anyone directly.
Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.
You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.
Where did I say there is a very superficial thread?
Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
One group is related to how far the government can go with respect to forcing you to cover healthcare issues that support activities against your religious beliefs, one is about the public support/opposition because of the actions that charities a company supports carry out, and the other is about a person's ethical foundation that is based upon their religion.
So it's the religious belief connection exists, but it's a pretty superficial connection with respect to "someone following their conscience."
As long as we are clear that the word "superficial' is yours not mine. When you say I am "right that there is a very superficial ... thread" it sounds as though I said that, when in reality that is your interpretation.
(02-09-2020 06:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 03:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Who is CFA allowed to donate to? How are the recipients approved?
The common thread between Romney, Hobby Lobby, CFA, and the Little Sisters is religious beliefs. I see all four the same.
Easy to google
Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work. I disagree with some of the more recent issues where places like airports (San Antonio, I believe), kicked them out or something along those lines.
You’re right that there is a very superficial and common thread with all of those people/businesses.
Where did I say there is a very superficial thread?
Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
One group is related to how far the government can go with respect to forcing you to cover healthcare issues that support activities against your religious beliefs, one is about the public support/opposition because of the actions that charities a company supports carry out, and the other is about a person's ethical foundation that is based upon their religion.
So it's the religious belief connection exists, but it's a pretty superficial connection with respect to "someone following their conscience."
As long as we are clear that the word "superficial' is yours not mine. When you say I am "right that there is a very superficial ... thread" it sounds as though I said that, when in reality that is your interpretation.
Yep - we're on the same page here.
(02-09-2020 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
So you assumed that was what he meant? Probably not a good approach. Why not read what he wrote instead of assuming what he meant?
(02-09-2020 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
So you assumed that was what he meant? Probably not a good approach. Why not read what he wrote instead of assuming what he meant.
That was a nice way of telling OO that he was making a ****** comparison.
(02-09-2020 07:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Given that the connections between CFA, the companies taking the ACA to court, and Romey are very superficial (the very broad "religious beliefs"), I assumed that was what you meant.
So you assumed that was what he meant? Probably not a good approach. Why not read what he wrote instead of assuming what he meant.
That was a nice way of telling OO that he was making a ****** comparison.
Back to normal, I see. Just when I thought we could have a normal conversation without ...aw, never mind.
voter registration tent
Good thing he didn't kill anybody. Then he would have been the same as that guy in Charlottesville.
Funny, I never saw any laudatory paeans to Manchin for his vote in support of Kavanaugh against his party line. His 'conscience' there as well.
(02-10-2020 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, I never saw any laudatory paeans to Manchin for his vote in support of Kavanaugh against his party line. His 'conscience' there as well.
Manchin took the easy political vote for Kavanaugh. He faced no real repercussions (either electoral or within his party) for voting to confirm Kavanaugh.
Romney took the hard political vote for impeachment. He certainly faced in-party repercussions, though I doubt he will face significant electoral repercussions since he has 4.5 years left on his term and Utah isn't a big Trump state (even though it is conservative).
No reason to applaud someone for taking the politically easy vote. No courage in that. Doesn't mean it is a good vote or a bad vote, just an easy vote.
(02-10-2020 04:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2020 12:11 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Funny, I never saw any laudatory paeans to Manchin for his vote in support of Kavanaugh against his party line. His 'conscience' there as well.
Manchin took the easy political vote for Kavanaugh. He faced no real repercussions (either electoral or within his party) for voting to confirm Kavanaugh.
Romney took the hard political vote for impeachment. He certainly faced in-party repercussions, though I doubt he will face significant electoral repercussions since he has 4.5 years left on his term and Utah isn't a big Trump state (even though it is conservative).
No reason to applaud someone for taking the politically easy vote. No courage in that. Doesn't mean it is a good vote or a bad vote, just an easy vote.
I actually see it as the opposite. Romney’s vote was 20 away from enough to find guilty and remove (and he voted not guilty on the other charge). Manchin’s vote was only 4 or 5 away from reversing the result. One was totally irrelevant to the outcome, the other not quite so much so. In the end, neither really mattered, so I wouldn’t call either profile in courage material.
But the 'conscience' angle is really kind of stupid.
Whenever a Republican votes in a manner that is contra the 'party' line, they are feted as a 'vote of conscience' by the press; to the point you nearly expect Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Luke appear by their side in 'ghost' form as they do their 'vote of conscience'.
Never once, in 44 gd years I have been interested in politics, have I ever seen or noted a similar laudatory vote with a reverse polarity --- that is a Democrat voting against their party line. Amazing, isnt it?
Nothing pointed here, just an observation of something that has taken awhile to note and form (44 years in fact....)
But I am sure this is an 'anecdote' and not worthy of any weight.
#s, OO, can you remember any Democrats who 'voted their conscience'?
(02-10-2020 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the 'conscience' angle is really kind of stupid.
Whenever a Republican votes in a manner that is contra the 'party' line, they are feted as a 'vote of conscience' by the press; to the point you nearly expect Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Luke appear by their side in 'ghost' form as they do their 'vote of conscience'.
Never once, in 44 gd years I have been interested in politics, have I ever seen or noted a similar laudatory vote with a reverse polarity --- that is a Democrat voting against their party line. Amazing, isnt it?
Nothing pointed here, just an observation of something that has taken awhile to note and form (44 years in fact....)
But I am sure this is an 'anecdote' and not worthy of any weight.
#s, OO, can you remember any Democrats who 'voted their conscience'?
Joe Lieberman voted his conscience on several matters. As I recall, his party hate him for it.
(02-10-2020 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the 'conscience' angle is really kind of stupid.
Whenever a Republican votes in a manner that is contra the 'party' line, they are feted as a 'vote of conscience' by the press; to the point you nearly expect Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Luke appear by their side in 'ghost' form as they do their 'vote of conscience'.
Never once, in 44 gd years I have been interested in politics, have I ever seen or noted a similar laudatory vote with a reverse polarity --- that is a Democrat voting against their party line. Amazing, isnt it?
Nothing pointed here, just an observation of something that has taken awhile to note and form (44 years in fact....)
But I am sure this is an 'anecdote' and not worthy of any weight.
#s, OO, can you remember any Democrats who 'voted their conscience'?
First, let's define "voting their conscience' as a vote that goes against their party on the basis of what they think is right.
I can think of none by Democrats lately that are praised for the moral fiber of the voter. Tulsa Gabbard has on on occasion gone her own way, a true maverick, and her support in the polls is less than 1%, so not her. Dems have voted en bloc on almost everything - impeachment, removal, Kavanaugh, any part of the resistance. They always drape themselves in the cloak of morality, saying of course we all vote the same, because we all care only for truth, justice, and the American way. They are of course backed up in this by the MSM, and small time dolts at the base of the party believe it.
(02-11-2020 08:43 AM)georgewebb Wrote: [ -> ] (02-10-2020 05:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]But the 'conscience' angle is really kind of stupid.
Whenever a Republican votes in a manner that is contra the 'party' line, they are feted as a 'vote of conscience' by the press; to the point you nearly expect Yoda, Obi Wan Kenobi, and Luke appear by their side in 'ghost' form as they do their 'vote of conscience'.
Never once, in 44 gd years I have been interested in politics, have I ever seen or noted a similar laudatory vote with a reverse polarity --- that is a Democrat voting against their party line. Amazing, isnt it?
Nothing pointed here, just an observation of something that has taken awhile to note and form (44 years in fact....)
But I am sure this is an 'anecdote' and not worthy of any weight.
#s, OO, can you remember any Democrats who 'voted their conscience'?
Joe Lieberman voted his conscience on several matters. As I recall, his party hate him for it.
Is that why he is an (I) and not a (D)?
(02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.
Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.
While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.
The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.
I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.
Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty
(02-11-2020 09:32 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2020 05:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Regarding CFA - I was talking about the initial uproar over people boycotting CFA, which was the free market at work.
Not really speaking to your comment and not saying you would agree or disagree with what I'm about to say; this just came to mind while reading your comment.
While I agree with the principle, I'm not sure i always agree with the practice.
The free market at work is you choosing to frequent or not an establishment and even posting something online about 'why' or encouraging others to do so.
I'm not sure standing out front of an establishment and shaming those who choose to frequent it is....unless one argues that aggressively picketing an abortion clinic is 'the free market at work'.
Peaceful protests, no problem. SOME of these are there for the publicity and even the confrontation. One's 'passion' should not be allowed to restrict someone else's liberty
But, I would argue that it is the 'free market' at work when any protest occurs. The 'free market' in the best of worlds encompasses the 'product' of political discourse.
The Democrats and Republicans are true free marketeers; albeit in the product of ideas and policies. Their consumers are the supporters and those whom they solicit and market to gain their capital, in this case, donations, labor, and votes.
In the case of a true commercial market, sometimes the realm of what policies are supported and what causes are supported enters the fray of the the problems and pitfalls of engendering the wrath of those whom do not like those policies and causes.
I consider political thought and speech to be very much a market subject to a 'free market' philosophy. That is the beauty of the writings of the *economists* Hayek, Mises, and Friedman, whom to a vast degree sought to break down the barriers in their economic theories and open those theories to the political and philosophical realm.