The IRS may have just accidentally killed* all "free" software, everywhere.
--Patrick
*or at least drastically disincentivized.
--Patrick
*or at least drastically disincentivized.
Last edited:
Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Freakin IRS man.
The fact that the HL insurance covered all of these (not) abortion causing drugs until Obamacare came into the picture continues to make it look like this has nothing to do with religious freedom and everything to do with not liking Obama/Obamacare. And yes, to those who will say it, it's totally possible that it just so happened that at that exact time they had a huge surge of religious feelings flood their lives and suddenly had to act on it, but given the general sentiments towards Obama and Obamacare amongst (especially southern) evangelical Christians, I feel very comfortable seeing this as far more about a dislike for current government than for any religious reason.
Stienman did say something to me the other day that made a lot of sense though, and thats that what is even more disturbing than how I believe this abuses the notion of religious freedom is this continues this Courts rampage of claiming that corporations are people. This is only going to get worse. Soon they will start marrying, which is clearly an affront to the Lord, after all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and General-Electric-Time-Warner-NBC-Universal.
Stienman did say something to me the other day that made a lot of sense though, and thats that what is even more disturbing than how I believe this abuses the notion of religious freedom is this continues this Courts rampage of claiming that corporations are people. This is only going to get worse. Soon they will start marrying, which is clearly an affront to the Lord, after all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and General-Electric-Time-Warner-NBC-Universal.
Well no, Jesus said that only "those who pull themselves up by their bootstraps shall inherit the earth". Trust me. Thats what it says.[DOUBLEPOST=1404314302,1404314238][/DOUBLEPOST]
I would assume so, but beware, you have to consummate it with EVERYONE involved. Shareholders, employees. It's going to take you awhile.
Challenge accepted.
And the consumer is the one that gets consummated.
Actually, that's incorrect. They only covered two of these drugs beforehand. Also, there's no need for a "huge surge of religious feelings", it's far more likely that, as Hobby Lobby claimed in their brief, those drugs were only included as an oversight, as they otherwise didn't cover any potentially abortioninducing drugs. One that was noticed recently, since there was, you know, a major change in health care coverage requirements recently that would prompt a re-examination of a corporation's health insurance plan. Given that they could have gone to court over the two they already didn't cover, there's no need to jump to the "lying" conclusion you are so quick to arrive at with people that disagree with you.
I don't think they are lying per se, I think, given the overall picture of who this company is (what they support and profit from) that they didn't care until Obamacare came down the pipeline. Maybe they did, but their track record, in my opinion of course, seems to indicate that they didn't. It's fine if you think this is all of pure motives. If it is I hope that these strong religious ideals starts extending to where they get their goods from, who they invest with and how they treat their employees. That I can get behind.
That would mean more if you weren't basing your analysis of their track record on factual inaccuracies.
Like how they provided health care coverage prior to being required to? Or how their corporate "minimum wage" is almost double the federal minimum wage? They seem quite good at showing their ideals in how they treat their employees.
Necronic
Staff member
Everyone seemed happy the last time I went into a dianetics church. Can't always infer too much from that (that said it does seem like hobby lobby generally treats their employees well.)
Also, cool graph here that shows female legislative membership by state:
http://graphzoo.tumblr.com/post/90349008442/gender-ratio-in-us-state-legislature-state
Can't say I'm surprised. Republicans need to enter the 21st, or even the 20th, century.
Ed: ignore the implication of the color gradient, it does not imply party affiliation and was a poor choice by the graph designer
[DOUBLEPOST=1404318061,1404317966][/DOUBLEPOST]
Also, cool graph here that shows female legislative membership by state:
http://graphzoo.tumblr.com/post/90349008442/gender-ratio-in-us-state-legislature-state
Can't say I'm surprised. Republicans need to enter the 21st, or even the 20th, century.
Ed: ignore the implication of the color gradient, it does not imply party affiliation and was a poor choice by the graph designer
[DOUBLEPOST=1404318061,1404317966][/DOUBLEPOST]
So women in the clergy may be ok? Because what you're describing sounds like the justification for every excommunication I have heard.
Last edited:
Necronic
Staff member
I guess I misread your statement a bit. It seemed like you were taking a stance against strict views of doctrine, which I found surprising since that's how all churches work.
But I see what you really mean, we dot know exactly why The Greens did what they did, and ya unfair to leap to conclusions that it was political. Which...is true I guess. But based on their targeting this one cause and the seeming inability of anyone to explain why this thing is different from atheism other issue is troubling and has implications.
Their interest in abortifacients may be different than say, child labor, and that's ok. But I can't for the life of me see how you can distinguish between paying for your employees to have access to abortifacients and paying your employees with profits from the sales of said products.
But I see what you really mean, we dot know exactly why The Greens did what they did, and ya unfair to leap to conclusions that it was political. Which...is true I guess. But based on their targeting this one cause and the seeming inability of anyone to explain why this thing is different from atheism other issue is troubling and has implications.
Their interest in abortifacients may be different than say, child labor, and that's ok. But I can't for the life of me see how you can distinguish between paying for your employees to have access to abortifacients and paying your employees with profits from the sales of said products.
I don't have a Hobby Lobby near me. I have a Michaels, are they the same kind of store?
GAh. The forum just ate a huge post I had written. Sigh. Alright, lets try again, sorry this will be shorter (but maybe thats a good thing eh?).
People seem to be upset that some of us don't agree with this ruling and/or question HL's motives. Thats fine. I have no problem with people believing that their actions here don't conflict at all. Obviously they don't see it as a problem. I do. It seems like they are using religion as a political weapon here but look, it's fine if you think their motives are pure. Clearly we aren't going to convince each other and obviously, none of us truly know.
So that being said lets talk about what comes next, because I'd like to see some good come out of this:
As far as Hobby Lobby goes: Since they have taken such a public stance, I think they have an amazing opportunity to show that their religious beliefs are truly the foundation of their company. This is a great chance for them to say, hey, we won't invest in companies that make medications we have problems with and we won't do business with companies and governments that are very problematic (as one Christian writer put it: "And, that doesn't even touch the fact that China's cheap labor conditions are such that no American would be willing to work them (some are even equated with slavery)...or the fact that China greatly restricts religious liberty (the very issue Hobby Lobby claims is under attack here),...or the fact that their numbers on infanticide, orphans, and child-abandonment are abysmal"). Thats not an attack on them, it's saying, alright, you are putting yourself out there as the face of religious business so this is an opportunity to do some real good and show everyone this isn't just a political thing. Use this new found attention to show the world some light.
As far as the Supreme Courts ruling goes: Where does everyone see this heading? Is this a slippery slope? What will it mean for religious owners who have problems with other medical practices? What will it mean for people who hold religious beliefs about race or the equality of women? Or will it have no impact in general? I think this is probably the more pressing issue here. Clearly some of the justices think it won't be a problem while other do.[DOUBLEPOST=1404321562,1404321310][/DOUBLEPOST]
So, I know some folks lean towards the far end of the capitalism spectrum and think that people should be able to run their business with zero government interference and some lean way towards lots of government control right? So when you say, "run it according to the dictates of their conscience" how do you think that should work? And I'll say, I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here.
People seem to be upset that some of us don't agree with this ruling and/or question HL's motives. Thats fine. I have no problem with people believing that their actions here don't conflict at all. Obviously they don't see it as a problem. I do. It seems like they are using religion as a political weapon here but look, it's fine if you think their motives are pure. Clearly we aren't going to convince each other and obviously, none of us truly know.
So that being said lets talk about what comes next, because I'd like to see some good come out of this:
As far as Hobby Lobby goes: Since they have taken such a public stance, I think they have an amazing opportunity to show that their religious beliefs are truly the foundation of their company. This is a great chance for them to say, hey, we won't invest in companies that make medications we have problems with and we won't do business with companies and governments that are very problematic (as one Christian writer put it: "And, that doesn't even touch the fact that China's cheap labor conditions are such that no American would be willing to work them (some are even equated with slavery)...or the fact that China greatly restricts religious liberty (the very issue Hobby Lobby claims is under attack here),...or the fact that their numbers on infanticide, orphans, and child-abandonment are abysmal"). Thats not an attack on them, it's saying, alright, you are putting yourself out there as the face of religious business so this is an opportunity to do some real good and show everyone this isn't just a political thing. Use this new found attention to show the world some light.
As far as the Supreme Courts ruling goes: Where does everyone see this heading? Is this a slippery slope? What will it mean for religious owners who have problems with other medical practices? What will it mean for people who hold religious beliefs about race or the equality of women? Or will it have no impact in general? I think this is probably the more pressing issue here. Clearly some of the justices think it won't be a problem while other do.[DOUBLEPOST=1404321562,1404321310][/DOUBLEPOST]
Sweet, this is kind of what I was hoping we could actually get to since the ruling seems to lend itself to a discussion about this.
So, I know some folks lean towards the far end of the capitalism spectrum and think that people should be able to run their business with zero government interference and some lean way towards lots of government control right? So when you say, "run it according to the dictates of their conscience" how do you think that should work? And I'll say, I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't know, I've never been in a Michael's. But Hobby Lobby sells mostly knick knacks and kitsch items, and oh yeah some craft/hobby materials.
Really, I thought they should have called the place the "Restaurant wall crazy crap supply depot."
But they're also the only ones I've found that carries fruit tootsie rolls in large bags.
Necronic
Staff member
I should have been clear, I don't know or care if the products were sourced from child labor. I really doubt they are, but it doesn't really matter in the point I was making. I was just stating that the moral question about product sourcing (if there even was one) was different than the abortifacients, so it's not important.
Even if there was child labor you could argue that the moral tenets of your faith prohibited abortifacients but had no qualms with child labor. They can believe what thy want, and I have no problem with that.
The 401k issue on the other hand is not different for reasons I've outlined, and that is what makes me think that their motivation may be political.[DOUBLEPOST=1404322018,1404321905][/DOUBLEPOST]
Even if there was child labor you could argue that the moral tenets of your faith prohibited abortifacients but had no qualms with child labor. They can believe what thy want, and I have no problem with that.
The 401k issue on the other hand is not different for reasons I've outlined, and that is what makes me think that their motivation may be political.[DOUBLEPOST=1404322018,1404321905][/DOUBLEPOST]
Finally, the definitive proof of your insanity that so many have been looking for.
I always found their art supplies to be seriously lacking, however if you area white-middle-aged-Christian lady who needs bedazzled things with scripture verses on them, then boy are you in luck.
Also: FRUIT tootsie rolls? This sounds terrifying.
GasBandit
Staff member
Oh man. I like em even more than starburst. Which is basically what they are - cylindrical starburst. Except there's also a vanilla flavor one, and it's pretty good actually.
(the blue ones are the vanilla ones. But only the wrappers are blue, the actual vanilla candy is white. the rest, the color/flavor matches the wrapper.)
Necronic
Staff member
I'm blown away sometimes by the rights people think they are entitled to, and in some countries they are. There was a really hilarious article I read somewhere about how, out of all 1st world countries, Canadians get the least amount of vacation time. I was reading it and thinking ".....something is not right here", when I noticed an asterisk in the chart. Following the asterisk down I see (in small print):
"The United States was not included in this survey as it is the only first world country in the world that does not have mandatory vacation time"
Which really gave me a chuckle. Oh boohoo Canada. Your vacation system sounds really awful.
The truth is though that I don't think vacation should be mandatory. I think any serious business who needs employees with in demand skills will always give people vacation time, but really I don't think it should be mandated. Some people seem to think its a basic human right.
The only right I really believe in is your right to self determination. All the other shit is just window dressing. That said I still vote democratic most of the time side republican policies are so focused on ideological legislation that they ignore the realities they are working in.
That may be the thing I hate the most about Rand's writings. She frequently talked about people saying "ideals are fine but you must be practical" as though that were an evil way to live/govern. It was real evidence of how little she understood.
Take game theory as an example, I had a great conversation with my brother about this. Game theory is often used as a crucial underpinning of economic theory. The prisoners dilemma, for instance, discusses a situation that predicts human behavior in certain situation, and from that prediction a lot of other predictions can be made about how people will act.
Except the prisoners dilemma is wrong. The premise of it has to do with two prisoners who can rat each other out to get a lighter sentence. If no one rats they get a very light or no sentence. If one rats and the other doesn't then one goes free the other goes away for life, and if both rat they both get a reduced sentence.
Game theory states that the logical answer is to rat. But it misses something, in reality these prisoners would have seen this eventuality and either had a strong enough trust of each other, or systems in place (like I will kill your family if you rat), to encourage the no rat scenario.
You may argue that this does not invalidate the prisoners dilemma as it adds new rules, and in a sense you would be right, but the point is that ideological politics is never about the more complicated scenarios:
- Welfare is inherently bad, even though it's actually cheaper to house the homeless than to leave them on the streets
- Abortion is always wrong, except in cases of rape or when the mother may die.
- Democracy is always good, unless they elect Hamas
-The laffer curve shows that increased taxation will decrease long term tax revenue, after it passes the point where increased taxation increases Long term tax revenue.
Shit is complicated. Ideological leadership is a morons tool used for people too unintelligent to understand the importance/value/danger of nuances.
Which is why as much as I dislike a lot of their policies I still have to vote democratic. Between the Tea Party and the Religious Right I don't know who is left in that shit show that actually understands how to govern.
"The United States was not included in this survey as it is the only first world country in the world that does not have mandatory vacation time"
Which really gave me a chuckle. Oh boohoo Canada. Your vacation system sounds really awful.
The truth is though that I don't think vacation should be mandatory. I think any serious business who needs employees with in demand skills will always give people vacation time, but really I don't think it should be mandated. Some people seem to think its a basic human right.
The only right I really believe in is your right to self determination. All the other shit is just window dressing. That said I still vote democratic most of the time side republican policies are so focused on ideological legislation that they ignore the realities they are working in.
That may be the thing I hate the most about Rand's writings. She frequently talked about people saying "ideals are fine but you must be practical" as though that were an evil way to live/govern. It was real evidence of how little she understood.
Take game theory as an example, I had a great conversation with my brother about this. Game theory is often used as a crucial underpinning of economic theory. The prisoners dilemma, for instance, discusses a situation that predicts human behavior in certain situation, and from that prediction a lot of other predictions can be made about how people will act.
Except the prisoners dilemma is wrong. The premise of it has to do with two prisoners who can rat each other out to get a lighter sentence. If no one rats they get a very light or no sentence. If one rats and the other doesn't then one goes free the other goes away for life, and if both rat they both get a reduced sentence.
Game theory states that the logical answer is to rat. But it misses something, in reality these prisoners would have seen this eventuality and either had a strong enough trust of each other, or systems in place (like I will kill your family if you rat), to encourage the no rat scenario.
You may argue that this does not invalidate the prisoners dilemma as it adds new rules, and in a sense you would be right, but the point is that ideological politics is never about the more complicated scenarios:
- Welfare is inherently bad, even though it's actually cheaper to house the homeless than to leave them on the streets
- Abortion is always wrong, except in cases of rape or when the mother may die.
- Democracy is always good, unless they elect Hamas
-The laffer curve shows that increased taxation will decrease long term tax revenue, after it passes the point where increased taxation increases Long term tax revenue.
Shit is complicated. Ideological leadership is a morons tool used for people too unintelligent to understand the importance/value/danger of nuances.
Which is why as much as I dislike a lot of their policies I still have to vote democratic. Between the Tea Party and the Religious Right I don't know who is left in that shit show that actually understands how to govern.
GasBandit
Staff member
Republicans who break ranks and go liberal are called "Rhinos,"
I wonder if Libertarians who waffle on their conviction would be called HEDGEhogs.
"We drench our prospective mates in urine from up to six feet away to see if they're interested."TIL the Libertarian Party has apparently adopted the porcupine as its animal mascot.
I'm not feeling it.
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, in that case the metaphor doesn't hold, because they've never been a successful franchise, everI just meant that they haven't been a good franchise for decades.
Even Sonic gets to show up in SSB.[DOUBLEPOST=1404331746,1404331668][/DOUBLEPOST]
In wake of Hobby Lobby ruling, Religious Orgs want exemption from LGBT Hiring Order.
Because of course they do. THIS is what happens when intolerance in enshrined in the law.
Because of course they do. THIS is what happens when intolerance in enshrined in the law.