Yes, another ABBA thread, but for good reason.
Offline ABBA's Angetha will be attending a gay pride event in Sweden.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline The entire idea that the top 1% is some monolithic political force that has some kind of comprehensive plan is ridiculous. Just like every demographic group, the wealthy have a wide variety of political views. There is no Simpsons style board meeting where the top 1% all get together and come up with a secret plan to fool the poor.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Offline The entire idea that the top 1% is some monolithic political force that has some kind of comprehensive plan is ridiculous. Just like every demographic group, the wealthy have a wide variety of political views. There is no Simpsons style board meeting where the top 1% all get together and come up with a secret plan to fool the poor.
Oh my god you moron. No one is claiming a conspiracy. CLIMATE, you have enough like minded people doing the same types of things there does not have to be a conspiracy. It is monkey see monkey do.
If we were talking about a climate of mostly COSTCOs and Nick Hanours and MOO CLUCK MOO, this country would not be in the mess it is in. But what we have is a climate of mostly Wall Marts and McDonnalds who do not give a shit about their workers.
To say the 1% in it's current climate gives a shit about the people that make them rich is laughable and sad at the same time. But no one is claiming secret decoder rings and I am not wearing a tin foil hat.
Higher wages will not hurt big business. Being able to pay bills off of ONE 40 hour a week job WILL NOT hurt big business. Having a health care system that doesn't bankrupt workers WILL NOT hurt big business.
Improving living standards benefits everyone. But the business model of most at the top is a race to the bottom, which is dominating most business thought. We've put up with this shit for 30 years and all it has done is made workers work longer hours for less money while the pay has not kept up with cost of living.
Now you can update your mindset like Nick and COSTCO and be on the right side of history, or you can continue your Ayn Rand economic crap.
It is also not a lie to say people donate money to political campaigns. Who has more of an ability to do that? The Koch Brothers or a dishwasher like me? No conspiracy, just a fact.
No the top is not monolithic, I just mentioned the few businesses, and rich individuals that DO try to set the right tone which other businesses should follow but dont. Do you hate it when a mere dishwasher quotes rich people and businesses he likes?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline Beyond Saving wrote:The entire idea that the top 1% is some monolithic political force that has some kind of comprehensive plan is ridiculous. Just like every demographic group, the wealthy have a wide variety of political views. There is no Simpsons style board meeting where the top 1% all get together and come up with a secret plan to fool the poor.
Oh my god you moron. No one is claiming a conspiracy. CLIMATE, you have enough like minded people doing the same types of things there does not have to be a conspiracy. It is monkey see monkey do.
You consistently state the political position of the top 1% as if it is monolithic. The reality is that the politics of the top 1% is almost split down the middle.
If we were talking about a climate of mostly COSTCOs and Nick Hanours and MOO CLUCK MOO, this country would not be in the mess it is in. But what we have is a climate of mostly Wall Marts and McDonnalds who do not give a shit about their workers.
To say the 1% in it's current climate gives a shit about the people that make them rich is laughable and sad at the same time. But no one is claiming secret decoder rings and I am not wearing a tin foil hat.
Of course they don't. They give precisely as much a shit about the workers as you give about your employer. It is an inherently economic relationship, any personal feelings beyond that are incidental. There is no reason why they should give a shit. And you are a hypocrite on your moral high horse because you don't give a shit either. You work primarily for money. You buy the cheapest steak you see in the grocery store, you don't give a shit that by buying the cheapest stake, some farmer somewhere is making less profit. And there is no reason why you should.
Higher wages will not hurt big business. Being able to pay bills off of ONE 40 hour a week job WILL NOT hurt big business. Having a health care system that doesn't bankrupt workers WILL NOT hurt big business.
No, higher wages don't hurt business if they are higher everywhere. Higher wages hurt unskilled and uneducated workers who find that their jobs are no longer available and then go to the store to find that products are more expensive. In short, minimum wages harm the very people you claim to want to help.
Improving living standards benefits everyone. But the business model of most at the top is a race to the bottom, which is dominating most business thought. We've put up with this shit for 30 years and all it has done is made workers work longer hours for less money while the pay has not kept up with cost of living.
If it is a race to the bottom, why are we at the top?
And no, working hours are not longer now than they were 30 years ago. Last year, the average amount worked was 1790 hours, in 1980 the average amount worked was 1813 hours. The year we worked the most was 1849 hours in 1989. These stats only include workers, so people who are laid off or unemployed do not play a role. Nor is it true that wages haven't kept pace with the cost of living. In 1990 (the earliest year that is conveniently available, I'm not bothering searching for older data because I know you won't pay attention to facts) the average worker made $42,285 in 2011 dollars. In 2011 that number was $54,450 so the average person is about 28% richer today in real purchasing power than in 1990. That is why poor people today have smart phones, internet access, cable tv, air conditioning and all sorts of extras that make life more comfortable. It is only recently that wages have fallen.
All your points are completely made up and have no basis in reality when you look at the statistics. I have pointed this out to you dozens of times, but like the theist confronted with evidence of evolution, you continue to deny it.
Now you can update your mindset like Nick and COSTCO and be on the right side of history, or you can continue your Ayn Rand economic crap.
How exactly does history have a "right side"?
It is also not a lie to say people donate money to political campaigns. Who has more of an ability to do that? The Koch Brothers or a dishwasher like me? No conspiracy, just a fact.
It is not. But it is a lie to suggest the top 1% donates their money to the same politicians. Obama got a lot of money from the top 1%. In fact, Obama raised almost twice as much as Romney total and had Romney beat in "large contributions" too. The right has the Koch brothers and the left has Soros & co.
No the top is not monolithic, I just mentioned the few businesses, and rich individuals that DO try to set the right tone which other businesses should follow but dont. Do you hate it when a mere dishwasher quotes rich people and businesses he likes?
I don't hate it at all. I find it extremely amusing, especially when the people you quote go out and do the very things you are decrying. I find it amusing that you worship Warren Buffett when the cheap fucker pays his secretary virtually nothing compared to his fortune. If I was that rich, my bartender would make more than Buffetts secretary.
I find it amusing that you worship Hanauer when the man made his fortune by eliminating jobs.
I find it amusing that you on one hand complain about increased working hours and on the other hold up Costco as all things virtuous. The Costco business model calls for one employee per 600 sq ft of retail space. Walmart has one employee for every 300 sq ft. Why is the average Costco worker able to provide better service than the average Walmart worker despite working twice the amount of space? Costco has a much smaller selection of items. Costco isn't the kind of store you go to for day to day shopping. It is where you go to stock up on large amounts of basic products. The average Costco carries 4,000 items, average supermarket carries 40,000 and the average Walmart Supercenter about 150,000.
The demographics that the two stores customers also vary dramatically. The average Costco shopping family makes $80,000 a year. Way more than the average Walmart family. Why? Well they charge a membership fee which excludes those with small families or are on a tight budget. Since you can't buy a small pack of anything, while the price per roll of toilet paper is cheaper, it requires a larger upfront investment. Putting larger amounts of money upfront for something that will sit in the closet for 3 months isn't a problem when you are rich, it can be a huge problem when you are living paycheck to paycheck. The average Costco customer spends $150 per shopping trip. The average Walmart customer spends $45 per trip.
Like all stores that cater to the more affluent sectors of society, Costco pays their employees more to hire better quality workers who provide better service and are more responsible. Yes, they pay a higher wage, but they are more discriminating about who they hire. Walmart isn't as discriminating which is why their customer service is usually shit from the customers perspective.
Now what happens if you demand that Walmart pays the same rate as Costco? Well, a couple of things, first Walmart would have to raise prices or dramatically reduce the number of items they sell. Then, Walmart would hire fewer workers, to save on labor. They would become pickier about who they hire because if you are paying $20 an hour, you need that worker to produce more than $20 and hour in profit- when you pay $10 an hour, you are perfectly content with that worker producing $14 an hour in profit.
Costco workers get paid more because they produce more per worker. This is due to a combination of the style of the business model, and the initial quality of the workers hired. We live in a diverse country. Affluent people need places to shop and so do the less affluent. Productive workers need jobs, and so do the less productive. It is foolish to insist that every store be ran the same way, pay the same amounts and have the same business models. While the are superficially in competition with each other, in many ways they are not and both fill an important need both for their customers and for their employees.
And who will suffer if Walmart is forced to copy Costco? Not Walmart executives. They will find a way to maintain profitability. The people who suffer are the 1 million or so employees they will lay off because they are no longer profitable and for whatever reason are not as attractive employees as others.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
- Login to post comments
Um, so? Wasn't ABBA supportive of gay rights before it was cool? Like way back in the 70's and 80's when being called gay was the biggest insult around?
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Holly shit dude? "Cool" has nothing to do with it. Gays are not tokens to me, but by virtue of your comment, it seems they are to you.
Weren't you the one arguing states rights on the issue of gay marriage?
You are a bad novel on every subject I have had issues with you on and your argument is as simple as a petulant child "It is right when I get what I want, but tyranny when I lose".
If you support gays as being equal to you, then the appropriate comment would have been "Good for them".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
My point is that ABBA has long been a supporter of gay rights, so Angetha going to a gay pride rally is hardly news. And I don't doubt that a good portion of celebrities who run out publicly to these types of rallies were homophobes in the 70's and 80's and yes, I think many of them use gay rights as nothing more than a token to boost their own fame on the issue of the moment. Just like all those celebrities who jump on energy conservation while having a dozen mansions and having a larger carbon footprint than I could make if I tried. But anyway, my point was that Angetha is not one of those, as she supported the movement when it was still unpopular.
I argue that is what the law is as it stands now. You know, that little thing called the Constitution that I have the radical idea we should attempt to follow it. I didn't write the Constitution. If I did, it would be much shorter. It would simply say, "Congress shall pass no law. PERIOD."
I don't think government should have any role in marriage at all. Heterosexual, homosexual, bigamous, polyamorous, or even- yes Mr. O'reilly- to a duck if you can figure out how to get a duck to consent.
I just don't see it as news. It is kind of like saying "oh wow, Al Gore is going to a climate change summit"... well yeah, everyone knows his position on the issue, it isn't news.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Bullshit! You used the word "cool" as a "so what". "Everyone knows that", and so? There is a reason you scoffed at this post. And again, if you support gay marriage, then you defy yourself with the "states rights" issue when the supremacy clause should be on their side.
Your response should have been "Good for them". It should not matter how long ABBA has supported gays. If you support them thank them no matter how long it takes.
Otherwise anyone today quoting Martin Luther King is "old hat".
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
No, I used the phrase "Um, so?" to convey "so what". I know you doubt me, but I really do say what I mean- I don't speak in code. The word "cool" was used to convey that Abba supported gay rights when it was extremely unpopular to support gays.
No, because the supremacy clause only applies where the federal government has the power to regulate. The Constitution does not delegate the power to regulate marriage to the federal government, therefore the supremacy clause is not on my side on this particular issue. Unlike you, I don't ignore the Constitution just because it happens to be against me on a particular issue and then pull it out when it is convenient. I believe we should follow it, or change it. Marriage is clearly an area where the Constitution provides the power to the states. So while many states might not regulate it the way I want (actually all of them, not a single state allows unregulated marriage), that is something they have to power to do and if I really want to change it I have to do so through the state legislature. Unless I want to go whole hog and get a constitutional amendment, which there is currently no way I could get enough support to do so.
The "I have a dream" speech would be far less relevant if it were delivered today than when MLK gave it. It was a great speech precisely because of the context of the times it was delivered. Something that was brave and daring in the past isn't necessarily brave and daring today. A celebrity going to a gay pride rally in the 70's or 80's put their career at risk. Today, it is probably beneficial for most artists in most genres. Context matters. And that is why Angetha going to a gay pride rally isn't newsworthy. She did such things when she had far more to lose. Now, celebrities at gay pride rallies are a dime a dozen and I don't see a point to making a new thread every single time some band goes to a rally. It would probably be shorter to list the major celebrities who haven't attended gay pride rallies than those who have.
Hell, I've been to gay pride rallies. Was it some brave act? Hell no, it was an excuse to drink and party. Nowadays gay pride rallies are sponsored by mainstream companies, attract mainstream bands and the environment is a lot more inline with other community festivals/parades. Would i have gone to one in the 70's if I had been an adult back then? I would like to think so, but I really can't say for sure. If I did, would I have told anyone about it and risk losing customers at my business because of my association with the gay movement? Probably not.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Really? Do you work for Fox News because you sure as hell talk like it.
Please tell me how any good progress of past history is less relevant? The founders? Naw fuck em that was then, who needs the Constitution.
You are an idiot. King is ALWAYS RELEVANT because, like the founders, their thoughts and ideas and progress are something that is a continuing lesson for all of humanity. The assault on voter ID by the right wing today is EXACTLY why King is still relevant, but not just for blacks, but liberals in general.
You have the same stupid mentality as a theist "freedom" means "only when I get what I want"with none of the responsibility.
So if Pepsi or Coke sponsored a "Read the Constitution" campaign you'd call that old hat too?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Where did I say anything about progress being less relevant? My whole point is that Angetha going to a gay pride rally is not progress because she has done it before when it was risky. Now it is not risky (because everyone does it).
Me saying "who needs the Constitution"? You are the one suggesting we ignore it because it conflicts with an issue in a way you don't like. The Constitution gives the federal government no authority to regulate marriage. Never has.
I didn't say anything about King being relevant. I said the speech if it was delivered today would be less relevant. King is relevant precisely because of the time his speeches were delivered and the time in which he took action. MLK was a great man because he took a stand at a time when he was controversial, ultimately losing his life for it. Someone doing the exact thing today would not be and would probably not be putting their life at risk, because MLK already did it and we have already made a lot of progress on the issues that MLK addressed.
Really? You have significant reading comprehension issues. I never said anything of the sort. Try rereading my posts again.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
No, that speech is timeless and could apply to any oppressed minority in human history. King's speech applies to all humans and is a lesson to humanity to be remembered.
I don't see how you can say such crap considering atheists are a hated minority and gays cant get married. And the fact that the republican party is trying to turn back the clock on voting rights.
Nothing that addresses the struggle for human dignity is ever "less relevant". Thanks for shitting on not only King but also Philip Randolph (1889-1979), labor organizer prior to King. A. Philip Randolph (1889-1979), labor organizer AND ATHEIST
Randolph was the founder of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, the first predominantly black union. He helped convince President Franklin Roosevelt to desegregate military production factories during World War II, and organized the 1963 March on Washington with the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. AND AN ATHEIST.
Another black atheist , Hubert Henry Harrison promoted positive racial consciousness among African-Americans and is credited with influencing A. Philip Randolph and the godfather of black nationalism, Marcus Garvey. Harrison proudly declared his atheism and wrote, "Show me a population that is deeply religious and I will show you a servile population, content with whips and chains, … content to eat the bread of sorrow and drink the waters of affliction."
King's speech is relevant worldwide when gays and Christians and atheists in Iran are oppressed. King's speech is relevant when girls and women are still sold into marriage and cant drive or vote. King is still relevant today when rape is condoned and blamed on women. King isn't just about blacks, King represents all human struggle.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Martin Luther King's speech was not about gays, atheists, women, rape or generic human struggle. He was very specific in the speech. If you got up and gave that speech at a gay rights rally without significant modification and no one had ever heard it before, people would be looking at you going "what the fuck are you talking about?" While many of the ideas behind the speech are applicable to a wide variety of oppressed groups, the speech itself is not. It was very specific and given during a specific time talking about a specific issue.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
NO SHIT because at the TIME he was in the majority minority who was the target. Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it.
His life still applies as an example as to the cruelty of an ignorant majority and the courage of compassion in the face of that cruelty. Remember that the next time a theist condemns you to hell.
His life is also why I warn atheists not to say "When we become the majority we will treat you better".
The lesson is that NO human should have to go through what he did just to have basic human dignity. His life and struggle is that of all humans. His speech certainly was specific for his time, but it should apply to the future otherwise we will do to others what was done to him.
You are an idiot considering that at least in America atheists are the most hated minority.
All I see you doing by quoting his speech is nothing more than tokenism. Just like gay marriage. And all these new voter ID laws will hurt these very people he talked about in his speech. Nice going hypocrite.
Please don't ever quote him again, you have no fucking clue what his life means to all of humanity.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ironic coming from someone who can't seem to remember the history of the thread.
I never said we can't learn important lessons for MLK. I said that he was great precisely because of the time in which he said what he said. Which you agreed with in your first sentence. The whole point of my original comment was that Abba was great for supporting Gays when it was mostly a slur and they put their careers at real risk. Which makes pointing out going to a gay pride rally today rather like pointing out that Al Gore went to a climate change summit. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
And no, atheists are not the most hated minority. Anarchists have the market cornered on that one.
WTF? What does any of this have to do with voter ID laws? Do you even know my position on ID laws? I'm not sure I have ever discussed the topic on this site. Do I strike you as the kind of person who is a fan of government issued ID's? As someone who thinks government representatives should have the power to demand to see ID?
No. I will quote MLK whenever I deem it relevant whether you like it or not.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Ok MR states rights on gay marriage.
Who the fuck cares if someone is shouting "THE EARTH ROTATES AROUND THE SUN" does it for hundreds of years until people catch up?
When you say "it shouldn't be a surprise" that ABBA supported gays then and does so now, you give yourself away by saying that..
Like I said before. If you are in support of gays, then your response defies you. If gays are equal to you in rights, then it should not take the same amount of time for them to get married as it did for the Vatican to accept the heleocentric reality of our solar system.
You cannot support gay rights and claim states can be fuckass dumbfuck bigots when the supremacy clause can easily over ride bigoted bullshit.
If you support gays then the only proper thing you should have said about ABBA in your first response should be simply "GOOD FOR THEM". But that is not what you did. It should not matter how long they have supported gays.
MLK IS HUMANITY like NEDA in IRAN and Malala and Jews of WW2.
Empathy is what keeps greed and monopolies in check. Remember the story you admitted to in locking yourself out of your car. A friend brings you the spare. A greedy asshole overcharges you.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ridiculous. What the Constitution says about what level of government has the power to regulate marriage is completely separate from my personal position on the issue. The Constitution doesn't outlaw bigotry. In fact, it has allowed far worse laws like slavery and we had to have Constitutional amendments to change it. Whether you or I like it, the Constitution clearly gives authority to regulate marriage to the states. I happen to think the government should follow the Constitution and if we want to change it there is a legal process to pass an amendment.
As far as marriage is concerned, I do not support gay marriage. I do not support heterosexual marriage. Marriage is a religious institution that has been given preferential treatment by the government. I don't think government should give preferential treatment to one living arrangement over others. I don't think any level of government should have the power to regulate marriage. Unfortunately for me, the Constitution says that the states can.
I said "um so" because what you were saying is not news and not worthy of a thread. As evidenced by the fact that no one else has bothered to even stop in and say "hi".
I don't consider AAA greedy assholes. They saved me a lot of trouble for a very reasonable price. Even if I had been able to reach a friend who could get my spare keys it would have taken them a couple hours. AAA had me inside my car in less than 15 minutes. Then another greedy asshole went to work and came up with the ingenious idea of a key fob that makes it impossible to lock your keys in the car, so I will fondly remember the "good old days" of locking keys in the car like I now remember the days of the rotary phone. And lets not forget the greedy assholes like you who made it possible for me to have a pretty tasty sandwich for lunch without cooking or cleaning. All those greedy assholes who go to work for no other reason than their personal desire to pay their bills are the ones who make life so comfortable in the USA. Greed is good.
Virtually everything you have that makes your life more comfortable was made by someone who couldn't possibly have any empathy for you- they don't know you, will never meet you and if your name is in the obituaries tomorrow it will probably be completely unnoticed. If you die in a real splashy way you might get a brief "Oh that is sad" and they will forget tomorrow and go about their life. It is a completely unrealistic and selfish view to expect everyone in the world to have empathy for you. Newsflash: you are not that important.
You don't have empathy for everyone. Hell, you support killing people in Syria just because Bama said it is a good idea. Every argument you have is based on "me me me" "I want, I want, I want" And you certainly don't go to work everyday primarily because you have empathy for the customers. If your employer stopped paying you, there is no way you would be there.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
DP
The irony is that you decry "corporate greed" and portray government force as the solution when many corporations already provide equal treatment to gay couples. Walmart, the epitome of corporate greed, is now going to provide the same benefits to gay couples- married or unmarried- that it provides to heterosexual couples.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-28/wal-mart-same-sex-benefits-puts-pressure-on-hold-outs.html Have they suddenly become a compassionate company with all this great empathy? Nope. They are doing it simply because it attracts higher quality employees.
Many banks now offer the same loans, many insurance companies offer the same joint insurance. As usual, greedy companies react more quickly to changes in consumer sentiment. Companies reflect the morality of their consumers. If their consumers care about the environment, the company will care, if they care about benefits for gay couples, the company will care. Why? Because companies that give consumers what they want make more profit. Companies that don't adapt will either find a niche of consumers that agree with them, or they go out of business. As usual, the government is way behind the curve.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Thank you for proving my point.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And I'd also like anyone here who has problems with my arguments, to explain at any point in human evolution, where a majority has not to some extent oppressed or marginalized another minority?
I still hold that the lesson of slavery, Native Americans, the holocaust , MLK, Harvey Milk, Malala, is all the same. It is the human struggle against oppression.
All 7 billion humans, are minorities and majorities depending on point of view and physical location. And both majority and minority are part of the larger common existence which includes BOTH cruelty and compassion.
MLK for his time had to deal with oppression of blacks. But his supporters were all races including atheists. If alive today MLK would be fighting for jobs for ALL RACES for the middle class and working poor. He'd be for fast food workers and for Wall Mart protestors. He'd be for unions and higher wages. He'd be for cheaper higher education and universal health care.
The key to equality is always economics. Unfortunately there still are certain segments of our population who still suffer more of a pay gap between top and bottom. Woman, blacks and Latinos still on average make less than white men. But the pay gap between the middle and bottom vs the top is killing all of us long term.
King would want better economics for all of us.
The economic floor has collapsed and the safety net has been destroyed by the right and tea party types who are owned by the likes of the Koch Brothers who use race to divide the working class. The only way to stop them is to understand King's message. If we don't the future majority will simple do the same thing economically to a new minority that was done to them.
Fear is what the 1% use to get those hurt the most by their tactics to get them to vote against their own self interest. Religion and race are the way they do it.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
quite frankly, i think the whole issue of "states' rights" is antiquated bullshit. maybe it was relevant in the 18th century, but now it's a barrier to pretty much everything. i can't bitch too much about obama when kentucky politics have been fubar for at least 20 years. i can't think of any body more deserving of having its power taken away than the kentucky government.
as the great czechoslovak dissident and later president vaclav havel once wrote, the US should properly be called the united provinces. the sooner we recognize what the "states" really are the better.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Bullshit, homosexuals have higher incomes than heterosexuals. Not everything is about economics.
http://www.experian.com/blogs/marketing-forward/2012/07/20/sim-a-look-at-household-income-and-discretionary-spend-of-lesbian-gay-and-heterosexual-americans/
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
A. ) You're doing a fair job of fear mongering yourself Brian ...you just focus on a different set of enemies. ( Who'da thunk ? )
B. ) Also, maybe you could get those obscenely wealthy Democrat supporting 1%'ers like Michael Moore, Matt Damon or George Clooney to open up their giant, gated mansions and let the homeless people move in with them to show how much they really care about the economically disadvantaged ? Or even just donate the majority of their wealth to charity ? How many limo's and swimming pools do they need anyway ?
Religion and race are both excellent ways to manipulate others. Attorney General Eric Holder, "Reverend" Al Sharpton, "Reverend" Jesse Jackson and your bi-racial President have been making politically inflammatory speeches for months using that exact method. Can you say "Trayvon" or "white Hispanic" ?