Comments on: This Grinds My Gear-skiy

By: Burrowowl

Burrowowl — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:36:33 +0000

Regarding the folks who are all butthurt about Proposition 8 (no I didn’t vote for it, yes I’m in California, and no I’m not sympathetic to the day-late fervor of gay rights groups in my state), it strikes me as odd that somebody would support the right of business owners to spend their personal money however the please (such as in support of a political issue) but not support the right of other people to not give that same person any more money.

It is exactly as right for people to campaign against Cinemark as it was for the CEO of Cinemark to donate to the Yes on 8 campaign, and for exactly the same reason.

People are far too easily outraged one way or another these days, and businessmen should be careful about throwing their weight behind controversial issues.

By: I travel for JOOLS

I travel for JOOLS — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 19:13:56 +0000

I think they’re screwing with civil rights when they abuse people because of their vote. And when I say abuse, there have been several instances of abuse such as storming into churches during services and throwing things, etc., knocking people to the ground, etc. Tolerance – yah right.

By: m.v.

m.v. — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:55:43 +0000

That’s my point, you personally can do whatever you want, it’s when you start campaigning you lose me. When things become a cause they are no different then the cause of voting for prop 8.

By: Cara

Cara — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:27:28 +0000

MV said, “I think if you don’t agree with how someone spends his personal money you can do whatever you want (see the paragraph above), but trying to screw with said person’s livelihood is little extreme, coming from a group promoting tolerance.”

Let me break this down for you:

(1) CEO uses personal money to do “bad thing X”
(2) CEO gets that personal money from in the form of a salary paid by his company
(3) Company gets money to pay CEO’s salary from selling a product/service.

Therefore – I am not going to use said company’s product/service because part (even a teensy tiny part) will go to supporting causes with which I vehemently disagree.

Why is it OK to screw with other people’s civil rights, but it’s not OK to screw with his livelihood? My money is not (knowingly) going to go to supporting bigots – period.

By: Doc

Doc — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 05:14:55 +0000

Sorry: you missed my point.

In both cases the President(s) lied/misled/withheld information from Congress.

But at the time, in both cases, Congress assumed/was told it was getting all the inside skinny/intelligence that the American public did not have.

Ergo, in both cases Congress made decisions in spite of the views of the American public becasue they knew they had the inside dope.

And the reason they believed that was because their President had assured them it was true.

Government systems can always be played by those within the system itself. In each case a President gamed teh system to get what he wanted. Afterward, when the facts were finally disclosed, it became too late (for several disparate reasons) to say ‘oops, sorry; we’ll pay for the breakage and head on home then, okay?’

Millions can die, global economies can be wrecked because of single individuals, my friend…

And the game still sucked.