Vendetto Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='lordcaspen' post='1656460' date='Jan 21 2009, 00.15']Vendetto, Me, too! I tell you, those shadowy corporate overlords know what's best [i]every[/i] stinkin' time. Why bother them with a silly thing like disclosure? It'll only get in the way.[/quote] There's a huge difference between disclosing a person who donates to a cause and a corporation who donates to one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Mord Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Vendetto, [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656462' date='Jan 20 2009, 23.17']There's a huge difference between disclosing a person who donates to a cause and a corporation who donates to one too.[/quote] Without transparency, though, how do we know which is which? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vendetto Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='lordcaspen' post='1656463' date='Jan 21 2009, 00.18']Vendetto, Without transparency, though, how do we know which is which?[/quote] Well, how about reaching a middle ground? Don't disclose individual people unless they're CEO's of corporations, and disclose the information of corporations that donate to political causes. simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656457' date='Jan 21 2009, 00.13']Right which is why it won't be forgotten. I honestly don't care either way. It doesn't affect me, so I have no purpose to vote for or against it. (That and I'm in New Mexico) My original post on this thread was that it's wrong for them to release the information they did. I am 100% against transparency.[/quote] Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalThor Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 I too am glad I got caught up on this thread before it gets hacked to bits [quote name='Kay Fury' post='1656348' date='Jan 21 2009, 06.53']Also, my bet is on Lord of the North in the cagematch, and from the pictures I have seen of him, I am hoping it is [b]a shirtless oiled cagematch[/b].[/quote] Eew, icky! That would be...unnatural to watch. (Though if it were two girls it would be hawt. :o ) [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656366' date='Jan 21 2009, 07.04']Dude, you and so many other people are getting way too worked up over this. This, is an internet board. You are never going to meet me, and you'll never come face to face with me. Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm not the one that's voting against it. Obviously the state of California is. So get over it. I just don't believe in it. [b]I won't vote for it either way[/b].[/quote] Because you weren't in CA or at all? It seems you would, because of the strength of your convictions, want to take a stand against this obvious perversion of the natural order. [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656462' date='Jan 21 2009, 09.17']There's a huge difference between disclosing a person who donates to a cause and a corporation who donates to one too.[/quote] I don't see why. Corporations are 'entities' as are individuals. Individuals should be held accountable for their beliefs and actions in the same way that corporations are to their stockholders. Why draw the line at CEOs? How about sole proprietors? Teachers? (We wouldn't want those damn liberal hippie teachers potentially spouting off things against the natural order of things to our children now would we?) For that matter why wouldn't CEOs have the right to personal privacy in the first place, isn't it just a collective corporate policy in the first place? edited for a bit of clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
potsherds Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656446' date='Jan 21 2009, 08.04']Very true, I was actually seriously considering moving to Canada... They have free healthcare.. ^_^[/quote] Please don't. Ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 :lmao: I am soooo glad I got to read this thread before the mods got to it. Made my morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashiara Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='MinDonner' post='1656506' date='Jan 21 2009, 10.56']:lmao: I am soooo glad I got to read this thread before the mods got to it. Made my morning.[/quote] I actually read this thread before I left for work and I was concerned that husband would miss it, but I see he managed to see it afterall. I guess the mods are busy elsewhere. It made me laugh a lot at first. I told LooN that earlier, it entertained me lots. But in the same instance such obvious bigotry made me sad. It still does. I've said it before. I see no reason for such discrimination, gay people should be allowed to marry, same as heterosexuals. They should have the exact same rights we have. And, to take a stand on the original question, transparency is cool. Threatening the people who donated isn't, but deciding not to buy anything from their businesses is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lany Freelove Cassandra Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656343' date='Jan 20 2009, 23.52']Like I said before that's just what I believe. Gays can have domestic partnerships.[/quote] I have a question: I have no religion (ok, I don't go to church, we all know I'm a Witch ;) ), I am unable to procreate. Should I be able to marry a much younger man who has never had children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Vendetto, [quote name='Vendetto' post='1656270' date='Jan 20 2009, 23.11']Gay marriage is not a right.[/quote] Marriage is a limited right (barred to certian relations and below a certian age). It confers certian priviliges upon those who choose to marry. Among those priviliges are not having to draft a will to pass property to your spouse when you die. The presumption that your spouse is your next of kin and can speak for you when you are incappacitated without executing a power of attorney granting that authority to your spouse. There are also tax and insurance benefits to being married. All of these priviliges are denied to homosexual couples but are open to heterosexual couples. What harm is done by allowing homosexuals to solemnize their unions? Religious conservatives fear of homosexual marriage is irrational. [eta] The ninth amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifically states that the enumaration of individual rights in the bill of rights does not preclude the existence of other rights not enumarated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Oh. My. Fucking. God. I go out for ONE NIGHT to enjoy some socialization (read: beer) with Mr. X, and I come back in the AM and there are boarders calling each other fairies?! In any case, to those who read the insults and flames on both sides, I apologize that none of the mod team was online last night to deal with it when it happened. [i]Fairies[/i]?! :stunned: In any case, going to try to clean it up. Or close it. Whichever makes the most sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray the Enforcer Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 OK, as the thread is at 390, I am just going to close it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.