Private Discrimination

[syntax252]

The technical definition of a "public corporation" is one that is traded on one of the stock exchanges. People other than the owners have invested in it' date=' so it needs to answer to its stockholders.

[/quote']

 

And that is where, to me, it is a stretch.

 

To refer to a business as "public" just because it is publicly traded is just another way to introduce Socialism into a Capitalist economy.

 

I have no problem with government regs (now here I am talking strictly about discrimination--not safety issues and other things) on a business that are doing work for the government, because as long as everybody's money is paying for those contracts, it is no more that fair that everybody have an equal opportunity to provide the labor.

 

That is no different that integration of the schools, for the same reason, but absent that, I would prefer that the government stay out of businesses that are really private.

 

If 1 person owns a business, it is private. If 2 people own a business, it is a partnership, but still private. If 1,000,000 people own a business, why is it not still a private business? These people are the owners of that business, they can vote the proxies on their shares, and if they don't want to be involved is a business, they don't have to buy the stock in the first place. Why isn't it a private business?

[Phi for All]

And I still say "as long as that is the law" we will have to live with it.

 

That does not mean that I can't have an opinion of the law and thoughts about how the law came to be.

I agree completely.

 

I don't think I indicated that the fact that the law said such and such made it morally right' date=' I think what I said in the "pledge" thread (if indeed that is what you are referring to) was that the issue under discussion would be decided by the SCOTUS and we would have to live with their decision.[/quote']In the other thread, you implied that since it was a decision for the SCOTUS, all my opinions were merely guesses. It's like saying, "Since it's a legal decision that you have no say in, your opinion is meaningless", which struck me as odd in a debate forum.

 

The same applies in this case, we will have to live with it. We don't have to like it.

Exactly the way we have to live with the SCOTUS decision on the pledge. See where I was coming from? Of course we're all entitled to our opinions. I would go one step further and say that it is our duty as free citizens to challenge laws we feel are unjust. Challenge, not flout or break.

[syntax252]

 

In the other thread' date=' you implied that since it was a decision for the SCOTUS, all my opinions were merely guesses. It's like saying, "Since it's a legal decision that you have no say in, your opinion is meaningless", which struck me as odd in a debate forum.[/quote']

 

The point I was attempting to make was that the pronouncements that the term under discussion was unconstitutional were premature, since the SCOTUS had not made that decision yet.

 

If you will remember, no one said "I think" the words are unconstitutional, they were saying simply that those words are unconstitutional. There is a not so subtle difference.

[swansont]

HUH???

 

So' date=' if I said that I [b']think[/b] that intelligence life exists outside the solar system, I would be stateing it as a fact that I had knowledge thereof?

 

I can't really tell if your being obtuse is deliberate or not. Are you really this confused about the difference between fact and opinion?

 

Whether or not life exists outside the solar system is not a known fact, and cannot be checked. What is said in the Constitution is and can. You can't have an opinion about what is actually stated in the document. It either is or it isn't.

[syntax252]

Whether or not life exists outside the solar system is not a known fact' date=' and cannot be checked. What is said in the Constitution is and can. You can't have an opinion about what is actually stated in the document. It either is or it isn't.[/quote']

 

I deleted your first sentence because it was not relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Where you lost it in regards to my post is that I was not stateing an opinion about what was writtin in the constitution, I was stateing an opinion about how the constitution should have been interpreted in the case under discussion.

 

See the difference?

[YT2095]

any chance we can get this back to the Original Topic soonish!?

[syntax252]

any chance we can get this back to the Original Topic soonish!?

 

Hey, YT, that would be fine with me.......

 

But old whats-his-name wants to go off on a tangent for some reason.

[YT2095]

I see, ok then, let`s see if you canTeach by example and get back on topic then

 

sounds fair doesn`t it?

[swansont]

Where you lost it in regards to my post is that I was not stateing an opinion about what was writtin in the constitution' date=' I was stateing an opinion about how the constitution [b']should[/b] have been interpreted in the case under discussion.

 

See the difference?

 

That may be what you meant to say, but that's not what you said. See the difference?

 

Do you also understand that the "rolleyes" icon is usually seen as being sarcastic in nature? As in, rolling your eyes? You use it a lot, and it may change the perception of how your posts are received. The icons basically take the place of inflection in speech, and add context.

 

Sorry YT. I'm done here.

[syntax252]

That may be what you meant to say' date=' but that's not what you said. See the difference?

 

Do you also understand that the "rolleyes" icon is usually seen as being sarcastic in nature? As in, rolling your eyes? You use it a lot, and it may change the perception of how your posts are received. The icons basically take the place of inflection in speech, and add context.

 

Sorry YT. I'm done here.[/quote']

 

Oh, on the contrary, I said precisely what I said I said.

 

And about the rolling eyes, of course I use them to add an inflection to what I post. Isn't that what icons are for?

 

Now, what were we discussing?