Faceman

Members
  • Content count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Faceman

  • Rank
    Newbie

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Branson
  1. Why Other Countries Hate America....

    And Shell is a just a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell...
  2. Reality Tv Shows

    I don't watch reality shows either, so have never seen it, but I understand what prompts the controversy. How would YOU like it if you got fired from your job because you spoke out (whether for or against is not important) about religion or politics or homosexuality away from your job? Put otherwise, do you think it would be OK if you got fired from your job for something you said on this forum? The other issue is the question of whether it is appropriate for the mass media to promote its moral agenda? You expect biased opinions from FOX or CBS or CNN when they are discussing politics or moral issues, but do you think it is right for entertainment programming to espouse whatever their cause is, thus preaching their moral agenda to your children hour after hour, day after day, year after year?
  3. Obama "care"

    I don't know if you are just parroting typical liberal uninformed water cooler talk, or simply have no knowledge of history - recent or past. Republicans have been as active, or more active, than Democrats in trying to address our health insurance and health care issues. It is the absolutely insane, idiotic, and socialist Obamacare that Republicans oppose - not health care reforms. Your accusations are ignorant. Health care has been an ongoing political issue in this country, for both parties, since the 1930's...
  4. Yes, that is the definition of bigot. However, where your reasoning is wrong is to make the assumption that everyone opposed to homosexual marriage is a bigot. Homosexual marriage and homosexual rights are not synonymous - they are two different things. I fully support homosexual rights, always have, and certainly have never discriminated against homosexuals in the workplace or anywhere else. Like many, if not most, Americans, I support civil unions that provide the same rights for homosexual couples that marriage provides for heterosexual couples. A person that supports full rights and acceptance for homosexuals, but opposes homosexual marriage for religious reasons is hardly a bigot - by your, my, or any definition. I recognize that at the current time there are issues with civil unions...legal marriage automatically provides those rights, whereas civil unions provide some, but not all of those rights. From that perspective, I can understand why homosexuals want to use the vehicle of marriage to secure their rights, however from my personal perspective I would rather see laws pertaining to civil unions amended to match the accompanying rights and privileges with those that marriage provide. To many people, myself included, marriage is a holy sacrament, and it is highly unlikely that group will ever accept homosexual marriage - but that does not mean they are bigots or would not accept homosexual unions...
  5. Obama "care"

    Chip on your shoulder? I said nothing negative to you other than to point out that the attitude you initially expressed on this particular issue was an entitlement attitude - which it is, by any reasonable measure. You confuse directness with a rather warped definition of "vitriol". If you consider anything I have said as "cruel and bitter criticism", than you have a very active imagination...
  6. Obama "care"

    Oh, please - I hardly need a business lecture. I am retired from the US Small Business Administration, plus I am a retired commercial banker, and have been (and still am) a business consultant for over 30 years now, to say nothing of having been an "employer" myself for many years. There is nothing wrong with your reasoning and the "whys" about benefits. I have preached to businesses for years about the advantages of paying tghe best possible wages and benefits to attract and retain the most productive employees possible, to minimize training costs, and to maximize efficiency. However, neither benefits nor good wages are entitlements. There is no obligation on the part of an employer to provide benefits or excellent wages. Benefits are manipulated as profits wax or wane, and always have been. In recent years, due to the inability of an incompetent administration, the recession, or slow economy if you prefer, has caused many, if not most, employers to dilute benefits. Many companies have gradually moved to watered down health insurance plans, many have moved from defined benefit retirement plans to straight 401K plans or so-called cash benefit plans. Many have eliminated health insurance formerly provided to retirees. This is all business as usual - when times are good salaries and benefits are good, but when times are bad, both salaries and benefits decline. To believe that an employer should be obligated to increase employee salary commensurate with a drop in benefits is to assume an entitlement attitude - just as I said. If the employer is willing and able to do that, that is great, and everyone is happy. But if the employer decides not to sift the benefit compensation to salary comensation for whatever reason, that is the employer's right. Health insurance is NOT an entitlement from an employer, although the socialist program of Obamacare infringes on that right. Holidays/holiday pay are NOT an entitlement. Sick days/pay is NOT an entitlement. Vacation is NOT an entitlement. We have become a disgustingly entitlement minded society. We all want great benefits - not only for ourselves, but for everyone. But they are not inalienable rights, and we are not entitled to them...
  7. Obama "care"

    Good grief. Entitlement attitude much? Benefits are just that...benefits. If an employer is willing and able to provide them, fine. If circumstances dictate otherwise, so be it. Your attitude reminds me of the union worker that cries like a baby because he made so many employee demands his employer moved his job overseas...
  8. If you find that term offensive, you are exhibiting nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction - certainly not a reaction based upon even the remotest of rational thought. Do you honestly consider homosexuality as normal? Duh. Of course it is abnormal. That doesn't mean it is evil, but it is most certainly abnormal. A ****** is there for a reason - as is a vagina. Duh again. And the consensus of opinion is that true homosexuality is something that people are born with - thus congenital. To find the term congenital abnormality offensive is ignorance at its peak. Six toes are a congenital abnormality, as is Down Syndrome, or any of a thousand other conditions that are present from birth and are not normal. As for the rest of your post, somehow you knee jerk liberals are (predictably) equating failure to condone homosexuality with some sort of mistreatment or discrimination. How many times do I have to say it - I believe in the equal treatment of homosexuals. They are people like everyone else. But I don't, and don't have to, condone homosexuality - and I won't. Acceptance of homosexuality and condoning it are two different things - if you are capable of understanding that. Do you think I haven't and don't have interaction with homosexuals? I have had probably 20 or 30 homosexuals work for me over the years, I have homosexual relatives and friends...I don't condone their behavior, but I fully accept them and have NEVER exhibited prejudicial behavior. I sympathize with the effort for homosexuals to obtain the same rights as everyone else (although through civil unions - not through marriage). If that is not good enough, then tough. If homosexuals seek to be patted on the back for their preference, that is first of all unrealistic, and second of all simply not going to happen. I don't get congratulated and patted on the back for being a heterosexual, so why should a homosexual? The concept is absurd. Why are homosexuals seeking something above and beyond being accepted and treated as equals? With that being said, if a person is experiencing discrimination in the workplace - or elsewhere - then sure, put up the good fight. As I said, I fully support that. But don't insist that I condone a lifestyle choice with which I do not agree, whether it is homosexuality or some other lifestyle choice. I may or may not accept the lifestyle choice, depending upon what it is, but I will not condone it. As to KK's comment about "separate but equal", I don't recall myself or anyone else recommending or intimating separating homosexuals from heterosexuals. Actually, the comment is beyond ignorant - it is both stupid and intentionally inflammatory...
  9. And normally I'd give a horse's patoot what someone thinks of me, but your backwards thinking on the "immorality of today's society" and "brainwashing children to believe that homosexuality is not aberrant behavior" attitude shut me down to your opinion. Haha...yet another "intelligent", rude, and ignorant post. So, anyone with an opinion different than yours has "backward thinking"? Isn't it ironic - you state your opinion, and I accept it without criticism, yet when I state an opposing opinion, you shower me with rude criticism. How very predictable from a hypocrite that complains about the intolerance of others. You should redirect your irrational and emotional anger towards those bigots that DO discriminate against homosexuals - not against people like me that believe homosexuality is immoral but nonetheless believe homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else. Just what is it you want - to have the same rights and treatment as everyone else, or to be congratulated and given a blue ribbon as a reward for your sexual preference? To belittle those that don't condone homosexuality but accept it and support the rights of homosexuals is counterproductive to your objectives...it is a fantasy to even consider that homosexuality will be condoned by everyone, but everyone can, or should, accept it. Can you think logically enough to understand that?
  10. You may be polite and intelligent for all I know. I was referring to your rude, ignorant post - not you...
  11. Your post is vague and not specific...just what is it you need enlightened about? I haven't read every post in detail, but has someone suggested homosexuals be treated as second class citizens?
  12. What Does Everybody Do For Work?

    I have retired 3 times, first in 1986 as an exploration Geophysicist, second in 2005 from the US Small Business Administration, and third in 2010 as Senior Vice President and Manager of Small Business Lending for a statewide bank. Although retired, to keep in the mainstream I do a little consulting part time providing commercial and SBA loan training to bankers and I provide free management counseling to a few businesses that pique my interest...
  13. Politics & Voting

    No, idiotic is not voting at all and then expressing political opinions. The opinion of a person that doesn't vote is meaningless - doesn't count. You don't vote, with one exception, yet in a subsequent post you state: "If we want change, we have to be proactive to get change". That is a hypocritical position. To effect change you must participate. So just how "proactive" are you? Are you active in a political party? Active in politics? Did you campaign for Romney? All I am seeing is hot air coming from someone that does NOT participate and is NOT proactive, and obviously doesn't practice what they preach. If you would participate beyond complaining and criticizing from your easy chair, you might have a better understanding of politics - and your opinion might count...
  14. Obama "care"

    Wow - I don't spend that in 5 years, much less 1...
  15. Obama "care"

    FOX is biased, but at least they extend coverage. The moron media doesn't even extend coverage to liberally negative news. People that only watch mainstream media don't know half of what is going on. So, which would you rather have - biased news only hearing one side, or biased news hearing both sides? I prefer to know what is going on so I can make informed decisions - I'm not one of the masses of ignorant lemmings that blindly follow the leader and then complain about where he leads them...