Previous -1 - 6
Far from boycotting Chick-Fil-A, my family chooses to give them our business for the very reason that they are closed on Sundays and have a business culture that shares our values. I'm sure I'm not alone. Statistically, well educated traditional structured families tend to be a very productive part of society, are conservative, and are a good market to target. I will always try to support conservative leaning business just as the left will most likely do the same with regard to business that has declared itself to support their causes. Nothing wrong with that.
automatically better, not does it mean the motives of the expanding United States were evil. It is smug indeed to look back on history through one's own idealized prizm and declare how things "should have been". It is another think to publicly obsess over the countries perceived failures and trot them out for public display at a time when we celebrate the founding of this great country, and the hard won freedoms we currently enjoy but are so fragile at this point in our history. Being objective is not hatred, but looking back on history to so quickly apply the label of evil is not objective.
C'mon "there's just a lot of evil". Lest we think the country too evil, if the early county had vacilated in its growth to ponder the "lofty" ideals of today's elite there would be no discussion of race politics, but there there most likely wouldn't be many blacks in the country. The country would not have gone much west of the Appalachians and certainly not west of the Mississippi. And the west wouldn't be filled with the descendants of native americans, it would have been ruled by the other imperialist countries on the move. How well has that worked for Mexico, Central and South America. So the facts are that many native american populations were killed, displaced and consigned to reservations. This doesn't make the likely alternatives
They are not benevolent. But then again it is not the role of any company to be benevolent. They are just companies. Governments shape the regulatory environment in which companies including financial institutions operate. And, as Mike points out, those policies can have extremely adverse effects on both companies and consumers. I feel the government's role is the most insidious because it is the enabler. If there were no FDIC, and, as Mike suggests, currencies were backed by gold and regulation stripped to allow lenders to carry the risk of bad business practices, it would be the consumer who would benefit. Bad businesses would be allowed to fail along with those willing to do business with them.
a turn around is always a bad thing.
You call it "Vulture" capitalism. OK, but most companies that seek capital from venture capitalists do so because they can not secure funding from other traditional sources (banks and the stock market). This is usually because the are in some degree of financial distress. In many cases this capital breathes some life into companies to give them a chance when failure is looming and they have exhausted all other financing options. The fact that they are in that situation usually means some painful overhaul will be needed and required by those willing to use their capital because they see some potential. Doesn't always work this way but you make it sound like someone making their resources available to an ailing company in an attempt to help
In response to:

Romney Understands America

brutus1 Wrote: May 15, 2012 7:30 PM
"That said, your values will not always be the object of public admiration. In fact, the more you live by your beliefs, the more you will endure the censure of the world."
In response to:

Conservatives and Gays

brutus1 Wrote: May 09, 2012 6:51 PM
There is one big difference. A homosexual union cannot beget children. It is impossible. One of the traditional functions of marriage is to bring children into the world. To call a hetorosexual union a "marriage" based on hundreds of years of tradition is simply maintaining that definition for what it historically represents. I don't see how that deprives homosexual couples of their basic civil rights. Since when was having a union labeled "marraige" a basic civil right?
Previous -1 - 6