Posted on 12/21/2004 9:55:35 AM PST by St. Johann Tetzel
The only place that will put up with me...I'm self employed. A Merry and Blessed Christmas to you.
A lot of us are self-employed, it would appear...does that imply you're an island with no bills and no one to account to financially?
In other words, if you assume an automatic unethical bias in someone contracting with Target, then it behooves you to be more forthcoming about who you're doing business with, instead of simply arrogantly demanding that information in their tagline of someone else. Instead, all we get is little teasers about the demands you put on your office staff (they'd better say "Merry Christmas" at your/their workplace) and about your being self-employed (for whatever reason that might be aside from being intolerant and/or intolerable -- at least, that's the implication I perceived).
Why don't you trot out your financial biases in a tagline for our convenience, as you demand of others?
That Target is in bed with the sodomites is unsubstantiated. That Target caved to pressure from the sodomites is a logical and reasonable conclusion given the articles in the World Net Daily and AgapePress links provided, as well as the article that started this thread.
The two publications you cite as well as your original article are every bit as biased toward their particular views as you have accused me of being.
I disbelieve the original article, obviously. The second and third are well-known for being outspoken opponents of homosexuality. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Nowhere in any of the three articles, though, does it state anything but suspicions, innuendo and supposition.
Certainly may end up being true-- but then again, the ACLU is a helluva a legal club to hold over someone's head.
Well, just as soon as I post on a thread in which a subject is discussed in which I have a financial interest, I will change my tagline to accomodate you.
Until then, see my current tagline...Obviously, its not a financial bias, but it IS a bias of mine nonetheless.
And also being a student of human nature, I will, of course, take you at your word that no conflict of interest exists-- other than the biases everyone brings into every situation.
I'm an somewhat intolerant person and a self employed professional with a doctorate degree, but I'm not always intolerable. In fact, I'm usually only intolerant of fools, and certain folks on Forums like this who are intolerable.
You're reduced to indicting people again -- I'm so surprised.
Really?
We happen to know," the CFI spokesman explains, "that the Target Corporation has been under enormous pressure from homosexual activists to dump The Salvation Army because [it] won't give domestic-partner benefits [to its employees]."
In fact, Knight says homosexual activists have been after The Salvation Army for a long time...
Also, Rick Garcia, director of the homosexual lobby group Equality Illinois, even admitted recently on WYLL's The Walsh Forum radio program that homosexual activists have pressured Target to stop supporting The Salvation Army.
The director of a homosexual lobby group publicly admitting that "homosexual activists have pressured Target to stop supporting The Salvation Army" constitutes "suspicions, innuendo and supposition" in your mind? Please explain.
Thanks!
"Doctor???" (Buckaroo Bonzai to Prof. Emilio Lizardo in that "silly movie for smart people")...
I guess most people don't need to be graced with the title of "Doctor" to call other people fools, but I don't make a habit of that.
Actually, come to think of it. That's more consideration than you paid me. I, too, happen to be self-employed.
You weren't ready to give me the benefit of any doubt, even after I had come clean of my own volition. Several of your posts demanded that I preface my statements with a bias that I freely admitted.
Now, I'm curious. Are you doing marketing research for Walmart, or some other retail establishment that competes with Target? Are you a member of the clergy with an axe to grind with any organization that doesn't stick to the Right?
Happy to be of service.
You're reduced to indicting people again -- I'm so surprised.
If you feel indicted, please accept my biased but sincere apologies.
Assuming I believe the guy (and there doesn't seem to be any reason not to) it states that Target was pressured, not that Target gave into said pressure. It also doesn't spell out what type of pressure was brought to bear.
Could be chest-thumping for all I know.
The Left is always on the lookout for simpering baby boomers like yourself.
No.
or some other retail establishment that competes with Target?
No.
Are you a member of the clergy with an axe to grind with any organization that doesn't stick to the Right?
Nope. just a canservative Catholic layperson.
But I did receive this email (Somebody has to keep an eye on the enemy) from the Rainbow Law folks (which is why people couldn't find it at the link provided, its their weekly email update.)
That was my take on it, too; it pays to think through things before you jump (but that counsel needs to go elsewhere, as I can see you already understand that)...
I guess most people don't need to be graced with the title of "Doctor" to call other people fools, but I don't make a habit of that.
You asked what I do, I answered. For that you continue the ad hominems. Hmmm...
I am reminded of a sign posted at a former place of employment that said:
WE DON'T ACCEPT EXCUSES, ONLY RESULTS.
i BELIEVE, oops, I believe your favorable opinion of Target is based on buying into the party line, or, belief that all Target says is true.
I am a bit more cynical and see their excuse as a lame pretense to be politically correct, and I see the banning of the red kettles as part of a systematic discrimination against Christianity (not systematic on the part of Target, but systematic on the part of the entire world) and Target is the one joining the bandwagon.
I saw a post on a thread about a month ago where a freeper was citing case law that invalidated Targets supposed legally had to excuse. I believe the post was directed to you but went without response, as I remember. I tried to ping that guy here again without result, but suffice it to say that I don't accept Targets party line, and if upper management is anything like the lower management I deal with (I work for Target too) they are completely FOS and use false pretenses regularly.
One sign of the truly dogmatic is that they accept their dogma without question. That's not to accuse the dogma of being incorrect, just that some people are intellectually lazy and prefer to have their dogma gift-wrapped and handed to them.
An unfortunate by-product of this is that those dogma-tized are unable to defend any position they take under said dogma-- it's not in their programming, and therefore not important to defend.
Unfortunately, this renders them totally worthless to convince any one of anything that their dogma is worth defending.
It's tragic, really.
Good observations. I agree.
Could be chest-thumping for all I know.
Could be.
But its more than enough to raise the evidence at hand from "suspicions, innuendo and supposition" to firm (if not yet verified) circumstantial evidence, no? In no way however does it indict Target of being in bed with the sodomites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.