Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think that was a compliment.

I'm sure it was, and (to make my own personal mileage out of your achievement), it was so precisely because to argue for the sanctity of process even when that process fails to serve your own values is a rare, and brave, (and rare, Ty) act.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If you look at the literature on the matter, licensed gun owners overwhelmingly do not commit gun crimes and do not resell their weapons to unauthorized people - but point taken.

Yes, but those aren't the people likely to take advantage of your hypothetical "automatic weapons licenses for everyone!" day of civil disobedience.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
and rare, Ty

You may say that I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ah, okay. Theresa's a hypocrite. Excellent point.

A hypocrite is someone who professes a belief that is actually in conflict with what they do.

My point is 1) she has no "belief" in the first place about Walmart, and even thoses Demmy ladies in St. Louis know that, and 2) she didn't take any action with the stock- I'm sure she doesn't manage it.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, but those aren't the people likely to take advantage of your hypothetical "automatic weapons licenses for everyone!" day of civil disobedience.

Again, apples. You would then be saying automatic marriage licenses for everyone - even dog/man.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
A hypocrite is someone who professes a belief that is actually in conflict with what they do.

My point is 1) she has no "belief" in the first place about Walmart, and even thoses Demmy ladies in St. Louis know that, and 2) she didn't take any action with the stock- I'm sure she doesn't manage it.

You ignore the distinction between belief, and profession of belief.

She professed to a belief regarding WalMart, in that they are destroying America because of their rapacious (sp?) profit-seeking, but she is willing to reward that rapacity (sp?) by purchasing their stock because that rapacity (sp?) causes her investment to rise in value, and her purchasing of the stock drives up the stock price (through simple s/d), which feeds the rapacity, which . . . well, you know.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
You ignore the distinction between belief, and profession of belief.

She professed to a belief regarding WalMart, in that they are destroying America because of their rapacious (sp?) profit-seeking, but she is willing to reward that rapacity (sp?) by purchasing their stock because that rapacity (sp?) causes her investment to rise in value, and her purchasing of the stock drives up the stock price (through simple s/d), which feeds the rapacity, which . . . well, you know.

Couldn't read the underlying article. Does she manage her own investments? That seems unlikely, and I have to wonder if she even knows she owns Walmart stock.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Couldn't read the underlying article. Does she manage her own investments? That seems unlikely, and I have to wonder if she even knows she owns Walmart stock.

I'm guessing you're probably correct, but I think that when someone with a huge portfolio goes on the active stump and calls out WalMart like she did, she should first check her holdings. If she is going to lay claim to the ethical investor contingent, she needs to take affirmative action to be one.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Again, apples. You would then be saying automatic marriage licenses for everyone - even dog/man.

Huh?

"Automatic" in my sentence modified "weapons", not "licenses."

I'm not sure what an "automatic marriage" is.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Couldn't read the underlying article. Does she manage her own investments? That seems unlikely, and I have to wonder if she even knows she owns Walmart stock.

You could say the same about Cheney and Halliburton.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm guessing you're probably correct, but I think that when someone with a huge portfolio goes on the active stump and calls out WalMart like she did, she should first check her holdings. If she is going to lay claim to the ethical investor contingent, she needs to take affirmative action to be one.

You're probably right. But there's a difference between being careless and actively hypocritical.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
You ignore the distinction between belief, and profession of belief.

She professed to a belief regarding WalMart, in that they are destroying America because of their rapacious (sp?) profit-seeking, but she is willing to reward that rapacity (sp?) by purchasing their stock because that rapacity (sp?) causes her investment to rise in value, and her purchasing of the stock drives up the stock price (through simple s/d), which feeds the rapacity, which . . . well, you know.

Okay- even buying into your definition- it is de minimis compared to Gore's anti-smoking dead sister pitch, and thus she should get a pass.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Couldn't read the underlying article. Does she manage her own investments? That seems unlikely, and I have to wonder if she even knows she owns Walmart stock.

The link to the Drudge thing just said: "Another thing that drives me crazy, and I hope I don't offend anyone here, is WAL-MART," Mrs. Kerry told a group of Democratic women activists at a luncheon in St. Paul last Tuesday. "They destroy communities."

Not sure where bilmore got the big words like rapaciousness.

Even if she doesn't manage her own portfolio, she possibly could tell the managers not to invest in WalMart. I'm not sure where Drudge got the list of her investments, but if she has some kind of blind trust subject to disclosures she might not even be able to tell her investment managers what not to invest in.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You could say the same about Cheney and Halliburton.

I think a bunch of what Cheney had was options and stuff in addition to actual stock. And he knew he had it because it was part of his no doubt hotly-contested compensation package.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You could say the same about Cheney and Halliburton.

You're thinking Cheney forgot that he used to work for Halliburton and that he continues to have an interest? And you're comparing that to the chances that Heinz Kerry manages her own portfolio and knows about investments that account for less than 1% of that portfolio?

Somehow, I think not.