Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care

The right to keep and bear arms seems completely moderate to me.

"republicans views"..... wahahahaha

 

Individual,

' See what you've done?

 

Your first sentence is totally correct, which is surprising considering the quote of my later post which is key to understanding the previous posts you then question.

I was not saying that I wanted to force people out, but was responding to the post below:

I don't think only right wingers are hateful, but am displaying how by broadly labeling things allows labels to be easily and purposely misused.

To what end is labeling views as Left and Right wing put to use? There is no way every issue can be rolled up into a clearly defined view of those on the Left and those on the Right, and the only useful purpose is a divisive one.

I think we need many more free thinking individuals, but are the 98% really liberals?

Does any of this give you a better understanding of what I believe?

 

fuck papa john whos name sounds like popping a shit

 

StpLSD25,

Based upon the definitions given the labels frequently applied here, wouldn't the post below initially seem to identify the poster to be a Right winger espousing hatred of Papa John? But when Left wingers read the post and with knowledge that Papa John is a business that employs people, it becomes not only acceptable but enjoined.

 

Like the thread title "Papa John Is Mad About Obama Care" which I assume "Mad" is meant to imply anger and could be restated as "Papa John Is Angry About Obama Care". Papa John is simply responding to an action of government which will allow the business to remain profitable, which is the means by which employees are able to receive wages and keep their jobs. Businesses have costs in addition to the wages and salaries they pay, and when government activities increase those costs, businesses have to envision the long term effects and adapt accordingly.

The Labels Left wing and Right wing have been mis-defined, and mis-used to equate similarly to being good or bad, when in my opinion they more accurately should be equated as Left wing being a reduction of freedom based upon government decisions in achieving equality through redistribution, and Right wing being the greatest amount of freedom, allowing each individual to enhance their equality within their society through their efforts, with minimum government involvement except for what a super majority of the people AND States will allow by giving their consent.

There is no one size fits all form of government, which is clearly exhibited by fully understanding the 10th amendment of our Constitution.

I'm hoping that StpLSD25 understands what I mean and agrees at least somewhat with me.

 

i agree in general but things like gay marriage are only banned because the government isnt allowing people freedom. same with pot and as anyone here knows...anything you say about pot being bad can be applied to alcohol. and what about the freedom of choice for a pregnant woman.
anyway,
stephen cobert did a brilliant piece about this while comparing the dems and reps to dinosaurs. a big rep+ and thumbs up to anyone who can find a clip, it was really funny how both partys go against everything that they are supposedly for....i mean both dinosaurs are against what they are supposedly for.

 

Ok and to get back on topic. Would keeping the same prices of pizza at Papa John's hurt the owners? Probably not. Papa John is just raising the prices of his pizza's as a way to show his opinion on Obama Care. He doesn't agree with it and this is his way to boycott it by raising the prices of already expensive pizza. As it is the consumer's right to boycott his businesses by not buying his products. All in all you can make a better tasting pizza at home anyway.

 

Papa John is not boycotting Obamacare, it is simply adding its cost to the price of its' product. You, I, and all others, as a result, are free to exercise our right to purchase or refrain from purchasing pizza from Papa John. Or, as you imply, we are free to create our own pizza, or for that matter open a pizza business to compete with Papa John, paying the employees higher wages, and selling a lower priced and better tasting pizza. So why is there any reason to complain? Papa John has no power at all to force people to purchase its product or become and/or remain employees of it.

 

its so easy yet people will still complain about this stuff.

 

You sound like a politician

 

I suppose that those that have to pay for it are not too happy and those that will benefit from it feel the opposite. Seems logical to me.

 

Are you a personal friend of Papa John? Then how do you know he is not trying to boycott Obama Care? And no I do not know him personally either. I read between the line. If he is not trying to boycott Obama Care or draw attention to his cause then why even mention the reason why he is raising his prices?

 

A product of capitalism is John Schnatter. Why would anyone expect anything different from the human construct known as capitalism? The markets have spoken!

 

Would it really matter if I was a personal friend of Papa John? Actually I have never met him, nor have I met the owners of most every large business I've chosen to spend my money with. How could Papa John boycott Obamacare when to abstain from it would result in the imposition of just another means of accomplishing the same result?
You do much more than read between the line. Of course he is drawing attention to it, and justly so, in providing his consumers with the facts related to the increases in the prices being charged. Eleven cents is not much of a price increase, and even without Obamacare prices of nearly every product are going to continue to rise as the Fed increases the money supply, and devalues the dollar.

Just try boycotting ANY government mandated tax. The market place is the only area where boycotts can take place without retribution.

 

Is this it?
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-co...-control-ad-from-ohio-congressional-candidate
Both Colbert and Stewart have all their clips online, just do a tag search.

What I rarely ever hear is, what business does the govt have in marriage in the first place? This is what I'd like to know... Why does the majority have no problem with the govt even being involved in marriage? Marriage is a function of a church, and the govt has no right telling any church what they can and can't practice. (for the most part)
Don't like that your church is for or against gay marriage? Then consider whether you're in the right church.
Once upon a time the govt wanted to ensure that two people getting married where genetically compatible to procreate. Might be a valid reason.
But somewhere along the way people now seem to think it's ok for the govt to pass "defense of marriage act" and have a say in a religous ceremony.
The most vocal of those are people screaming about govt intrusion in peoples lives.

THAT is the reason I often say that when some people say get the govt out of peoples lives, what they're really saying is "get the govt out of my life, but I want them to tell you what you can do with your life."

It's all fine to throw about the idea of liberty, it's another one to embrace and practice it.

 

What pisses me off is that all those poor and middle class people are going to have insurance!! Why,the very idea is outrageous!! If you don't go get a job--then you deserve to die in some back alley. I'm not paying for other people to get well.

There--how's that. Line up with the right-wing OK?

 

^ I agree 100%

 

Many "Right Wingers" support a State ran healthcare system, where everyone is insured. That is if voted for by the residents that State. Even the evil Mittens. That post is an emotionally driven cheap shot aimed at roughly half of the population. It's equivalent to the jackasses coming in here spouting that all Liberals are socialist commies.

 

i spent an hour looking on stephens site and couldnt find it. it was a while ago and the only part i remember is how he compared the democrat dinos with things that are less government and the rep dinos with things that were big government. it was really one of the best pieces he did which is why its so disappointing that i havnt seen it since.
anyway
as for your comment about marriage being a religious thing, i used to think the same thing. exactly the same thing really, but then i looked up the history of marriage and found out it wasnt a religious thing at all...at least not at the start. religion did get involved in it and i am fine with that. but that dosnt change that the government got involved with it and i dont understand why they did.