Notably, there was an age divide in support among Morehouse graduates: The alumni sitting to the left gave standing ovations during and after Biden’s speech, while the 2024 graduating class mainly remained seated throughout.
We get it, you’re really dedicated to posting negative things about Joe Biden. “Did not receive a standing ovation from some of the crowd” is really reaching though
I know that if I was a Palestine protestor, and President Biden was going to speak, and the college said that they would immediately just end the ceremony if things got too out of hand, I would immediately think "Well that definitely wouldn't be a good outcome. I better quiet down; I was going to have this big protest, but if it'll end the commencement ceremony entirely, then I won't, because that would attract some attention to the cause I'm trying to promote. It might make the news or something. I'm scared of that outcome and wouldn't want it to happen; that threat is effective."
Your conclusion makes perfect sense that the crowd was mostly filled with people who were seething with contempt for Joe Biden, but cowed into obedient sitting-facing-towards-him by the threat that if they made too much ruckus, it would successfully disrupt the event.
How many Palestinian graduates were there at the HBCU today, genius?
Also, half the staff didn’t want Biden there…
In a split vote, Morehouse faculty votes to award Biden an honorary doctorate.
A procedural oversight turned the faculty vote into a way for staff members to voice their opposition to Biden’s visit. The vote was 50-38, with roughly a dozen people abstaining.
I notice that this conversation has a very particular type of flow -- Innuendo Studios talked about this in Never Play Defense.
Actually, I went back and looked at it's significantly worse than the example the video constructs. The video's example was dishonest, but the exchange was actually pretty coherent. I think this message is a particularly strong example of the flow you've been doing -- where I say the protestors are right and I'm glad that Biden is letting them speak and hope he will take their message on board because what he's doing right now is wrong, and then you get all hostile while lecturing me that not everyone who disagrees with Biden is a Republican. The Republicans in the video are never bad-faith to that comical a level, although the overall flow of "wild new assertion / coherent response / repeat" is pretty similar.
What’s your point? You’re not going to change my mind and I’m not going to change your mind. That was never the goal. There’s a reason I don’t type out a novel for every response like you do. Because I don’t really care. We’re getting Trump again and it’s all Biden’s fault.
Chin up boyo! You said you were gonna keep doing this all the way until the election. That's like 6 more months, you can't get all downhearted about it already just about some messages explaining why this one was bullshit too.
This doesn’t at all say they had to do this “or else,” it only talks about disruptions, not protests, and no one was compelled to be there. You literally started this thread with an article about some students who protested without causing a disruption, dufus
Hey, quick question unrelated to that obviously insane thing you just said: You posted a while back about how upset you were Joe Biden betrayed everyone, after he promised to decriminalize marijuana, and then didn't do it even though he could literally do it at any time he wanted and that's just one more example of him being shit. I listed out the things he had done (basically: federal pardons for possession, telling the DEA to reschedule it, and putting a decriminalization bill through congress), and then I asked you what else you would like him to do.
I think your post got removed as misinformation right after that, so I never got a chance to hear the answer. What else was it that you wanted him to do? That he could do literally any time, that you were upset that he betrayed everyone who voted for him by not doing?
Surely, since your goal is to push Biden left, not to just oppose him at every turn and make sure he doesn't get elected, you are interested in non-propaganda information and discussion on topics like this.
There’s absolutely nothing racist Joe “I don’t want my kids to grow up in a racial jungle” Biden can do at this point to earn my vote. He lost it.
Edit: also, politicians are not your friends. We should also force them to the real left regardless if it upsets some or not. You’re continually wanting to just continue the status quo.
I sorta had a feeling you wouldn't make even the slightest effort to defend that bullshit you had said.
politicians are not your friends
No, politicians are not at all your friends. What you mean when you say "support" for Biden or that Biden betrayed us, or that thing shills sometimes say about "falling in line behind" the Democrats and how they don't want to do it, is very weird to me.
Nobody in politics is your friend. The government is just a big, corrupt, very dangerous machine. It runs on money and propaganda and defense contractors, and sometimes good things come out of it and sometimes bad things, and Biden is one little cog in that machine. That's why I'm comfortable saying good things that Biden did, or that he's doing a very bad thing by enabling a genocide -- I'm not viewing either of those as a statement of my "allegiance." It's just, like, hey I am a free person and here is how I am viewing the world and what the truth is.
Ralph Nader did an talking about productive ways to push the Democrats to the left, and how upset he was at Democratic voters who were throwing away an opportunity to get some concessions from the Biden administration in exchange for their vote. His viewpoint makes a ton of sense to me.
Your viewpoint -- sort of based on emotion, this sort of teenager mentality like "YOU'RE DEAD TO ME NOW I'LL CALL UNCLE TRUMP TO COME OVER AND BURN THE HOUSE DOWN BECAUSE WHO CARES YOU BROKE MY HEART" coupled with a lot of the sins you're accusing him of actually being things he didn't do, is just weird. Like, if you want to push Biden left, fuckin go for it man. Sounds great. But if you've decided that if Trump comes to power and nukes Iran and makes being gay illegal and puts all the Hispanics in camps and cancels the next election, that's just the price the country will pay because Biden said this wrong thing about racism and it was so hurtful to you and he's definitely a bad person and that good person / bad person is even relevant to how to vote, then okay sure. I won't tell you not to. But I don't think you should pretend that I'm the one treating my politicians in a strange parasocial non sensible way.
Lawrence’s quote: “If you want to pull the major party that is closest to what you’re thinking, you must-YOU MUST-show them that you’re capable of NOT voting for them. If you don’t show them you’re capable of not voting for them, they don’t have to listen to you. I promise you that. I worked within the Democratic Party. I didn’t listen or have to listen to anything on the left while I was working within the Democratic Party, because the left had nowhere to go.” – Lawrence O’Donnell on the 2006 documentary, ‘An Unreasonable Man’.
Back in the Clinton/Bush era 20 years ago when he said that, I actually think it made quite a bit of sense. The Democrats were a lot more corporate-friendly (dropping corporate tax instead of raising it like Biden did, boosting the WTO instead of telling them to go fuck themselves like Biden did), and the Republicans weren't trying to kill their political opponents or put minority groups into literal concentration camps.
I'm not even gonna comment on "'they' keep scrubbing it from YouTube."
He’s apparently an idiot, since every time Democrats haven’t won, the entire country has been dragged right.
Immigration is an interesting example of this. Funny enough, when Democrats were in power, policy trended further and further left with amnesty for dreamers and accepting refugees. After losing in 2016, the Democrat position has moved towards stronger enforcement and border security.
If Lawrence has not changed his mind since then, he’s a giant fucking idiot who doesn’t see reality. The problem with not voting for Democrats is that it means Republicans win, and they have a habit of moving all issues to the right.
You want the party to move left? Elect more progressives. Understand why voters are picking moderates over progressives in primaries, and course correct. It isn’t dark money, because there’s been plenty of that thrown around, and fake progressives have had more on hand versus their primary opponents.
I think there’s probably a tendency for a lot of well meaning people to blame Democrats because their civics knowledge is less than comprehensive. And I don’t blame them entirely for that, our education system isn’t great.
And then, even with all the justification all the progressives had for quitting from the political system -- basically on par with if the US was directly sending 19-year-old US citizens over to Gaza and having them blow up hospitals and get their balls shot off, or if Biden himself were approving of the brutalizing of protestors, like sending them to the hospital with nightstick fractures and covered in blood, not "just" pepper spraying them and putting cuffs on them -- I feel like you can draw this absolutely direct line from 1968 and the disillusionment that stemmed from it into the grim nightmare politics that took over in America, because only the assholes were still voting, from Nixon to Reagan to Clinton until now we have just a wreckage of a system that someone from the 60s wouldn't even recognize.
Basically I feel like 2016 was a repetition of that same betrayal, and I'm really hoping that 2024 isn't a repetition of the same fascist takeover that's enabled by it, because now we're much much closer to the edge. Daniel Ellsberg said that all the things Nixon did to him that formed one piece of his collapse and fall when they came to light, they're all legal now.
I think something we often forget is that people can have spot on analysis and very intellectual takes in the past, but it doesn’t necessarily mean their modern takes are also good. Sometimes that’s an inherent thing too because of changing times. People who criticized US actions in the cold war were likely right – but a lot of them have adopted the imperialist position today that Ukraine belongs to Russia and it should be a pawn between NATO and Russia, instead of a self sovereign country that makes its own decisions.
Makes you wonder a bit how things will develop in the future, but I digress.
We’re greedy fucks and vulnerable to bubbles. There’s a concept that humans have a strong internal moral compass and some of us might. Most people though, just go with the flow, and let the people around them guide their morals - this seems to happen especially awfully in religious communities. Weirdly enough a fair number of awful religious people seem aware of how immoral they are and repeat the thought “Without God’s guidance we’d be animals” which just highlights how awful they actually are.
The taxes on the home listed as Steve Garvey’s Palm Desert address are being paid by Sisters in Christ LLC, an organization that includes his sister-in-law as a manager.
The group, based in Utah, has paid $119,203 since 2017 in taxes on the property, according to Riverside County Treasurer-Tax Collector records. Data prior to 2017 was not available. Sisters in Christ is listed as the property owner on tax records as of late March.
I kinda have a feeling a lot of folks were like me, bought it and then never use it. Seemed like a must-have gadget but it really is a phone with a dualsense. No “secret sauce” (digital foundry) to streaming from ps5, just the same experience as every other device capable of streaming ps5 game play.
That’s what I had heard. I would have gotten one for a reasonable price. Or if it had PSP/Vita capabilities baked in. I ended up just getting a backbone for my phone and using remote play instead.
I came in here to note that most skepticism seems to miss what a niche and fixed-function gizmo this is. It has low aspirations and makes them pretty clear just from looking at the thing. Sony wedged a screen amid a controller. Its R&D budget was not deep. They didn’t need to care if most people did not buy one.
I would ask, “what did you buy it for?,” except it’s only for one thing. If you don’t match that single use-case where this thing functions - why would you even consider it?
Most people are full of shit. Where are they going to go? Getting citizenship in another country isn’t easy. “I’ll leave the country if Bush gets elected” was a thing back in the day. Guess how many people actually left? It wasn’t the majority…
I’d love to leave. I desperately want to. But I have no marketable skills (too broke to attend college out of high school, am trying now but still have 2 1/2 years to go, so too long), I’m terrifyingly broke, have a weird-ass employment history from years of undiagnosed mental illness and just recently diagnosed ADHD, and I never learned a second language because shitty education and I don’t pick up languages well from those programs that claim to teach you. If I could go, I’ve have gone already, but nowhere worth going wants me and I get it. I know I’m a loser. I’m stuck on this ship while the cool kids are leaving in the life boats. And yes, I vote, but what does it matter?
Amen. You’ll never hear me whining about that. Anyone desperate enough to risk their life to cross the border has to be escaping hell. I used to live in an area with a lot of immigrants and some refugees and my job put me in contact with them frequently and I never saw any reason to have a problem with any of them. Despite what the media says, they were no worse than any other person, and a lot of them were good people who were clearly doing their best.
I’m pretty sure that you generally can’t do that, in the US at least.
A C-level officer is required generally to act in the best interest of the company, but as long as the genuinely think that what they were doing was an attempt to improve the company in some way, you’d be hard-pressed to ever prove that they weren’t acting in the best interest. You’d have to find physical proof that they were intentionally sabotaging the company, and (probably) no one who is smart enough to become a CEO is going to do that.
I tend to agree with you, and he probably thought he was acting in the company’s best interests, but I also think there’s an argument to be made that he was negligent in doing his market research to ostensibly prevent what transpired.
Additionally, this wasn’t his first time toying with that “pay to buy, pay to use” model. He’d expressed past desires to implement that model, so it could be argued that this was his pet project that he wanted to see happen, and his hubris blinded him to the dangers.
Again, I don’t necessarily think that he wasn’t overly involved in pursuing this direction, but unless it’s proven in court, no one can sue him for losing their job over it.
As it turns out, when you pinky-promise to have free elections in exchange for lifting sanctions, and then walk that back the moment it looks politically inconvenient, the sanctions come back down. What a shocker!
Mhmm. Because America would never interfere in a South American election, or threaten economic harm if they don’t play along, not because it loves democracy, but because they’re filthy socialists.
You know, you’ve usually got pretty reasonable takes. I think some more, and non-American, perspectives on the matter might do you a lot of good.
I majored in international history. I follow international politics closely. The assumption that American diabolism is the default position amongst non-Americans is nothing but fantasy. In some places, the US retains a good reputation - in others, a predominantly negative one - but the fantasies of American diabolists, where the US is always a negative influence and never does anything, even accidentally, correct, is not a majority opinion outside of a small circlejerk of online leftists.
What the fuck does not asking for American invention have to do with US sanctions for blatantly undemocratic activity that’s been roundly condemned by democratic nations both in the region and abroad?
Do you think sanctions on an already struggling nation, for whatever reason, aren’t intervention?
Wait, so sanctions are intervention in your view? Are you willing to stand by that? Because if so, I have a long laundry list of questions to ask you about international affairs.
Why is that Venezuela deserves sanctions and China and Israel, two proven enemies of democracy, do not?
Israel definitely deserves it. China probably deserves it but is too economically intertwined for sanctions not to simply backfire - as the ‘trade war’ of the Trump administration showed.
Sanctions are, by definition, interventionism, a political act in an attempt to force compliance against free market principles (not that I care all that much about those, mind you, but public American policy says it does)
And even disregarding that, do you honestly believe that is all America is doing in Venezuela?
To be clear, I have little doubt Maduro is a dictator. I just question why he’s the only one America seems able to take an actual stance against, and what, exactly, we hope to gain.
And maybe we should ask ourselves worsening an open humanitarian crisis in a way that always, always affects the poor more than the rich is the right course of action anywhere.
(Not counting countries actively invading their neighbors, anyways)
And don’t ask yourself where all those refugees are going to go if Venezuela collapses completely…
And what political ideology has something to gain from yet another “border crisis”
Sanctions are, by definition, interventionism, a political act in an attempt to force compliance against free market principles (not that I care all that much about those, mind you, but public American policy says it does)
If you don’t care about that, why bring it up? Either you do actually care, or you’re blatantly and disingenuously trying to create the appearance of a moral issue regarding the principle when none has been brought up by either party.
And even disregarding that, do you honestly believe that is all America is doing in Venezuela?
Nah, we’re probably also doing some funding of opposition parties and passing along intel. But believe it or not, even the CIA isn’t a 24/7 coup machine.
To be clear, I have little doubt Maduro is a dictator. I just question why he’s the only one America seems able to take an actual stance against, and what, exactly, we hope to gain.
Oh, I know, we’re just punishing Maduro. Singling him out.
Oh, and Assad. And Putin. And Kim. And Lukashenko. And the Ayatollah regime. And elements in the CAR. And Ethiopia. And Mali. And the Sudan. And Afghanistan. And…
And maybe we should ask ourselves if our priority is worsening an open humanitarian crisis in a way that always, always affects the poor more than the rich is the right course of action anywhere.
As opposed to enabling the Maduro regime to fund their continued authoritarian state by the main source of income for their government? The same Maduro regime which has been threatening to invade one of its neighbors, no less, for oil?
The Venezuelan economy was absolutely fucked before sanctions. After sanctions just means that the government can’t pay off its cronies the way it’s accustomed to, weakening its ability to resist outside influence - whether or their own population or of foreign countries.
And don’t ask yourself where all those refugees are going to go if Venezuela collapses completely…
My guy, there are already a massive amount of refugees coming in from Venezuela. Colombia is overwhelmed as is. The Venezuelan government is pissed people are running off, and has reacted by tightening its grip further.
One can’t help but note all those dictators are doing just fine, thanks for asking, even the one who just got 500k of his soldiers wounded or killed in a war he’s going to win if America doesn’t remember who actually needs financial and material support (probably not the country doing a genocide)
Exactly how many of those 7 million Venezuelan refugees were to blame for any of Maduro’s sins? The ones fleeing that economy we helped fuck into ground, mind you.
How many more are you willing to see made? How many do you think need to flee before his regime, somehow, actually topples?
Oh, just by the by? America has been sanctioning Venezuela since Chavez was in charge. You’re probably confused because reporting likes to separate talking about post-crisis sanctions in response to the growing red fascism from acknowledging that they existed prior to the crisis as well.
And, obviously, the worse the humanitarian crisis got, the more the cycle of violence kicks in, the more sanctions we piled on (especially under Trump, obviously), the worse it gets, the more sanctions we place…
One can’t help but note all those dictators are doing just fine, thanks for asking, even the one who just got 500k of his soldiers wounded or killed in a war he’s going to win if America doesn’t remember who actually needs financial and material support (probably not the country doing a genocide)
So now you admit that it’s not about whether Maduro was singled out, that we do actually address a very broad swathe of authoritarian regimes, but now it’s not enough because it hasn’t toppled all of them. Great. Glad we’re making progress in discussing this.
Exactly how many of those 7 million Venezuelan refugees were to blame for any of Maduro’s sins? The ones fleeing that economy we helped fuck into ground, mind you.
How many of those Venezuelan refugees would have fled even if we did keep funding Maduro’s dictatorship and it’s ability to repress and torture dissidents while it drove the economy into the ground? The ones fleeing the regime that has put boots on the street to murder protesters and make mass arrests to the consternation and objection of all of their neighbors and almost every functioning democracy in the fucking world?
Maybe the oil ISN’T the main problem here?
No, it can’t be the authoritarian dictatorship. People LOVE those.
How many more are you willing to see made? How many do you think need to flee before his regime, somehow, actually topples?
We were perfectly willing to raise sanctions in exchange for the very basic behavior of having free and fair elections. We pre-emptively relaxed sanctions as an incentive towards that. And yet the Maduro regime was unwilling to adhere to that very basic requirement after having already explicitly agreed to it with the US. So what should our reaction have been? Said, “Aw, shucks, you really got us this time! We’ll buy up all your oil, just for humoring us for ten seconds!”
But yes, it is OUR fault for the refugee crisis. God, if only we had kept funding Maduro’s regime without any strings attached, THEN we would TRULY be acting morally. For oil’s sake, of course.
Oh, just by the by? America has been sanctioning Venezuela since Chavez was in charge. You’re probably confused because reporting likes to separate talking about post-crisis sanctions in response to the growing red fascism from acknowledging that they existed prior to the crisis as well.
Sanctions during the Chavez administration were on individuals, and individuals related to the drug trade at that. That’s not even close to the same ballpark.
And, obviously, the worse the humanitarian crisis got, the more the cycle of violence kicks in, the more sanctions we piled on (especially under Trump, obviously), the worse it gets, the more sanctions we place…
And of course, the alternative, buying oil from Venezuela, directly funding that cycle of violence in favor of the oppressors, is definitely the legitimate and superior option.
One can’t help but note that the dictators America will choose to sanction, but not actually do anything else about, seem to be more about whether they criticize America than what they actually do.
The Chavez era sanctions were far more than individuals, even if Bush waived them in regards to the oil trade. Can’t imagine why Bush didn’t want to disrupt the oil trade in his day, before we turned on our own spigots again, and with the army busy being useful in the Middle East.
And, of course, there were the coups. But, obviously, despite all of history, America had nothing to do with them… After all, we investigated ourselves, and found no wrongdoing. Or anything that is “against policy,” anyways.
Yes, we should have let the sanctions lapse, because all they do is hurt actual Venezuelans while emboldening Maduro’s faction.
Yes, not starving people is moral. I know, that’s a tough one, isn’t? Maybe if we starve a million more we’ll do a regime change?
Fascism, or red fascism, is not weakened with the existence of someone they can conveniently blame all of their problems on. Especially when it’s not entirely a lie.
One can’t help but note that the dictators America will choose to sanction, but not actually do anything else about, seem to be more about whether they criticize America than what they actually do.
… what exactly do you think sanctions are for, if not as a tool to apply pressure to our enemies?
You… you do realize that there are other options for applying pressure to cooperative countries, right?
And, of course, there were the coups. But, obviously, despite all of history, America had nothing to do with them… After all, we investigated ourselves, and found no wrongdoing. Or anything that is “against policy,” anyways.
None of which is relevant to whether imposing the sanctions, lifting the sanctions, or letting the sanctions go back down after reneging on an agreement to hold free and fair elections is the correct choice.
Yes, we should have let the sanctions lapse, because all they do is hurt actual Venezuelans while emboldening Maduro’s faction.
Oh, so sanctions on the largest source of government income for a dictatorship doesn’t do anything except hurt actual Venezuelans? Here I thought that maybe an authoritarian regime having FEWER resources might have some effect on them, but clearly I was wrong. I guess I can rescind my position on aid to Israel too, since removing resources from the Israeli government has no effect either, except hurting normal Israelis.
Yes, not starving people is moral. I know, that’s a tough one, isn’t? Maybe if we starve a million more we’ll do a regime change?
Believe it or not, I happen to think that NOT giving authoritarian regimes money to beat the teeth out of innocent people’s skulls is actually the moral option here. But apparently, America’s money belongs to everyone except America - we aren’t allowed to decide not to fund dictatorships. That would be, what was it? Intervention?
Fascism, or red fascism, is not weakened with the existence of someone they can conveniently blame all of their problems on. Especially when it’s not entirely a lie.
Ah, yes, that’s why it was so important in the late 30s to appease fascist governments and repeatedly reassure them that we wouldn’t let any mean, nasty government retaliation or boycotts effect them. Otherwise we would have just strengthening those authoritarian governments!
We called that very successful policy ‘appeasement’, and it was what caused Zionist ships to raise the fucking swastika in the mid-30s. It was very effective, and that’s why absolutely nothing happened in the late 30s or in the 40s.
Ah, and now we’re agreeing that sanctions are a weapon?
To intervene in geopolitics perhaps? As directly stated by various governments and thinkers in the lead to WW2 as you mentioned? Note that the economic agreement under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact would have made sanctions against the European fascists largely pointless.
America notably did not have an appeasement policy against Japan, and those sanctions worked because Japan didn’t have reserves of oil and steel to run their war machine.
Oil sanctions won’t stop Maduro from flying jets and moving tanks. He’s got that. And he doesn’t seem to be losing a civil war.
It will just stop people from having jobs that pay in something besides their hyper inflated currency.
Exactly how many people are you willing to support dying or having to flee their country because Maduro won’t bow to American pressure, deserved or not?
Personally, I tend to think democracy isn’t best served by starving the demos.
Where “free elections” = elections approved by the US (with the CIA promoted candidate winning). The US has had a hate boner for Venezuela ever since they dared to nationalize their oil (emphasis on their oil).
Yes, that’s why sanctions have been in place since the 1970s, when the oil industry in Venezuela was nationalized, and not since 2014, when the Maduro regime began cracking down on protests, and why all of the EU and most South American countries have abstained from sanctioning Venezuela.
Right?
… right…?
Oh, wait, of course, no amount of actual facts will stop your kind from kneeling down and licking authoritarian boots when they torture dissidents and disdain democracy, as long as they say “America Bad!” first!
Having a democracy is a long term benefit - addressing more pressing issues like police brutality and superfund sites (that are almost exclusively in predominantly black neighborhoods and cause elevated health issues) are probably going to be more compelling on a statistical level.
Also, I don’t know how many times this needs to be said but shaming black voters for demanding policy changes and daring not to vote D is fucking stupid and infantilizing… some politicians are guilty of this but it’s mostly pundits and those pundits are fucking dumb.
As always, Biden is clearly better than Trump, but give voters a reason to be excited for Biden rather than just fearful of Trump. Excitement drives voter turnout.
Listening to what Trump says he will do day 1 and the 20,000 fascists waiting in the wings with standing orders to do what he says without question should be enough for everyone to get out to vote.
This isn’t going to be a rehash of 2016 where he didn’t know what the fuck he was doing, so he just stole shit. This time he will have people ready to jump in place to ignore the constitution and do as he says without question.
Get past Trump and his cult of personality, and you have a chance to fix democracy. He wins, and I guarantee we Balkanize. That would, really, really, suck.
You’d be surprised how many countries would appreciate your immigration even if you aren’t some crazy executive type. Immigration is a difficult process but it usually costs less than three thousand dollars in actual cash.
“…Americans are planning to flee in droves, and then will realise they don’t have a passport, don’t know any foreign languages, and don’t know how to get around without a car and will ultimately just stay put.”
An example of latent american exceptionalism is that Americans (and articles like this written by them) seem to insinuate that Americans have leave to just enter and live in any country they wish, at any time, and live there for nothing more than booking a flight; that the receiving country will roll out the red carpet upon arrival and wipe their ass with silk, simply because they’re American.
Immigrating to a desirable country is usually a tedious and long process. Their acceptance of you for a long term visa will depend on many aspects of yourself and what you have to offer, not simply because there is a big splayed eagle on the cover of your passport.
The problem isn’t the inability to make something to do the job, but making it something that you can convince people they’ll make a profit from. Nobody wants to clean up pollution unless you either force them to do it or make it profitable.
But as a captain, Little will still have to make sure that his subordinates hoist the flag, a job requirement that his attorneys said would “violate his sincere religious beliefs.”
yahoo.com
Top