Originally Posted By Elderp "What if no one wanted to sell drugs that helped AIDS patients. Should pharmacy owners be forced to sell them?" That's an easy answer, there are lots of pharmacies that don't carry AIDS medication but you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't sell the "blue pill." Business regularly tailors its products to its target market. Why is it that my wife can't find a decent underware in Victoria Secrets? Or how about the Krikorian in Redlands? The other day I went there and there wasn't one PG movie shown. Should the Krikorian in Redlands be forced to have at least one PG movie for me? Point is business has a right to sell or not to sell anything they want. Just like the buyer has the right to buy or not buy whatever they want. The beauty of a capitalistic economy is that the market (not the people) ultimately decide what will or will not be sold.
Originally Posted By X-san Interesting SD. Thanks for clarifying that (so it IS strictly a religious issue, at least as far as that ID is concerned). Anyway, a little more digging and I learned about their drug laws. Anyone who indulges and then goes there should be EXTREMELY careful, as they consider anything found in blood or urine to be "possession" and even prescription drugs and trace amounts of stuff can land you in jail. Yikes!
Originally Posted By DyGDisney DAR, you don't see any difference between a statement made on the News by a news professional and a MOVIE? Movies have been made about a lot of things that are not okay/legal/moral in many people's eyes. But they are movies, not real life.
Originally Posted By X-san ***The beauty of a capitalistic economy is that the market (not the people) ultimately decide what will or will not be sold.*** That'd be great, except as we've discussed in other topics it's not as simple as that when certain vocal "voices of morality" make a big fuss over what everyone should and shouldn't do with their lives. At times, companies bow to such pressure (or, more likely, politicians do and make up stupid laws), even in the face of an obvious demand for what they supply. Case in point, marijuana.
Originally Posted By DAR No but the movie was funded, try getting a movie that shows some trying to kill Obama it would never happen.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Interesting SD. Thanks for clarifying that (so it IS strictly a religious issue, at least as far as that ID is concerned). >>> Yes, it is strictly a religious issue. Once again, I'll repeat my point: although they have strict rules and laws based on the official state religion, they apply them only to people that are of that religion. It's an interesting concept, and different from the way we do things in the West. <<< Anyway, a little more digging and I learned about their drug laws. Anyone who indulges and then goes there should be EXTREMELY careful, as they consider anything found in blood or urine to be "possession" and even prescription drugs and trace amounts of stuff can land you in jail. Yikes! >>> Kind of like in Nevada, at least when it comes to driving under the influence. I did read about some of those situations prior to going, and I have to say it made be a bit nervous (not that I took any medication with me, nor that anything would appear in my urine that I'd be concerned about). It just sounded very draconian to me. At the airport, things could not have been more low-key at the Customs inspection. Unlike some countries (such as the US and Japan) where Customs interviews every arriving passenger and often acts like you're a criminal until proven otherwise (and yes, I know this is just a law enforcement technique used to throw you off balance), in Dubai, you basically just walked by the Customs checkpoint, and they pulled aside only those few people that they wanted to inspect. Although I don't doubt that the stories that have been in the media about Dubai Customs are true, there are plenty of equally disturbing stories about US Customs and many other countries. Basically, Customs and Immigration are not situations you want to mess around with in any country.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I did read about some of those situations prior to going, and I have to say it made be a bit nervous (not that I took any medication with me, nor that anything would appear in my urine that I'd be concerned about). It just sounded very draconian to me.*** Yup. Two stories I read that were particularly ridiculous and could literally happen to ANYONE were the guy who had poppy seeds on his clothes from a muffin he ate at Heathrow (4 years in jail), and the guy who had a bit of marijuana on the bottom of his shoe smaller than a grain of sugar (10 months then pardoned). Crazy. Nice to hear it's not all that insane, obviously hearing a story or two is different from the "normal" experience. I like that idea of not inspecting everyone. I appreciate how they do that at customs in Newark (wish it was like that everywhere!). I've actually never been stopped at Customs going into Newark, and I've taken four trips there I think (4 or 5).
Originally Posted By ecdc >>The situation in Dubai is actually quite interesting. For bars and restaurants, alcohol service is only allowed in venues that are part of a hotel, and although on paper they're only for hotel guests, it's widely ignored. In fact, it's my understanding that the nightclub scene does a brisk business from customers from neighboring countries where such places are illegal. It's kind of like the Las Vegas of the Middle East: What goes on in Dubai, stays in Dubai. When I was there, nobody asked to see my passport or to prove that I was staying in the hotel.<< Thanks for all this info, superdry. It really is fascinating.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Who ran in '84? It wasn't McGovern.<< Actually, McGovern did run in '84. He just didn't win a single primary and dropped out after Super Tuesday. Sounds like they trusted her with a pretty major assignment to cover this campaign.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>While she's being rightfully taken to task for her comments. The left gets to make films like this: <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0853096/<<" target="_blank">http://www.imdb.com/title/tt08...<<</a> And once again, DAR's outrage gets in the way of any facts or context. First, we're told that "the left" gets to make a film like this. Which "left" would that be? The film was made by a British filmmaker and still hasn't been released in the United States. It has been released in Finland, shown on British television, and screened in Japan. Maybe that's "the left" DAR is referring to. Second, many film critics, who Republicans are always so quick to label liberal when they like Fahrenheit 9/11 or Sicko, have trashed the film. Finally, Hillary Clinton, in addition to many other flaming "conservatives," criticized the film for being in poor taste. The bastions of right-wing media, CNN and NPR have refused to run any advertisements for the film. But by all means, insist that "the left" makes films like this. That's an easy claim when you don't have to worry about any pesky facts.
Originally Posted By Elderp "That'd be great, except as we've discussed in other topics it's not as simple as that when certain vocal "voices of morality" make a big fuss over what everyone should and shouldn't do with their lives." Let's suppose all the business do listen to the "voices of morality." The market says that there is a new opportunity for another business to provide the service. If there are people out there that are not opposed to the service than they can provide it if they want. No one (at least in this country) can't force you to do or not do something (as long as it is legal) if you don't want to. The fact the business listens or doesn't listen to a group is on them. It is their choice alone. To make the business do things any way other than their way is to take away their right to choose.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But why make that film there was no point to it.<< Huh? Talk about a right turn. I can't answer that - I have no idea why someone in Britain would choose to make that film. But your question is a far cry from your original assertion that "the left" gets to make a film like it. You were shown to be wrong on many counts with that statement. So asking the question of "why" continues to imply that American liberals have some kind of ties to the film. They don't. Only the filmmaker can answer that question.
