Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 26
http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB999035936679805198.html

That's one thing that I love about Lee Raymond - he is truly politically incorrect. He understands that business is business, and he won't let the environazis or homosexuals turn his company into a "social agenda machine." The environmental movement no longer relies on science - it relies on emotions, "faith," and brute strength. Why does it matter to them that XOM won't support the myth of "Global Warming"? Because they are so used to getting their way that they are shocked and pissed when anyone (like XOM) has the guts to stand up to them. Ditto with the homosexuals. Single, heterosexual men/women don't get benefits for their "partners" - why should homosexual men/women? The homosexuals used to push for equality. With equality more-or-less acheived, they now want special rights (because they are "victims" of society).

Anyway...

Always Long,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
The only thing that bothered me about the article was that Lee showed favoritism based veiwpoint. He shouldn't have allowed one person to digress and, it sounds from the article, go past the two minutes.

Part of intergity is fairness / even handedness.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
That's one thing that I love about Lee Raymond - he is truly politically incorrect. He understands that business is business, and he won't let the environazis or homosexuals turn his company into a "social agenda machine." The environmental movement no longer relies on science - it relies on emotions, "faith," and brute strength. Why does it matter to them that XOM won't support the myth of "Global Warming"? Because they are so used to getting their way that they are shocked and pissed when anyone (like XOM) has the guts to stand up to them. Ditto with the homosexuals. Single, heterosexual men/women don't get benefits for their "partners" - why should homosexual men/women? The homosexuals used to push for equality. With equality more-or-less acheived, they now want special rights (because they are "victims" of society).


What's so clever about this? Do you think about what you write?
Do you realize this "social agenda machine" is the same nonsense they used to spout about blacks in the military etc. Homosexual men/women have 'partners' because the law in many places doesn't recognize marriages for them. This is not the case for heterosexuals. Your grasp of the issues is so deliberately poor you can't be an effective advocate for your position. I could do a better job even though I don't believe it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Homosexual men/women have 'partners' because the law in many places doesn't recognize marriages for them. This is not the case for heterosexuals.
===*===

Don't you think about what you write?

Raggmopp
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Your grasp of the issues is so deliberately poor you can't be an effective advocate for your position. I could do a better job even though I don't believe it.

Sticks and stones, buddy. If your grasp is sooooo much better, why don't you convince us?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Go Ray Go!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Homosexual men/women have 'partners' because the law in many places doesn't recognize marriages for them>>

Well it is stated that NON-MARRIED couples also don't receive benefits.
Am I mistaken??
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Single, heterosexual men/women don't get benefits for their "partners" - why should homosexual men/women? The homosexuals used to push for equality. With equality more-or-less acheived, they now want special rights (because they are "victims" of society).

<---------------------------------------->

Don't you realize that homosexual couples would get married if the law allowed it? If that were the case, then there would not have to be a debate about who does and does not get benefits.

Also, how do you figure they have achieved equality? In my experience, wholesale discrimination against them still exists.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also, how do you figure they have achieved equality? In my experience, wholesale discrimination against them still exists.

Elaborate.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
apjok:
Also, how do you figure they have achieved equality? In my experience, wholesale discrimination against them still exists.

jasonfthompson:
Elaborate.

apjok:
I suppose if you consider the numbers, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policies, everything appears equal. However, attitudes regarding homosexuals are not "equal" by any means.

Example:

I have friends who take it as a personal affront to be "hit on" by gay guy. However, they would not feel offended in the least by the same attention from a girl they find unattractive. Different reaction to two people for whom they have the same lack of desire. Generally, they act as if the homosexual has no right to pursue his sexual interests.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
However, attitudes regarding homosexuals are not "equal" by any means.

As much as I may (or may not) sympathize, attitudes, feelings and reactions do not discrimination make.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
a: However, attitudes regarding homosexuals are not "equal" by any means.

j: As much as I may (or may not) sympathize, attitudes, feelings and reactions do not discrimination make.

a: True, but they do make it more likely to occur. The best way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate the fear and hatred that are the root cause of it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The best way to eliminate discrimination is to eliminate the fear and hatred that are the root cause of it.

Sounds like you're getting close to establishing the "thought police." Sorry, but you just can't dictate people's attitudes and thoughts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
<<Homosexual men/women have 'partners' because the law in many places doesn't recognize marriages for them.>>

Thank God for that. It is a miracle that the U.S. government hasn't made a mockery of marriage (yet, that is). Marriage was created with one thing in mind - to create a stable environment for a couple (a man and a woman) to raise their children. Due to the fact that homosexuals are unable to have children (God had better watch out - those homosexual couples will probably sue Him for discrimination!), marriage is not needed.

Besides, we are missing a major point here - XOM does not make the rules, it merely follows the rules that the government lays out for it to follow.

Long on XOM,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sounds like you're getting close to establishing the "thought police." Sorry, but you just can't dictate people's attitudes and thoughts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm thinking this discussion is heading in a direction that would be best continued in a different forum (though I'm not sure where).

I'm not at all suggesting eliminating fear and hatred by any kind of force. ("Thought Police" would be "double plus ungood.") In my experience, usually the ones with the most firmly held prejudices are those who know the least about the groups they hold in such contempt. I believe experience and education are the best resources.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 12
<<Also, how do you figure they have achieved equality? In my experience, wholesale discrimination against them still exists.>>

Where shall I start... Homosexuals have the same rights that all other Americans have. They can choose where the want to work, to live, to eat, to worship, to vote, to go to school, etc. They can also march down the street glorifying themselves and their lifestyles (aka, "Gay Pride Marches"). If that is not equality, then what is!

As far as the "discrimination" that you witnessed (straight guys being offended when gay guys hit on them), you prove my point. Homosexuals are victims in their own minds, and I fear that neither I nor XOM can change that. All I can do is to point out that they are out of touch with reality...

Long on XOM,
Spriteman
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
http://public.wsj.com/sn/y/SB999035936679805198.html

That's one thing that I love about Lee Raymond - he is truly politically incorrect. He understands that business is business, and he won't let the environazis or homosexuals turn his company into a "social agenda machine." The environmental movement no longer relies on science - it relies on emotions, "faith," and brute strength. Why does it matter to them that XOM won't support the myth of "Global Warming"? Because they are so used to getting their way that they are shocked and pissed when anyone (like XOM) has the guts to stand up to them. Ditto with the homosexuals. Single, heterosexual men/women don't get benefits for their "partners" - why should homosexual men/women? The homosexuals used to push for equality. With equality more-or-less acheived, they now want special rights (because they are "victims" of society).

Anyway...

Always Long,
Spriteman


XOM's response:
http://www.exxonmobil.com/em_newsrelease/index.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
?I'm thinking this discussion is heading in a direction that would be best continued in a different forum (though I'm not sure where).

See you on the "Political Asylum" board...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<"double plus ungood.") >>

Can't "politically correct" folks and/or liberals call ANYTHING bad?

double plus ungood????????????
Scotty beam me up. It is getting stupid down here.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<"double plus ungood.") >>

<<Can't "politically correct" folks and/or liberals call ANYTHING bad?>>

I can't speak as either politically correct or liberal. I can, however, call gross ignorance of my own culture (which extends beyond Star Trek) bad. Other posts provide informative links. So do most public high schools.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Gross ignorance = not realizing / catching / remembering a reference to one line of thousands from one of hundreds of thousands of books in the world.

Sorry I didn't catch it.

Hey I got an idea, don't plagerize (sp?) give credit if your able and if not say "don't remember where I heard this but...".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I have given this more thought and feel I "have to call gross arrogance".

Simply put, 1984 was a good book (however I read it years ago) though I enjoyed Animal Farm better. You would judge a person on having read or not read ONE book out of all of the tomes ever! Or the ability to recall instantaneously quotes from it. Sorry most of us don't read that one particular book repeatedly and commit it to memory and use lines from it expecting everyone to catch on.

Secondly, I am not a Star Trek fanatic by any stretch but I did enjoy Second Generation. How uncouth, don't tell anyone or I might be taken out and shot.

Thirdly, the most arrogant, this is the internet. People from EVERYWHERE can see and contribute to this. I know many people whom are currently in the US (not overseas now but raised there) who quite likely didn't read it in school or otherwise. Are they grossly ignorant? Since American TV and Movies are seen around the world (for better or worse) the non eurocentric cultures would quite likely have been quicker to pick up on and understand my reference than "double plus ungood" which may have seemed like an obscure quote. In fact they are likely to think you are either uneducated or a non-native english speaker for using such apparently clumsy structure. And actually it wasn't even quoted with " ". Hoping to take credit for Orwell's creativity if no one notices?



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Apjok,

I didn't sense any arrogance or condescension or your reply.
Please don't feel the previous diatribes were directed at you.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
From the original message (excerpted, not edited):

<<I'm not at all suggesting eliminating fear and hatred by any kind of force. ("Thought Police" would be "double plus ungood.") In my experience, usually the ones with the most firmly held prejudices are those who know the least about the groups they hold in such contempt. I believe experience and education are the best resources.>>

From the latest response (excerpted, not edited):

<<In fact they are likely to think you are either uneducated or a non-native english speaker for using such apparently clumsy structure. And actually it wasn't even quoted with " ". Hoping to take credit for Orwell's creativity if no one notices? >>

1. It appears quoted to me.
2. Since the original post is not mine and the reference appears quoted, I assume that neither I nor the original poster is trying to take credit.

Again, from the latest response:

<<I know many people whom are currently in the US (not overseas now but raised there) who quite likely didn't read it in school or otherwise.>>

These people (unless English) do not claim Orwell as part of their culture. My original complaint was lack of familiarity with one's own culture, by which I assumed American/English.

I apologize for the Star Trek shot; I have rabidly followed all the series and the movies and more than a few of the novels, so I have no right to disdain the reference. I do note, however, that you didn't quote it.

Enough. I admit my arrogance. I have dragged this thread off-topic. I apologize.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Sometimes we all get off thread.
And I apologize for get over annoyed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
The company does not grant benefits to heterosexual couples living together, so why should being a homosexual grant them any special rights.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<The company does not grant benefits to heterosexual couples living together, so why should being a homosexual grant them any special rights.>>

The argument is that homosexuals would get married if able.
Marriage is intended for a stable environment for children. Really, if you ignore that there is very little reason for it.
Sorry but I am not a big proponent of adoption by homosexuals. Nothing personal.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Marriage is intended for the legal consolidation of assets and the rights thereto to extend to either surviving spouse and their progeny.

There is no other reason for marriage. It is not needed for the procreation and education of children; merely for who gets the loot when someone dies or it all falls apart. In fact, todays divorce rate makes a mockery of any idea that marriage provides a stable environment for children. In fact, today's divorce rate makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Marriage is intended for the legal consolidation of assets and the rights thereto to extend to either surviving spouse and their progeny.>>

"intended" doesn't guarrantee results. Does it??

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
oops, I meant to copy the stable environ. for children piece.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
<<Marriage is intended for the legal consolidation of assets and the rights thereto to extend to either surviving spouse and their progeny.

There is no other reason for marriage. It is not needed for the procreation and education of children; merely for who gets the loot when someone dies or it all falls apart. In fact, todays divorce rate makes a mockery of any idea that marriage provides a stable environment for children. In fact, today's divorce rate makes a mockery of the institution of marriage.>>

Mr. Schloss14 ... I have to disagree with you.

I married 36 years ago ... my parents hardly had any money. My wife's parents likewise. The farthest thing from my mind when I married my wife was the "consolidation of assets".

I married my wife, because I loved her. I still do. I had five children with her. and now have 6 grandchildren in addition. And every day that passes I love her an need her more. .... even when we are beginning to see our wrinkles.

Love is not just an emotion ... it is an act of the will. It is the desire and obligation to do whatever it takes so that your mate can feel secure and satisfied. So that the children can grow in a stable environment, as I grew up in one, and my children have grown up in, and my grandchildren are growning up in such environments also.

Marriages fail for lack of commitment, and lack of self sacrifice.

It is easy to walk away when things get tough, and the hell with the wife and the children. I have seen it. And sadly also, marriages fail because of adultery.

When I married, I also entered into a covenant with my wife and with Almighty God. I promised to love her and care for her, in sickness and in health, until death do us part ... so help me God.

The facts that marriages fail have nothing to do with the institution of marriage, it has to do with the people that enter into it and the seriousness with which they make their contractual commitments.

The fact that many people may be failing math, does not make math the problem, but rather, either the people are the problem or the instructors are the problem.

With marriage, likewise.

2invest2

p.s. It is a known fact that children do better in stable two parent families than in one parent families ... that simple

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I think Mr Schloss was speaking from the legal view of marriage. The things you describe in your marriage could all take place without the ceremony and legal bindings. Love has no need of legalities but the sorting of the loot does.

Wolfshead
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Wolfshead:

Thany you. Any two persons can love each other with the same depth of which 2invest2 speaks. Two women or two men or a man and a woman can have that same committment and desire to nurture their relationship and the family they create. To think any less is to say that two women or two men cannot love and commit with the same devotion as a man and a woman. I have seen no evidence to support that.

Schloss14
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Two women or two men or a man and a woman can have that same committment and desire to nurture their relationship and the family they create. To think any less is to say that two women or two men cannot love and commit with the same devotion as a man and a woman. I have seen no evidence to support that. Schloss14>>

This is an investment board ... however, I cannot leave your statement unanswered because I don't want you to think I would ever agree with your proposition.

You obviously cannot distinguish between conjugal love and lust --

Conjugal love is the love that should exist between a man and a woman (not a man and a man and a woman and a woman) in a life-long comitment of nurturing so that the two become one, procreate the human race, and thus create a stable nuclear family.

The other "unions" you are proposing are not in any way, shape or form conjugal love ... if anything, they are totally and absolutely lustful because they are never open to the procreation of children ... and there in lies the difference and the crux.

These other non natural unions that you propose can never project themselves into the future, or be capable of the self sacrifice that a father and mother can have for its own flesh and blood ... bring all the examples you want to the contrary... but statistically it does not happen ... it is a failure for those involved in those relationships.

The reason many of the "traditional families" are failing is because conjugal love is violated with lust ... and one or more of the partners cheat ... lets be honest and don't hide that fact. It has nothing to do with the institution of marriage it has to do with individuals who decide to self satisfy themselves at the expense of the stability of the family unit, regardless of whether or not they end up hurting their mate and their children ... that is why we are human ... because we are free even to do that which reason tells us is wrong...but yet we do it.

2invest2
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
OK 2invest

Two women or two men or a man and a woman can have that same committment and desire to nurture their relationship and the family they create.

For sake of the argument throw out the same sex unions that are mentioned he still gives the example of a man and a woman. Explain to me why this union cannot prosper without the benefit of clergy, or JP as it were, as much a union so constructed. They can have the same love for each other, can have the children you mention and love them as much, can do anything a legally married couple can EXCEPT have all the legal rights that a married couple has. They can be denied benefits offered to married couples, they have to make sure of having wills or any inheritance they leave can be contested by blood family and in some cases even wills can be contested. In other words they have to go thru a lot more legal rigamarole than any married couple but it still makes no difference to the way the feel towards each other. Marriage is a legal and/or religious fiction devised to keep things orderly but has no bearing on love and devotion otherwise why have different forms of marriage, other than one man and one woman, sprung up among different cultures? It was devised mainly to protect the interest of children since it in the best interest of the tribe that children thrive and prosper and the tribe goes on. Thus the legal benefits granted to married couples to encourage marriage and thus the prtection. Probably one of the reasons divorce is so easy to obtain in the modern world is that modern the state is not in the circumstance of vanishing easily and thus does not feel the protection of marriage is as important as it once was.

Wolfshead
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
Will you folks please stop the marriage, non-marriage, love, committment crap! This is an investment message board and it is suppossed to center on Exxon!!!!! Find another board for your drivel! crpurdum
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<Will you folks please stop the marriage, non-marriage, love, committment crap! This is an investment message board and it is suppossed to center on Exxon!!!!! Find another board for your drivel! crpurdum >>

This is my first post on the xom board. I find it well balanced. Better than most other boards I have been too. I can see whether this kinds of discussions can get out of hand. However, in researching prior posts going back to a bloomberg article of 4/13 of this year, the marriage issue is a very legitimate collateral topic given the pros and cons that have been raised becasue of xom policies.

XOM policies can affect the stock price.

And for the record I fully support the board's rather balanced policy... grandfathered those couples that were partcipating under the Mobil program, but no more fringe benefits for those who are not married and living together, regardless of whether they are homosexual or not. Seems to me like a very reasonable and sensible approach. I see absolutely no discrimination -- it is fair for both sides.

I cannot imagine if society has not made homosexual marriages legal, why should a corporation be forced to recognize something which society at large and jurisprudence, does not.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
May I please encourage everyone to stick to the subject like Mr. Lee Raymond is so good at doing. Remember, the topic is XOM and how it makes us money.
Print the post Back To Top