XOM said they would give the same benefits to married homosexuals as heteroexuals provided they can get married. Then when gays were allowed to legally marry, they backtracked and said it would have to be a national law to permit marriage. Since making that statement, XOM homosexuals can get married in Belgium and the Netherlands. This week Canada and Spain have added been added to the list of countries where homosexuals can get married.
.....face it XOM....sooner or later, you're going to have to deal with your self induced oil spill on the issue.
Hearing someone gratuitously say "Merry Christmas" to someone who is not Christian is like offering shrimp to a practicing Jew. It's just rude and inappropriate in a pluralistic society. It is meaningless to say "Merry Christmas" to a nonChristian.
Suggesting that members of the ACLU are 'communist' is like saying Christians are Republicans. It's just inaccurate.
Pouvoir, this card carrying ACLU member, radical liberal, and Christian wishes you a very Merry Christmas- not because it's politically incorrect- but because it is appropriate for Christians to extend such good wishes to OTHER Christians this time of year.
So terrorism benefits XOM? Sounds to me like you are making the case that you and XOM benefit from terrorism and fear. I doubt even XOM believes that. What a huge oversimplification.
Here's another >possible< scenerio--XOM is unable to protect its investment of billions of dollars in infrastructure and pipelines without a huge infusion of capital that abates the development of other projects and creates worry among investors...or here is another scenerio....a Republican President (even this oil man) ends up imposing price controls like a previous Republican President that criples the US economy and investment...or how about this one...a newly elected Democratic President imposes rationing that sinks the American car industry and the SUV that attracts investors to alternative fuels (finally). Do not think I am advocating ANY of these scenerios, but there are far more realistic than the notion that XOM is invested in and benefits from terrorism.
Tomorrow, American gay citizens will be allowed to legally marry each other in Massachusetts. As expected, ExxonMobil does NOT keep its word. They once claimed they would provide benefits based on the legal relationships recognized by the law. Now they are deciding which laws to recognize.
THIS IS WHAT EXXONMOBIL SAID IN MAY, 2002:
With regard to domestic partner benefits, ExxonMobil is guided by the laws in the nearly 200 countries where we operate. We provide benefits coverage to spouses - whether heterosexual or homosexual - where a legally recognized spousal relationship exists. �. We believe that basing employee benefits on legally recognized spousal relationships is the only way the program can be applied in a fair, rational and consistent approach for our 100,000 employees worldwide.
THIS IS WHAT EXXONMOBIL SAYS TODAY:
With regard to domestic partner benefits, ExxonMobil is guided by the laws in the nearly 200 countries and territories where we operate. � In the United States we have elected to adopt the definition of spouse used in federal legislation, which has the effect of limiting coverage to heterosexual couples. We believe that basing employee benefits on legally recognized spousal relationships that are broadly recognized within the country is the only way our benefits plans can be applied in a fair, rational, and consistent manner for our 92,000 employees worldwide.
What a surprise. One thing about this board is you can drop in every once in a while and it's the same tired posts often filled with intolerant racist, sexist, religious intolerant, and homophobic posts.
As for Infernalequinox, you're posts are so deep with intellectual bravado.
Here are the facts:
An oil man is President.
Gas prices are at an all time high.
We at war in an oil rich country.
American soldiers are dying.
I agree with you---Americans do not support any of that.
After hundreds of "popup" ads for Netflix from Yahoo, I wrote to the company twice using published e-mail addresses on their web sight to get some SIMPLE answers to two questions regarding their services.
I have yet to get an answer. Invest in their stock? Ha, not in a million years.
- Bush wants defense of marriage, he�s a homophobe. Clinton signed Defense of Marriage Act (one of the things he actually did right� the polls favored it), he�s a saint.
NO--WE'LL JUST POINT OUT THE HYPOCRISY REPUBLICANS HAVE FOR DEFENDING THE "SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE" GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY POLITICAL PARTY TO NOMINATE A DIVORCEE ---THREE TIMES. YOU SURE DON'T HERE THEM CALLING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO BAN DIVORCE.
- If a Democrat President is a [proven draft dodger], it�s nothing. If a Republican; who joined, served, and got an honorable discharge from the US military, can�t provide meticulous documentation and court-admissible evidence for every single day he served� then he must have been AWOL and can�t be President.
--NO, AS SOON AS YOU FIND HIS "RECORDS", YOU LET US KNOW. THE HYPOCRISY IS THE NOTION THE PRESUMPTION THAT ONLY REPUBLICANS LOVE AND SERVE THEIR COUNTRY.
- When a Democrat is President, Saddam has WMD, ties to terrorism, and is a threat to our national security. When a Republican is President, if you can�t see WMD, a picture of Saddam and Osama shaking hands, and a missile headed straight for us; there are no WMD, ties to al Qaeda, or threat.
--OH PLEASE, IT WAS A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS THAT CUT PRESIDENT CLINTON'S BUDGET SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS AFTER THE FIRST ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TWO MONTHS AFTER HIS CALL FOR MORE MONEY IN HIS STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS.
- A Democrat NEVER loses a close election. If a close election�s outcome favors the Republican, then it must have been because of manipulation, fraud, racist voting machines, or confusing ballots that were designed by right-wingers. In fact, if a Republican actually does win any election; it is only because the simple-minded voters were too dumb to listen to the sophisticated likes of Dan Rather, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand, and Tom Brokaw (Let�s not forget Oprah Winfree and Sean Penn).
--LOOK, YOU WANT TO CALL PRESIDENT BUSH'S VICTORY A MANDATE WITHOUT LAUGHING, KNOCK YOURSELF OUT. THE FACT IS MORE AMERICANS VOTED FOR GORE THAN BUSH.
- Everything conservative that Bush does is evil, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, unilateral, hitlerian, or the worst thing that has happened to America. Everything liberal (Bush doesn�t do anything liberal, but what we mean is� everything that isn�t conservative) Bush does, isn�t nearly enough for the children, poor, old, illegals, criminals, or UN.
--YEA, RIGHT. AND TO BE A CONSERVATIVE YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT LOCAL AUTONOMY AND STATE'S RIGHTS UNLESS YOU HAVE A CLOSE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND IT INVOLVES GAY MARRIAGE. YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN LIMITED GOVERNMENT UNLESS YOU WANT TO CREATE THE LARGEST FED AGENCY IN HISTORY OR THE LARGEST FED DEFICIT. LOL.
- The Constitution is a �living document�. In other words; it doesn�t mean what it says, but what we want it to mean.
--YEA, RIGHT <WITH SARCASM> AND BLACKS ARE STILL ONLY ENTITLED TO TWO THIRDS OF A VOTE IN THE CENSUS AND THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE ANYMORE THAN WOMAN, BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNORS.
- The less the voters believe that the terrorists can harm them and the more the voters believe that the UN can protect them, the better off we are.
--NAH, WE JUST BELIEVE THAT ARRESTING AMERICAN CITIZENS AND PUTTING THEM IN JAIL FOR MONTHS WITHOUT GIVING THEM ACCESS TO ATTORNEYS OR CHARGING THEM WITH A CRIME IS WRONG.
When I want to be amused by homophobic, racist, sexist religiously intolerant Republians I just come visit the XOM board. You write:
- There is no such thing as tax increases; there is �revenue enhancement�, �a tax system that doesn�t favor the rich�, �ending the tax cuts for the rich�, �fees�, and �ending budget cuts for programs that are �for the children��. There is REALLY NO SUCH THING AS TAX CUTS.
NO--THE DEMOCRATIC STRATEGY IS CALL A REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITICAL WHEN THEY SAY THEY ARE A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE WHEN THEY SPEND MORE THAN THEY TAKE IN.
- Any tax cut that takes less money away from ALL citizens/legal residents who pay taxes, is a tax cut for the rich.
NO, A TAX CUT THAT GIVES MORE TO THE RICH NOT ONLY IN PERCENTAGES BUT IN REAL DOLLARS IS A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH.
Wow. Guess some people have issues <g>! Got more traffic than in a long time. LOL.
Aren't you going to feel silly. I agree with HRC on many issues, including the boycott of XOM. I've disagreed with them on a number of issues as well.
Ok, now go back to that web sight and pay particular attention to the following two pages where I take HRC to task on a number of issues (change the ss to tt to go to the pages:
Doubt they would have me on their payroll if I published articles critical of them.
Infernalequinox, your response is such an intellectual armageddon and so typical.
Dan, forget it. I merely laughed when I read his first two responses to your posts--nothing but petty personal attacks directed at you. The best this guy can do when backed into a corner with facts is call someone a liar or something else. Note, he doesn't respond to or dispute a single, specific quote you make, because it's not worth his time, oh, but he has time to say you "wouldn't understand it anyway." Such are the inner workings of his mind. My bet is no one would understand his response if he ever got around to making a case because he doesn't have one.
With Halliburton, omitted and admitted come pretty close to the same thing, but the previous post should have said:
Halliburton has admitted to breaking the law while Cheney was its CEO.
Deal with the facts:
The majority of Americans are concerned about the growing deficit.
The majority of American voters did not vote for Bush.
The majority of conservatives favor a limited government rather than a growing federal bureaucracy.
The ONLY sector of our economy that is growing is the federal government under Bush (exceeding 10% a year) at a rate five times greater than when Clinton was in office (around 2-3% a year).
The majority of Americans are concerned about the unfunded federal mandates on states in education and "homeland security."
There are over two million more jobs lost since Bush took office.
Halliburton has omitted to breaking the law while Cheney was its CEO.
Most Americans think Bush overstated the whole WMD BS--heck, it's a fact--a member of his own cabinet said Bush ALWAYS wanted to go to war with Iraq long before 9-11. And still no WMD.
Now you may dispute those facts, but try to do so without resorting to your usual petty, childish name calling.
Oh, and to stay on topic, BOYCOTT XOM! LOL.
Reminds me of those who boasted when XOM had its most profitable year (up until that year) the year of the Valdez oil spill. Such an accomplishment!
I'm sure you're happy with their performance. Really.
That's because XOM is being BOYCOTTED <g> !!
XOM is the ONLY Fortune 500 company in the top 10 that does not offer domestic partner benefits nor does it have an EEO statement that includes sexual orientation.
But heh, I bring it up because there is nothing else about XOM worth talking about! And it is ON topic.
Pourvoir, I'm doing well. See things haven't changed much on this board with all the vile hate some post. Have a safe and happy week as well.
Do you take exception to the "same XOM supporters fixated on homosexuality making disparaging remarks about gays, Arabs and Jews?"
Do you take exception to the "religious bigots bashing Jews, Muslims, Episcopals, Catholics, etc?"
Nah, you think I'm an "egomaniac who thinks the board runs around him" even though I've been away for three weeks. Read again--the bigotry was here before and after I participated--a point completely LOST by you.