You clearly stated you were against boycotts. That would indeed indicate you would force someone to do business with a company with opposing ideology. A boycott usually is a very ineffective method to force a company to do anything. Few boycotts do anything more than make a few people feel like theyre doing something constructive. How many boycotts have caused economic harm as youve claimed?<quoted text>That's not what I wrote; I wouldn't force people to not boycott or to boycott. I'm just pointing out boycotts aren't civil discourse; you don't seem to dispute that opinion.
<quoted text>Price and need means you enjoy their products (they fulfill need) and you can afford the price. We should all make economic decisions based on enjoying products and buying what we can afford. Again, you don't seem to dispute the point; we want good products not products provided by people forced to share our politics.
<quoted text>Your right; I made a mistake and posted a link to a Canadian court instead of a US court. Let me try to correct that:
Instructions for Filing
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
28 U.S.C.§ 2241...
<quoted text>They are abridging our freedom to petition with their usage policies. Further, if they offer a petition to impeach where only Congress has the right to impeach, they are misdirecting the people.
<quoted text>I oppose demagogy; you defend Obama's sham petition process; this is where we differ.
<quoted text>Again, sorry for the mistake. Isn't it interesting that our law, like Candada's is based on the same principles? Now you know, "the judiciary is the only branch of government that is always obligated to consider and respond to petitions submitted to it."
http://www.heritage.org/constitution #!/amendments/1/essays/141/fre edom-of-assembly-and-petition
Price and need do not mean I enjoy their products. I dont care about the price and I want the product, I dont need it.
Now youre comparing submitting a writ with petitioning the government? Two entirely different actions.
If you really believe theyre misdirecting the people then youre easily misdirected.
Doesnt matter if Canadian law is based on the same principles. Its irrelevant when discussing US law. But, were not really discussing law. Were discussing first amendment rights. The White House hosting a method to submit petition in no way violates the first amendment.