Thunderdome 2015 » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Internet Links
Topic: Chik-Fil-A
started by: Leisher

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 19 2012,11:51

Yesterday, I noticed something being built around 10 minutes from my office, and was excited to see it was a Chik-Fil-A. I like their sandwiches. I know it's junk food, but something about them is good.

Anyway, today Chik-Fil-A admitted that they < hate the gays. >

Ugh. Now I'll have to avoid protestors just to get a tasty piece of chicken.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 19 2012,12:50

QUOTE

Chick-fil-A ... strives to treat everyone with honor, dignity and respect.

Except those damned gays, of course.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 19 2012,13:00

(Leisher @ Jul. 19 2012,14:51)

QUOTE

Ugh. Now I'll have to avoid protestors just to get a tasty piece of chicken.

This line is gold.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 19 2012,17:16

Two gay news items this week
Boy Scouts hate gays, won't include them
Owner of Chick-fil-A supports traditional marriage.

You know what? They still sell chicken to gay people, even, I imagine, gay married couples in Iowa/wherever else it's legal.

I have no problem with Chick-fil-A based on their owners beliefs. But I do have an issue with the BSA. Since I have daughters, I guess the best I can get to boycotting them is not buying their shitty overpriced popcorn.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 20 2012,06:11

(TheCatt @ Jul. 19 2012,19:16)

QUOTE

I have no problem with Chick-fil-A based on their owners beliefs.

I wish I could say the same. I already miss those delicious sandwiches. But I just can't stand anyone that preaches that someone should not have the same civil rights just because they were born different.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 20 2012,06:54

(TPRJones @ Jul. 20 2012,09:11)

QUOTE

(TheCatt @ Jul. 19 2012,19:16)

QUOTE

I have no problem with Chick-fil-A based on their owners beliefs.

SO... corporations ARE people, or corporations AREN'T people?

I will bet money there isn't a line in their operations guide or mission statement that says, "Don't sell to fags."

My point being, if you are going to boycott the retailer because of the opinions of the owners, then shouldn't you boycott their chicken farmers, and everyone else in their supply chain? Boycott the feed supplier that feeds the chickens? Boycott the fertilizer company that helps grow the feed? How deep are your convictions?

I don't even have a Chic-Fil-A near me, but my boy is in the BSA and I think I have said here before that I don't like how religious-y they are.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 20 2012,09:12

Corporations aren't people, but they are made of people. And usually there are some key ones in charge that make policies that effect the rest. And while I'm sure they don't have a policy to not sell to homosexuals, I wouldn't be surprised at all if there is an institutional tendency to avoid employing them. It's always been a pretty clearly religious restaurant, what with being closed on Sunday because it's the sabbath and having various biblical quotes and iconography displayed as decoration on the walls in some locations.

Anyway, I don't paint everyone involved with the brush, though. No need to try to carefully avoid everyone that has anything to do with Chik-Fil-A. Just not giving them in particular any further money is sufficient for me.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 21 2012,11:21

< "Peeps need to chill the fuck out." >

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 21 2012,11:52

Had to go to the mall around lunch today, couldn't resist grabbing Chick-Fil-A for lunch. It was delicious.

After digesting my meal, I don't feel like I hate gay people. Rather I feel like I'm supporting the fact that people are allowed to have differing opinions.

Posted by TheCatt on Jul. 21 2012,16:35

I went to Chick-fil-A for breakfast, yummy.

QUOTE

First of all, Chick-fil-A is not a hate group. In a statement released yesterday, company leaders made their commitment to equal service clear, "The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect -- regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender."

Right, this isn't the BSA wheres gays are excluded.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 23 2012,06:20

Sure, sure, they can espouse any beliefs they want. And all because they hate fags doesn't mean they are making them eat at a different lunch counter or something. This is on the whole a much more gentlemanly fight for equal rights than it was for the African Americans back in the day. Generally the only deaths involved are bullying-induced suicides with only a small number of actual lynchings.

Still, it is also well within my rights to not give them money as long as they continue to espouse views I consider backwards, barbaric, and contemptible.

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 23 2012,06:22

But the sammitches... so yummy...

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 23 2012,11:32

< The Muppets quit Chik-Fil-A. >

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 25 2012,11:21

(GORDON @ Jul. 20 2012,08:54)

QUOTE

... my boy is in the BSA and I think I have said here before that I don't like how religious-y they are.

I thought you might find this interesting. There's a fair number of Eagle Scouts that are sending back their pins. (< Link to the story >)

Posted by GORDON on Jul. 25 2012,11:53

Today we are at cub scout day camp.

Each little pack has a little song they sing to gain access to various places.

One of them had a song that was a derivation of Queen's 'We Will Rock You.'

It occured to me to mention that the boy scout organization dislikes gays, and by extension Freddie Mercury, but i kept it to myself.

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 26 2012,08:52

I've got a pretty big debate going on FB with some random over this issue.

Why do people think it's disgusting to not believe in same sex marriage, but acceptable to force your beliefs upon people?

How do they not see the irony?

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 26 2012,12:18

I'm trying to understand that, Leisher. Are you saying they are not only advocating same-sex marriage should be legal, but further saying that straight people must get married to someone of the same sex?

Posted by Leisher on Jul. 26 2012,13:51

No TPR, they're saying if you don't agree then you don't have the right to exist.

This whole Chick-Fil-A fiasco is a great example of it. Chick-Fil-A doesn't have a policy of not hiring gay people. They also don't have a policy stating they won't serve gay people. What their company president did was state that they don't believe in gay marriage.

In response, they've been called bigots, told they need to shut the fuck up, they've been asked to leave cities, they're facing protests, and politicians have gone on record as saying they will attempt to block new Chick-Fil-As from being built in their areas.

I guess freedom of speech only applies if the person listening agrees with the person speaking?

It's very similar to the issue of race in this country. How do you get a majority of the population to accept the minority? Do you reward good behavior and educate? Nah. You create racist programs at every turn and punish anyone who dares not meet your quotas. It creates more animosity, more hatred.

Look, I'm pro-gay marriage. I thought Chick-Fil-A going public with that statement was REALLY fucking stupid from a business stand point. I also don't have a problem with anyone personally boycotting Chick-Fil-A. What I do not advocate is people trying to hurt them just because they have a different point of view on a social issue.

Posted by TPRJones on Jul. 26 2012,14:32

Ah, in that case I agree with you to a certain extent. I do think their position is rather despicable and bigoted and I don't intend to eat there. And I think a few protests against their stance are certainly reasonable, given that Chik-Fil-A has done more than just talk the talk, they have also donated funds to various conservative organizations some of which are fighting to keep that bigoted stance codified as law. But some of the response - especially that of the mayor of Boston who is using governmental bureaucracy to punish them - is also despicable.

I have absolutely no problem with a person that says "I think gay marriage is wrong so I will not marry someone of my own gender." I do have a problem with people that say "I think gay marriage is wrong so I won't let other people marry someone of their own gender." Chik-Fil-A has every right to hold that position and espouse it publicly if they wish, and people have a right to be angry about it and protest and boycott if they wish, but the mayor of Boston and other such politicians have absolutely no right to abuse their power thus.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 02 2012,16:55

Want to post something like "Chick-Fil-A: Still can't vote in 50 states" on my FB... so f'ing tired of the posts.

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 02 2012,19:16

It's more of the same: anybody who supports CFA is "ignorant" and "hateful."

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 02 2012,21:19

I'm getting Chik-Fil-A for lunch tomorrow. I can't stay away.

But I'll also be donating the same amount spent to Equality Texas, so it'll be a wash.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 02 2012,21:21

(TPRJones @ Aug. 03 2012,00:19)

QUOTE

I'm getting Chik-Fil-A for lunch tomorrow. I can't stay away.

But I'll also be donating the same amount spent to Equality Texas, so it'll be a wash.

CFA is already expensive, with that you're paying twice as much for it.

Still worth it!

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 03 2012,06:14

(TPRJones @ Aug. 03 2012,00:19)

QUOTE

I'm getting Chik-Fil-A for lunch tomorrow. I can't stay away.

But I'll also be donating the same amount spent to Equality Texas, so it'll be a wash.

LOL - Well, if it makes you feel better, I'm guessing only about $0.01 per sandwich/order goes to hating gay people. So you probably don't need to donate very much.

Math: Chick-Fil-A makes $4 billion in revenue per year.

People are complaining about $5 million given over SEVERAL years.

Let's say Chic-Fil-A grows about 10% per year, so over the past 5 years they've made 4 + 3.6 + 3.2 + 2.9 + 2.6 = $16B (roughly). Of which, they've donated 0.03% to hating gay people.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,06:46

Indeed. So it'll be a net positive for gay rights, and I get to get my face in between those golden brown buns and gobble down some hot juicy cock. Win win!

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,06:56

And is it officially HATING GAY PEOPLE, or just hating the idea of gay people getting married?

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,07:23

They will tell you they hate the sin and not the sinner. But that's a bullshit stance. It's like saying about blacks that you hate the skin color but not the skin. It's part of who they are and the way they were born, so if you hate it you hate a part of them. Period.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,07:35

(TPRJones @ Aug. 03 2012,10:23)

QUOTE

So.... you're saying that you can't disagree with a particular issue without being filled with hate for it?

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,07:51

Not at all! I'm saying if you hate something that is ingrained at birth and cannot be changed, then you hate a part of that person. Like gender, race, sexual orientation, birth defects, etc.

Political views, religious beliefs, and other such things that are something you can choose are a completely different matter. While some of these may sometimes be brainwashed into kids at an early age, they aren't even then something that can't be changed later on in life without excessively major surgery or skin bleaching to do so.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,07:55

It was my understanding that the peeps who run CFA made some sort of statement that they prefer traditional marriage. They have no policies or stated opinions about homosexuals that I have ever heard.

I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.

Posted by thibodeaux on Aug. 03 2012,07:57

< Hate the hating haters >

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,08:09

(GORDON @ Aug. 03 2012,09:55)

QUOTE

I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.

If so I have yet to hear one, and I've been paying attention and looking around trying to find one. If you find one, please let me know. So far every argument I've ever seen involve either 1) a religious basis, 2) appeals to traditional marriage that are simply incorrect regarding the actual history of traditional marriage, or 3) because it's "icky".

QUOTE

Sort of. It was something about how we shouldn't be trying to tell God what marriage should be like, with a hint of how God's going to fuck up the USA if we keep defying him. Not in those words, of course, but that was the essence.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,08:34

(TPRJones @ Aug. 03 2012,11:09)

QUOTE

(GORDON @ Aug. 03 2012,09:55)

QUOTE

I think an argument can be made for traditional marriage that has nothing to do with the bible, or disliking gay people.

Ok, here you go:

This is not my personal belief, I am just saying this argument could be made and as good scientists we need to consider its validity until data can be collected.

I am not a sociologist, a neurologist, or a child development expert, but I would like to pose this question:

As a great man once said, "We are trying to have a society, here." To achieve great things, perhaps a society needs, as underpinnings, shared values and beliefs and goals. People like to argue, "Well the 50's weren't as great as you old people remember because racism and sexism," but every data set available confirms that 1946-late 20th century was a time for great growth and expansion in American history. Every generation had a better quality of life than the previous.

Yaddah yaddah yaddah, just laying the foundation for my argument.... social structures might be there for a reason, and maybe they are for the greater good.

Maybe children develop with a greater sense of "common good" when they learn the frame into which society is built. Maybe growing up with no restrictions, no borders, is a bad thing. Maybe things like ANYONE CAN MARRY ANYONE, EVEN THOUGH TRADITIONALLY THAT HAS MEANT ONE BOY AND ONE GIRL undermines the fabric upon which society is imprinted.

Maybe these people grow up with an inflated sense of self. Maybe they can't understand why the world isn't giving them a long, continuous blowjob, and they decide that is unfair, and they rebel against the very system which gave them the luxury of free time and comfort and plenty for that rebellion.

Otherwise intelligent people decide their personal happiness is way more important than propagating the species, and suddenly birth rates are down below sustaining levels, and a first world society begins to wind down. People begin to think that everyone with a different opinion is full of hate, and people stop listening to anyone else outside of their personal echo chamber.

Everyone should be treated equally by the government, which is why I don't think even hetero marriages should be recognized, but to say there is no difference in a society between homo and hetero marriage is just silly, and to imply there are no ramifications in supporting or denying it has never heard of Chic Fil A.

++++++++++

So there, nothing to do with the bible or hating gay people.

And yes, I just suggested that perfect liberty could lead to the fall of a civilization.

But just throwing that out there. It is possible to have a different opinion without it being due to hate or fear or ignorance.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,09:02

I'm not sure that really qualifies as an argument. It's more of a mass of speculation.

However, I will point out that your argument is rooted on the idea that traditionally marriage has meant one man and one woman. That's item #2 on my prior list, and is simply not historically accurate. Throughout most of history, marriage means one family (or tribe) selling a daughter to another family (or tribe). Or one man collecting many women. The details vary from place to place and era to era, and one man one woman is common through it, but it is not in the majority there historically speaking.

Plus you add in a "for the children" argument about how traditionally kids are raised in a one man one women household, but the idea of the nuclear family of one man and one woman raising the kids is pretty much limited to the last hundred years or so. If you want to argue that tradition is best for children, then we need to make sure that all the aunts and uncles and grandparents live on the same piece of land or are part of the same close-knit tribe and raise the kids all together, because that has been tradition when it comes to raising kids.

And lastly, there has actually been some science starting to be done on these issues. There are now enough adult children of homosexual families that some studies have been done here and there. There's still a long way to go, but early results indicate that on the whole children raised by homosexual couples are much happier and more successful in adult life than those raised by heterosexual couples on average. Which makes since when you consider that the number of homosexual couples having kids on accident or for the welfare checks is pretty much exactly zero. Because they have to plan for and fight to have kids, the average result is much better.

Unfortunately most of them are also Democrats, but one can only hope they will grow up to be better than their parents were.

EDITED to add: also, it seems your lines about what can and can't be allowed in order to avoid too much liberty leading to the end of civilization are pretty arbitrary. You could use the same argument to justify the Amish being the best way to live. Or to argue that men and women should never live together at all and only meet under controlled conditions for breeding. Or any old thing, depending on where you decided you would draw that arbitrary line.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,09:27

Oh, and I know that's not your personal argument. I should have used "that argument" instead of "your argument" throughout that post there. My apologies.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,10:21

You say a lot "throughout history," and I say that only the last 100 years ago, since America rose to be arguably the greatest, most prosperous society on the planet, marriage has been a boy/girl thing. Perhaps there is a reason for that besides dumb luck.

But anyway, do you at least concur that there can be a difference of opinion on this matter that has nothing to do with the bible, or hate?

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 03 2012,10:22

QUOTE

And lastly, there has actually been some science starting to be done on these issues. There are now enough adult children of homosexual families that some studies have been done here and there. There's still a long way to go, but early results indicate that on the whole children raised by homosexual couples are much happier and more successful in adult life than those raised by heterosexual couples on average.

I've seen the studies, and I think they're bullshit.

QUOTE

Which makes since when you consider that the number of homosexual couples having kids on accident or for the welfare checks is pretty much exactly zero. Because they have to plan for and fight to have kids, the average result is much better.

That's part of the reason why...

Look, I've stated before that I'm pro-gay marriage, and I also don't think gay parents are going to be any better or worse than straight parents.

However, these studies are horseshit.

The sample for straight people is MUCH bigger than the sample for gay people. The researchers don't have to try very hard to cheat the results.

I don't know a ton of gay people who are unemployed drug addicts sucking their way to a meal who also happen to be married and have a kid.

Why? Is it because there are no shitty gay people strung out on drugs or into crime? No! It's because gay marriage hasn't been legal in most places, and adopting kids is more difficult for gay people. Thus, the ones who have kids are obviously going to be in a MUCH better place than straight folks who just have to breathe...

I think the whole gay marriage issue is yet ANOTHER distraction to get us talking about it, and not about the actual issues that are hurting our society.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 03 2012,11:02

< CFA Kiss In. >

Because nothing cures "hatred" like forcing your beliefs upon people.

How do they not see the hypocrisy?

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,11:05

(Leisher @ Aug. 03 2012,14:02)

QUOTE

< CFA Kiss In. >

Because nothing cures "hatred" like forcing your beliefs upon people.

How do they not see the hypocrisy?

I have a small suspicion that this CFA thing, and the backlash, has been so huge is because regular people are tired of being told, day after day, that they are homophobic and full of hate if they dont support gay marriage. Supporting CFA is now like a cathartic "fuck you" to the people with the mission who are always up your ass.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 03 2012,16:22

QUOTE

I've seen the studies, and I think they're bullshit.

Well, yeah, to a large extent, for exactly the reasons you state. Given two otherwise identical families at the same socio-economic level would a heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple produce pretty much the same kids? I think so, but have no evidence. But it remains true that kids are better off with a homosexual couple than in the average shitty foster home. Yet states that don't allow gay couples to adopt have no problem handing them off to shitty foster homes. This makes me question if they are really making that decision based off of what is best for the child or off of their own prejudices.

QUOTE

But anyway, do you at least concur that there can be a difference of opinion on this matter that has nothing to do with the bible, or hate?

Well, yes. There's also ignorance and prejudice and cowardice. There's plenty of reasons. I just don't think any of them are good reasons that anyone should be proud of.

The bottom line for me is I just can't see any difference between being opposed to gay marriage and being opposed to interracial marriage. Both are based on the idea that the opinions of one person should allow them to curtail the freedoms of another person just because they were born different. If it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that gay marriage will cause intense and irreparable harm to society, then I can maybe start to consider it being something to be avoided, but even then I would hesitate. But there isn't even a hint of proof to that sort of effect, just wild and rampant speculation based on wrong-headed ideas about history, religion, and personal prejudice. And in the meantime there's a hell of a lot of harm being done to some homosexual couples in bad situations that could be mitigated if they actually had the freedoms and powers given to heterosexual couples.

Either we are a nation where people can be free from being forced to do what other people's religion tell them to do or we aren't. Right now in some ways we aren't.

EDITED TO ADD: There's one point I just realized I've never clarified. I have no problem with people that dislike gay marriage for whatever reason. I think it's a little unfortunate but sometimes can't be helped, much like someone being a bit uncomfortable around people of another race aren't necessarily automatically evil racists. It's when they materialize that prejudice into action against that other group - whether it's direct action like a lynching or indirect action like legislating against that specific group in some way - that it becomes despicable.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 03 2012,17:17

Well... if you can discount any opposing argument by saying "ignorance, prejudice, cowardice, and for the children" then pretty much no one can debate anything.

Until then, I will continue enjoying the CFA counter-protest, in spite of believing gay marriages should be recognized by the government, because I am tired of being told my opinions are based on hate and ignorance.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 03 2012,18:15

I'm going to CFA tomorrow.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 05 2012,12:14

(TPRJones @ Aug. 03 2012,09:46)

QUOTE

Indeed. So it'll be a net positive for gay rights, and I get to get my face in between those golden brown buns and gobble down some hot juicy cock. Win win!

Daily Show thief.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 06 2012,06:21

This political cartoon is making the rounds on Facebook this morning:

I don't get it.

The liberals I know think it's hilarious. I think it proves their ignorance.

The president of Chick-Fil-A didn't say he hates gays. CFA doesn't have a hiring policy against gays. They don't refuse service to gays. He simply said he believes in a tradition marriage.

The cartoon isn't about that, but rather, about how his words have been twisted into portraying him as someone who hates gays.

Taking the logic of this cartoon a step farther, should we assume that if you're pro-gay marriage, you want to sleep with someone of the same sex?

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 06 2012,08:04

(GORDON @ Aug. 03 2012,19:17)

QUOTE

Well... if you can discount any opposing argument by saying "ignorance, prejudice, cowardice, and for the children" then pretty much no one can debate anything.

Admittedly my last reply on this was a bit flippant. But I will still be happy to entertain an argument that is more than simple ignorance, prejudice, or religious zeal if anyone can present one.

I'm afraid your prior attempt doesn't really count, because as I first said it's not really an argument. Or if you insist that it is then it is a completely circular one. The entirety of the logic behind it sums up as "let's say for the sake of argument that gay marriage is bad for society, therefor we shouldn't allow gay marriage." Unless there's more to it than that, it doesn't really serve any purpose. Saying something for the sake of argument is supposed to then lead to tying that quasi-premise to several other more concrete items, not just turn around and use it to assert the point all by itself.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2012,08:15

yeah ok

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 06 2012,08:30

Look, I know I'm a little rabid on this issue. And I can feel that I'm maybe not entirely rational about it. But that's only because it seems to be so completely and fundamentally driven by the core American values of individual liberty and freedom from religious tyranny that I can't understand how anyone who really cares about those core values could possibly be opposed to it. It makes absolutely no sense to me at all. It boggles my mind that more people aren't more irate about it. Do Americans still hold those ideals sacred or not?

It's not the first time that someone has come along that some people don't care for but fought for anyway. "I don't agree with anything you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it" is a pretty fundamental example. This is exactly the same thing, except "I don't agree with who you want to marry, but will fight to the death for your right to marry them" is suddenly way too icky for some people.

Maybe I just take the idea of individual liberty too seriously. Maybe it was only ever intended to be limited to what your neighbors liked for you to do, not what you wanted to do as long as you didn't hurt anyone else doing it. I don't know.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 06 2012,08:37

I'm pro-gay marriage, but I know at some point in the future I'll be against some new form of "marriage". I'm not sure I'm down with 50 people getting married to each other or a woman marrying her cats, etc.

I guess anywhere people are blatantly taking advantage of the system for economic or social benefits are where I'll draw the line. And where someone isn't consenting, obviously.

In fact, I think it could be argued that polygamy should be legal since it's all consenting adults (AND involves religion), yet I know gay marriage proponents who would scoff at that notion.

Posted by TheCatt on Aug. 06 2012,10:08

I support gay marriage as well. But the voters are the one going against gay marriage, not Chick-Fil-A. Sure, it contributes a tiny bit of money to people who rally other, but at the end of the day: Either courts will legalize it, or people will. And chick-fil-a will still be yummy.

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2012,11:29

My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.

Rabid about the issue or not, I've decided that I am tired of that and from here on out will do anything I can to annoy liberals, even if it is contrary to my personal beliefs. Consider it consequences for the actions of not being civil, and being incapable of comprehending that someone else might have a different point of view.

Liberals must be thwarted at all costs.

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 06 2012,11:37

(GORDON @ Aug. 06 2012,13:29)

QUOTE

My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.

I believe the appropriate response is, "Quiet, honky." Damn, I miss George Jefferson already.

Posted by TPRJones on Aug. 06 2012,11:38

QUOTE

Liberals must be thwarted at all costs.

This sounds promising. Will there be posts to document these adventures?

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2012,11:40

I did get a little satisfaction late last night when she posted a Ronald Reagan quote about "You can't help everybody, but everybody can help somebody" (or something like that), and I got to tell her that Reagan was a republican and therefore evil and just wanted to hurt people. She never responded.

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 06 2012,11:55

QUOTE

My own sister told me yesterday that republicans are evil and racist and just want to hurt people.

It's impossible to reason with that sort of attitude.

She has clearly made up her mind, and now pride will not allow her to admit that she might be wrong.

Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!

Posted by Malcolm on Aug. 06 2012,13:07

(Leisher @ Aug. 06 2012,13:55)

QUOTE

Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!

Robert E. Lee when he signed the articles of surrender?

Posted by GORDON on Aug. 06 2012,13:30

(Malcolm @ Aug. 06 2012,16:07)

QUOTE

(Leisher @ Aug. 06 2012,13:55)

QUOTE

Oh! Remind her who freed the slaves!

Robert E. Lee when he signed the articles of surrender?

Closer than saying "Abe Lincoln."

Posted by Leisher on Aug. 06 2012,15:33

Actually, I was just referring to the politics at the time, which saw the Repubs as anti-slavery, and the Dems as pro-slavery.

Some would say that's still the case...

Posted by TheCatt on Sep. 20 2012,08:55

According to my facebook, Chick-fil-a caved.

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,09:01

(TheCatt @ Sep. 20 2012,11:55)

QUOTE

According to my facebook, Chick-fil-a caved.

I imagine it is a situation where:

1. CFA the corporation will give X-less to charity.
2. CFA will give their owners X amount of extra money
3. Owners will give the same charity X amount of money.

X is constant.

That's what I'd do.

Posted by TPRJones on Sep. 20 2012,09:14

It looks like I never posted this here. Here's my personal solution:

Posted by GORDON on Sep. 20 2012,09:38

I assume that charity educates people of all sexual orientations that marriage is universally bad for everyone?

Posted by Malcolm on Sep. 20 2012,10:49

(GORDON @ Sep. 20 2012,11:38)

QUOTE

I assume that charity educates people of all sexual orientations that marriage is universally bad for everyone?

I would totally give money to that group.

EDIT: Hell, I might even volunteer time for that.