Chik-fil-A

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rocketpig

No way can you compare Obama and Bachmann. Michele is a fringe, right wing nutjob. She's an embarrassment to Congress and given the average Congress, that's really sayin' something. Hell, her own party just called her out for implying there were Al Queda ties to Hilary's assistant. If the rest of the GOP is backpedaling on a remark you made toward Hilary Clinton, you know you've gone completely off the deep end.

Her Politifact page would be hilarious if it wasn't so damned sad. The woman flat-out lies as often as she can get away with it (more often, actually) to rile up her base. She's the very definition of a demagogue.

She's an awful, terrible, horrible woman and I have little respect for anyone who votes for her. I can handle people who disagree with me on various topics but if your main tools to convince people you're right are lies, fire, and brimstone, I'm not going to have a lick of respect for you or your constituency.

In a nutshell, Bachmann is the pure embodiment of everything that is wrong with American politics. And I'm not even a ****ing Democrat.

---

Well done, sir.

Meanwhile on the left wing nobody is bothered by Harry Ried, I guess when the entire party is fringe nutjobs nobody notices. Meanwhile John McCain is a hero to the left except for a couple months in 2008 when he was pure evil, and wanted to eat your babies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fatbeer

Meanwhile on the left wing nobody is bothered by Harry Ried, I guess when the entire party is fringe nutjobs nobody notices. Meanwhile John McCain is a hero to the left except for a couple months in 2008 when he was pure evil, and wanted to eat your babies.

---

McCain disgusted not only the left but also parts of the right by spending most of 2006-2008 pandering to the religious base, something he never did before and hasn't done since the election. It's not surprising that a few of us found that distasteful from a man who was labeled "maverick" for most of his career.

Harry Reid is an ass. I'll just leave it at that.

I cannot believe just how much press this subject has gotten and how nauseating it has become, and just how stupid everyone seems to be on the issue. The overreactions of both the left and the right sound like a bunch of petulant little kids who desparately need their *** beaten so hard that they can no longer sit down... Just a few things:

1) No one, and I mean no one looks at the whole discussion. These guys spent most of that conversation speaking about divorce and how they were proud to be married to the same person their entire life. The right loves to take a stand on gay marriage, but never talks about divorce (which has far more to do with teh sanctity of marriage I'd add)... And that has more to do with the fact that the church's divorce rate is no different (if not sligly higher) than outside the church, and half of their congregation would get up and leave if they said something.

2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

3) Not all of it is simply bigotry.. I'm a Christian, though I hesitate to call myself conservative any more because my libertarian views no longer seem to mesh with what is now defined as "conservative" I think homosexuality is wrong, and I think homosexual marriage is wrong. That's pretty clear biblically, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how I interact with those homosexuals that I know (and I have had gay friends over the course of my life). I also believe that two homosexuals in a free country are free to do something like this so long as they are not violating the freedoms of others.... and unlike more potent issues like abortion (where you can argue that the unborn child is alive), two dudes getting married poses absolutely no threats to my freedoms or the freedoms of anyone else in this country... you might (and I mean might) be able to make a case against raising children, but that's a completely different case and not an easy one to make.

4) So much of this is nothing but pandering, and it's exactly what is wrong with this country. We are spending trillions of dollars a year on wars, special interest, welfare, and many other things that we cannot afford and have racked up debt ratios that would render private corporations insolvent. The economy is in shambles and the people that put it there continue to run free. The only way we've been able to make it work is by diluting the value of the currency we have (effectively slowly robbing people of their incomes) and are only a few years behind the Europeans with the mess they currently have and we are fighting over this? One of my former congressmen (steve Latourette) just resigend a couple of weeks ago, because as he put it, things were so polarized that the leaders could simply throw out a controversy and watch the entire thing fall apart into right and left taking shots at each other. Moderates (or libertarians such as myself) get shut out of the debate alltogether, even though both sides have some very clear flaws in their stances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

---

I agreed with most of what you said - I take some issue here. The government/society has an interest in promoting stable social relationships. If it was simply handed over to the churches it would severely complicate the state's ability to incentivize the relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing.

I say let churches decide what they want to recognize as marriage, but in terms of the government churches shouldn't be involved in any way, shape, or form. They are ceremonial - the license has a pragmatic function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

2) Marriage licenses, ironically, were setup to prevent blacks and whites from marrying. I find it amusing that small government conservatives are suddenly in favor of government laws. This is a church issue, and it belongs there. Give it back to the churches.

---

I agreed with most of what you said - I take some issue here. The government/society has an interest in promoting stable social relationships. If it was simply handed over to the churches it would severely complicate the state's ability to incentivize the relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing.

I say let churches decide what they want to recognize as marriage, but in terms of the government churches shouldn't be involved in any way, shape, or form. They are ceremonial - the license has a pragmatic function.

---

I was addressing this more or less in terms of "the way it used to be." George Washington didn't need a license for marriage. Those were evented at later times to help enforce Jim Crow laws. I'd agree that with divorce the way it is today, there needs to be some sort of legal contract, though personally I don't think the church needs to (nor should it) recognize government licenses of marriage.

As it is right now, I don't think the state "incentivizes relationships that are strong economically and for child-rearing." If anything, it does the opposite. Finances are the number reason why people divorce and with oppressive taxes and inflation that erodes your wealth, families are under more financial pressure now than they ever were. 50 years ago, you didn't need both parents to work. Now, it's a matter of necessity for most families as one person cannot earn enough to keep up. Likewise, the government has made divorce very, very easy, and if encouraging strong relationships was its goal, then divorce should be difficult to do. I'm not saying the church has done a good job of it either, but if you lowered taxes and ended inflation, there would be a measurable drop in divorce rates in this country.

I think in your last statement we essentially are saying the same thing, though I don't consider the church marriage ceremonial. It's a vow before God. I get that if you do not believe in God, this is not necessary, but what God has joined, no man should split apart. The church as a whole has dropped the ball on this one, and I'd argue that it plays a much bigger role in the degredation of the family and the assault on the sanctity of marriage than homosexual marriage every will. 50% of the population is divorced, and by some statistics, that rate is slightly higher in the church. I'm rather dismayed that my brothers and sisters in Christ will stand up fervently against homosexuality while meekly retreating on this subject. Taking a stand here would empty the most churches, leaving many of them up to foreclosure... so they retreat. My general belief here is that I could care less if gays marry, but my first ammendment says that as a member of the church, I do not have to recongize it or perform the ceremonies. To me, this compromise would work for about 90% of the people on each side (though the vocal 10% on each side would certainly disagree)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

To me, this compromise would work for about 90% of the people on each side (though the vocal 10% on each side would certainly disagree)...

---

You would hope, but unfortunately I don't think it will for many. I'm not sure why so many people care about making sure others suffer.

I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

---

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

---

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

---

Just thought that this would be what you all were posting about, and surprised to find you weren't given today's events. Just want to make sure anyone who checks in on this knows that it happened as it was not widely covered by major news networks. If the guy had brought in a Burger King bag I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of beginning a thread here on the shooter at all, just that this shooter happened to be politically motivated, unlike other recent and past shootings, and Chik-fil-a appears to be at the center of those motivations, and here I already knew a chik-fil-a thread was rolling... so there you have all the permutations. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheLeviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultima Ratio

I saw the new posts thinking you all were remarking on today's domestic terrorism (shooting) at the Family Research Council, where the shooter carried a Chik-fil-a bag and opened fire in the name of tolerance -- for homosexual marriage. That Chik-fil-a is everywhere these days.

---

Is this just a restatement of the news or are you making an implication about the issue with one whacko?

---

Just thought that this would be what you all were posting about, and surprised to find you weren't given today's events. Just want to make sure anyone who checks in on this knows that it happened as it was not widely covered by major news networks. If the guy had brought in a Burger King bag I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of beginning a thread here on the shooter at all, just that this shooter happened to be politically motivated, unlike other recent and past shootings, and Chik-fil-a appears to be at the center of those motivations, and here I already knew a chik-fil-a thread was rolling... so there you have all the permutations. :)

---

Thank goodness you were here last week to put the shooting at the Sikh temple in perspective!

Extreme whackos on either side need not enter our thoughtful discourse. Seriously.

[/QUOTE]Thank goodness you were here last week to put the shooting at the Sikh temple in perspective![/QUOTE]

Like I said, had there already been a Sikhism thread going on that day....

And that event was widely reported. This one, not so much and that is why I made my comment, is that okay?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseudoSABR

Extreme whackos on either side need not enter our thoughtful discourse. Seriously.

---

wholeheartedly agree, but this is driving policy in this country. These extreme wackos are being used to justify destroying the 2nd ammendment, just as they are being used to spend trillions invading foreign nations (which ironically tends to create more of them). You cannot live your life based on what the extreme says/does.... but in this country, it seems to be acceptable.

And people wonder why more and more people seem to care less and less about politics. It's Michele Bachman vs Nancy Pelosi. Both equally crazy on opposite sides of the table. I mean wasn't Pelosi the one who told her party to sign a bill and then read it later?

The Chik-fil-A thing was totally blown out of proportion. He expressed his opinion, an opinion probably roughly half of the country agrees with and half of the country disagrees with. However, he also said that his opinion does not get in the way of his company's policy on equal rights for hiring.

The politicians seemingly have to be far to the left or far to the right... and I would imagine that at least 80% of people are somewhere closer to the middle. I think that's what turns so many people off to it all.

Seth, Pelosi might be a gun-ho Democrat (she was speaker of the house, dude); she's hardly as extreme as Michele Bachman. Maybe you should pay more attention.