| Author | Message | ||
     Court |
>>>>guess that is a big ol' heapin of pot callin the kettle black ain't it? Please explain that. You seem to be long on whippy catch phrases and nifty retorts and damn short on facts. Man up and tell us what your principles are and what you believe. You sound lime a 4th grader in a playground argument. | ||
| Racerx |
Guess I had to stoop to the uber conservative level. Just put on the blinders and go! Please check your spelling before making comments about someone being a 4th grader. | ||
| Buellinmke |
LOL! Keep an eye on Rahm! I wonder why Court never brags about his hedge-fund managing financial wizard wife anymore? How about this quote from October 6, 2008 when the economy was crashing:
Oh yeah, I forgot it was Obama that tanked the economy. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Loving all the people running to Chic Fil A with most i would say the quicker their arteries clog the better off the world will be. Anyway my 2 cents is that this private organization can feel however they want. I find the supporters and the protesters to be equally a pain. If you don't like their opinion don't go there. Protesting just brought out the idiots and lined Chic Fil A's pockets. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The intolerance and hate of the last 3 posts are why the gay agenda is failing. You rail against bigotry and have become bigots yourself. Your postion is morally bankrupt and is rapidly turning into a political liability. The lgbt community wants acceptance and inclusion but thier presence alone is becoming a distraction and a source of possible violence, protests and litigation. The closet will be closing again. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Yes Ken its so much better for disliking people who are just being themselves and whos actions aren't infringing on anyone's rights. Also please explain how me saying a private organization is entitled to their beliefs is intolerance and hate? | ||
| Drkside79 |
Oh and i don't really wish heart disease on anyone. Perhaps i should have put smilies and J/Ks.... | ||
| Reindog |
Andy, nice to see you posting here again. You are a refreshing voice of reason from the "other side". I hope you are healing. Buellinmke, can not say the same thing about you with your unsightly vindictiveness. RacerX, you appear to be a doppelganger for superdavetfft (look it up). Your emotions control you and the best you seem to muster is reactionary in nature. Truly sad. | ||
| Court |
>>>>Keep an eye on Rahm! I see you've been listening to the news today. Rahm never stops making interesting news . . be it "bending" laws in Chicago or Washington.
| ||
| Reepicheep |
How about the Obama treasury department making sure the union pension funds were built back up with taxpayer dollars, but made sure 20,000 Delphi non union employees got screwed on their pension by declaring it insolvent. Clearly, some pigs are more equal than others... | ||
| Court |
I liked the way they VIOLATED FEDERAL STATUTES to allow the Solyndra folks to get their $$ back . . while the taxpayers, the one's protected by law from precisely this, were subrogated. P.S. - How come "subrogated" isn't in the Badweb dictionary? | ||
| Court |
>>>>I wonder why Court never brags about his hedge-fund managing financial wizard wife anymore? Can you explain how that has ANY bearing on ANYTHING in this discussion? My wife, by the way, (and she's played host to many Badwebbers as well as being a huge part of the Team Elves effort if you ever read any of the articles about the epic record setting effort here on Badweb) is pretty much a success story in her own right. Not my place to share her story here . . . but she's an amazing person with an amazing story. If you insist I brag about her . . . it'd be easy. :-) Now . . how's this germane? | ||
| Hootowl |
For the same reason that "attaches" isn't. Let me know what you find out. | ||
| Hootowl |
The got-damn Germans got nothin' to do wit it! | ||
| Moxnix |
While I have experienced much impish satisfaction baiting the Bolshies, nihilists (crazed or otherwise), and those outside my always proper stands here, I 'specially like the Argumentum ad Hominem generators who go after people, their associates and, in a typical low form of emotional lack of control, their family. But, variety is the spice of BadWeb. Abusive, irrelevant and circumstantial attacks are cheap. Unless I make them to bait the lesser arguers. | ||
| Racerx |
 | ||
| Reindog |
The relevance of besmirching Vicki is low class but what else would you expect from a sniper? Buellinmke has a history of trolling and refusing to answer honest questions about both himself and his viewpoints. Truly sad that a few Badweb members can't cut it. | ||
| Drkside79 |
Buellinmke, I am unsure why Courts wife is in on this discussion. As I am on the minority side of the fence on Badweb. (pro freedom of choice in sexual partners, pro-choice, and most of the time a democrat) I don't see why you would give the (in the sense of an argument) opposition a reason to dismiss your comments outright. In addition I have never met or spoken with Courts wife so to my knowledge she's a perfectly nice woman. Have you? Trust me there are plenty of whiny, nasty people on this board for you to attack. Of course you do so at your own risk. However bringing someones wife into this thread is unacceptable and does not do anything but make you and as a byproduct me look worse. I always like seeing the minority voice their opinion but keep it in the scope of the conversation, blast those who blast you, or take the highroad. Yes I know at times i live in glass houses. Andy | ||
| 86129squids |
I agree Drk- I've come to realize, a long time ago, that the vast majority of BW peeps are highly intelligent, mostly eloquent, definitely CARING, and genuinely good folks. Even though I've not met most here, I consider them peers and friends. I've not had the honor to meet Court's better half... someday there WILL be more mass gatherings involving Erik Buell's creations, so maybe my luck will hold til then. One's "SCU" (IIRC, Court) is NOT trolling material. Very bad form. | ||
| Reepicheep |
I think much of the drama around the issue in this case was related to bullies, not sexual orientation, though the Democrats seem to struggle in accepting that reality. When the owner was asked his personal views on gay marriage, he told them, and the right was not particularly surprised (they are closed on Sunday and they give out Veggie Tales books as happy meal toys for God's sake, you would have to be an idiot to not know the answer before the question was asked). At that point, nobody really cared. Then the bullies appeared, and said shut down a business because of an owners personal beliefs (their right to say, but my right to counter). Frankly, we still really didn't care that much at that point (though perhaps we should have). Then various federal and local government representatives started exercising the power of their elected positions to punish a business for constitutionally protected statements by one of it's owners. OK, now you have a war. I stopped buying Ben and Jerry's ice cream because their founders were pushing junk science in the environmental space and creating health scares that I believed they knew to be bogus for personal gain. So I stopped buying their ice cream. Had the federal government threatened to remove their stores because of what they were doing, I would have opposed that just like this, even though I disagreed with what they had the right to say. How would people have felt if Jeb Bush had said "no Ben and Jerry shops will be welcome in the state of Florida because their owners are gay"? Outrage, right? And it would be justified. This is the same thing. The mayor of New York said no franchise will be allowed to open in the city, because one owner of the parent company has religious views Bloomberg personally disagrees with. How can that not bother liberals? (Or how can it not bother liberals who don't have an true agenda of keeping people from asking about Obama's Columbia academic records, economic recovery status, or the fact that the Democratic controlled congress has still failed to produce a budget?) | ||
| Reepicheep |
(And for the record, I have talked to Vickie, and she was sweet, smart, and professional. And she left absolutely no doubt in my mind that she could shred any one of us at any time in just about any contest we might choose short of an arm wrestling match. So in terms of bringing Vickie into things, I don't think Court is protecting Vickie from us, I think he is protecting us from Vickie. Like I said, she could not have been a more wonderful person to talk too, but I knew about 4 minutes into the conversation that if I was ever on the wrong side of an issue with her, odds are I was both very wrong and completely loosing...  ) | ||
| Strokizator |
Trust me there are plenty of whiny, nasty people on this board for you to attack. Why is anyone being attacked. If I disagree with you then that's what it is, a disgreement, not an attack. My only objection to the Chick-fil-A deal is this. Dan Cathy did not come to the workplace or gathering place of any homosexuals and espouse his views. They were made during an interview on a radio show. If people objected to these comments they should have contacted the program producers and offered to come on the air with a rebuttal. Instead they invaded private property, behaved objectionably and pretty much lost any support from people who were indifferent on the subject of gay marriage. But yet somehow, when all we did was peaceably show up in droves to buy chicken sandwiches, we're the haters. | ||
| Hughlysses |
Very good summary, Bill. | ||
| Fb1 |
When the owner was asked his personal views on gay marriage... Bill, well said, except for one important detail: Dan Cathy was never asked his personal views on gay marriage. The left-stream media (CNN in this case, and then other "news" organizations ran with it) deliberately took comments from a recent interview with Mr. Cathy and manipulated a narrative to suit their agenda. At no point during the interview did Mr. Cathy mention gay marriage. CNN invented "the news," and it backfired on them. As Andrew Breitbart famously said: "The news is everything." This entire "tempest in a teapot," as it's been called on this thread, was conjured up by a corrupt media. Why? Man, if there's a single adult American that doesn't know the answer to that by now, I'd be surprised. (Hint: Obama's political ship is taking on water and listing badly to the left...) For those of you who don't understand how "the news" fabricates "the news," and thus uses their "spin-genda" to shape American opinion, read the piece I've linked to below. Pay close attention to what was originally asked of and said by Mr. Cathy, and then study how CNN manipulated the narrative to suit their devious mission. Frikkin' parasitic anti-American bastards. Mr. Obama, you and your comrades appear feckless and ever more desperate. You've got crap on your faces. You lost this battle, and come November you lose the war. Come November we take back America.
Read the rest of the article here: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/media-invents- story-chik-fil-head-condemned-gay-marriage_648913. html
Indeed.  (Message edited by fb1 on August 07, 2012) | ||
| Kenm123t |
Reep I think your right any lady that hasnt killed off Court yet is up for Sainthood! I was willing to bet he was dead when he glued Jack to the Floor! When you attack some ones family all it does is reveal the weakness of your postion. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
I see a new reality tv show in the making... BERATE then DATE!! http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/07/arizona-chick -fil-worker-berated-on-viral-video-wants-to-meet-w ith-bully/ | ||
| 99savage |
The “answer’ to this is so easy & obvious I am forced to conclude that those still riding “Gay-Marriage” pony are doing it with the express purpose of either 1.) Rubbing their genitals in my face – or – 2.) Trivializing marriage to the point that everybody will avoid it. (I go for option 2.) If “equal-rights” is the issue, simple – On a date certain the State announces that all existing marriage contracts are null-and-void and no new contracts will be issued. Each and every individual is free to work with their attorney and/or clergy person to draft a new contract – or not. Those wanting their original contract for framing can send SASE & $20. After 70 years the records will be auctioned off to highest bidding university or genealogical society. Marriage licenses are a recent innovation. – Assume that they were intended for the protection of children but not sure why they exist. If the state stops issuing them 1. The clergy are happy they can make the claim that only people they have made contracts for are married 2. The lawyers are happy 3. Homosexuals are happy, they truly are equal 4. Libertarians are happy Since I doubt that I am so brilliant that this idea is unique to me the only reasonable conclusion is that our little friends in the homosexual community have nefarious intent. | ||
| Aesquire |
Drkside, I too am not in lockstep with the "local" view on humans & sex. ( local = here ) Some people have a real bad reaction to gays, ( very few here, I think ) but several are more than willing to share their own views. It can get heated. ( get me going on the Global Climate Con, for example ) Some of those views I see as silly, Others, well reasoned. I CAN be convinced with a good argument, if facts and logic are involved. Unfortunately, when it comes to sex, facts are few and logic.... missing. Just because your family raised you to think Sheep are proper mates, doesn't mean you have a real good shot at convincing me to buy an Alpaca farm. Contra-wise If a certain thing is ok for 2 people... but not if they are the same sex, That has to be learned behavior. What goatherding nomadic people 4 thousand years ago considered proper ways to treat one another may still be wise. Or really stupid. The solemn pronouncements of high Church Leaders ( especially ones who have declared themselves divine or infallible ) about sex when they insist the Priesthood, including themselves, be chaste, can either make me giggle, or yell in outrage. I only get upset when: a: the divine leaders insist I follow their kink, or B: there is proven child rape involved.... with supposedly celibate clergy. ( if supposedly celibate clergy want to have consensual adult orgies, I have no problems ) I start to wonder about the culture that creates/attracts such problems. There's something wrong going on. Really, really wrong. I am pretty sure that the mores preached Re: respect, caring, responsibility, are pretty smart, but the weird bits about what goes where and what afterlife THAT earns you seems like a big con, to me. If you want to base your sex life on the Kinsey report ( big mistake! ) go ahead. On the 16th century medieval inquisition? Don't scare the horses. | ||
| Aesquire |
99... that's freaking brilliant! You can pi$$ off whole entire continents with that plan. Blake and I disagree on the "gay marriage" business. We DO agree however that a civil union that defines rights like hospital visitation, property, and custody..... pretty much exactly as formally, legally defined with marriage, is a good idea. People rejecting that idea, ( civil union = legal equality ) on either side of the argument, probably have an unspoken agenda, as you say. My sister believes that ANY non traditional such union should have a "prenup" that defines property, and most importantly children's fates. In the end, Family is about Children, Marriage is about the secure raising of Children. and, not to be rejected, the societal approval of sexual relations. This is a leftover from the dark days when contraception meant abortifacients, and not very good or safe ones. Controlling the female was, often the only way to control reproduction. That's the way it still is done in medieval societies. Today. Now. Here. ( check your local paper archives for "honor killing" ) I prefer the 21st century, but freely admit our morality has not caught up with our technology. I believe Plato complained about that too. | ||
| Gregtonn |
"If “equal-rights” is the issue, simple –" Until government became involved marriage was a rite not a right. For most religions it still is a rite. The government became involved for monetary and control reasons. If government was removed from the purview "gay" marriage should become a non-issue as there are plenty religious groups who will perform "gay" marriage as a rite. However many still would not be satisfied as what they are really looking for is validation of a life style. And no, I have nothing against you if its your lifestyle. Just try not to make an ass of yourself if you're with me, I blush easily when people do things like that. G |
