Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[Lootifer]

Your grasp of the context in my posts is not very perceptive; ill give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to cultural differences.

To clarify: In all likelyhood, I read just as much as you, I have just as strong convictions, I turn out to vote just as often, I voice my opinion on issues that matter to me, etc etc. I am an active participant in freedom of speach and our pseudo-democracy.

However I do not participate in the political bandwagoning and other bullshit; I couldnt care less if you are a tea party member or a 99%er; an athiest, christian or islam; you can be as camp as Julian Clary or as 'ard as fookin nails as Chuck Norris. None of that crap should matter in politics, what should matter is your opinion and the rational argument you throw up in support of your opinion.

Here ill fix it for you:

i feel no desire to wave any flag for a political group, tout any soundbite enhancing the optics of a political position or fistpump at any success of any policy decision.

In fact I personally think anyone who does so are slightly bonkers.

[Lootifer]

No reply?

[john9blue]

No reply?

how dare he go an hour without checking the CC forums!

[Lootifer]

No reply?

how dare he go an hour without checking the CC forums!

I naturally checked to see if he had made any recent posts for that very reason my good man

[Phatscotty]

Your grasp of the context in my posts is not very perceptive; ill give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk that up to cultural differences.

That's okay, becaue I don't think I ever jump into what you are talking about. You are always jumping into my stuff, and sometimes that's okay, but usually you don't really have anything to say and can be quite insulting. It seems lately you've been improving a bit so I will just agree it's cultural difference and remind that is pretty much what I have always said to you. "You don't fully understand"

To clarify: In all likelyhood, I read just as much as you, I have just as strong convictions, I turn out to vote just as often, I voice my opinion on issues that matter to me, etc etc. I am an active participant in freedom of speach and our pseudo-democracy.

However I do not participate in the political bandwagoning and other bullshit; I couldnt care less if you are a tea party member or a 99%er; an athiest, christian or islam; you can be as camp as Julian Clary or as 'ard as fookin nails as Chuck Norris. None of that crap should matter in politics, what should matter is your opinion and the rational argument you throw up in support of your opinion.

Unless your name is Chick-Fil-A? You spiel their is pretty much what I have been saying about Chik-fil-a, or any other religious organization.

[Woodruff]

"A bit dodgy" but I will ask again, in a different way...Is the response by the mayor of Boston an act of bigotry?

Bigotry? No.

Correct.. this does not meet the criteria for the definition of bigotry because he has support of his statement and bigotry has a very defined meaning. However, the mayor does appear to be demonstrating a clear cut case of abuse of power from an elected official....

I would agree with that.

[Woodruff]

Thank god we have you PS

Whats winning got to do with anything?

Haven't you noticed...that's ALL that matters to Phatscotty...that "his team wins", regardless of right or wrong.

Tell me PS; faced with a vote on gay marriage, what way would you vote?

He is paid by the Tea Party to promote what they like to pretend is "the historical status of marriage"...what do you think?

I notice he avoided answering...again.

I support rational politics; i feel no desire to wave any flag, tout any soundbite or fistpump at any success.

In fact I personally think anyone who does so (such as yourself) are slightly bonkers.

And that's perfectly okay. You do not need to have spirit, pride, virtue, courage, principles, honor, or commitment. Just keep laying back, don't get involved. I'm sure it will all fall in your lap someday.

Also what makes you think I lack any of those things?
I dont get the cause and effect link between my post and you follow up summary; care to elaborate?

You're not on his team, of course.

[john9blue]

He is paid by the Tea Party to promote what they like to pretend is "the historical status of marriage"...what do you think?

I notice he avoided answering...again.

lol really? he's paid by the tea party to go on forums and spew tea party propaganda?

that would be more believable if he didn't play lots of risk on this site.

[Woodruff]

He is paid by the Tea Party to promote what they like to pretend is "the historical status of marriage"...what do you think?

I notice he avoided answering...again.

lol really? he's paid by the tea party to go on forums and spew tea party propaganda?
that would be more believable if he didn't play lots of risk on this site.

No, not on the forums. Across Minnesota. Pay attention, please.

[Phatscotty]

Marriage

=

[PLAYER57832]

I am going to drive a good distance to get a chicken sandwich on August 1st. I recommend anybody who wants to take a stand against fascist economic bullies, and stand in support of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, also visits. It's the most pro-American thing we can do concerning this issue.

Let's show the Nazis how to play by the rules. Find a chik-fil-a near you!!!

Yeah, because real freedom is all about oppressing OTHER people....

In what way does Chik-Fil-A oppress other people?

Its owner, etc are pretty homophobic.

[PLAYER57832]

Marriage

=

Defined by who?

[jonesthecurl]

Marriage

=

Actually, no. That's a cake decoration.

[Woodruff]

Marriage

=

Actually, no. That's a cake decoration.

Which is an OUTSTANDING analogy for the amount of substance typically found in Phatscotty's posts.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Stop spewing your ignorant blasphemies scotty.
Everyone knows marriage was designed by god to be between 1 man and several women.

Why else would a woman be able to give birth at most once every 9-12 months while a man can impregnate a virtually unlimited number of times during a year?
Facts are facts.

Marriage =

[Phatscotty]

[Lootifer]

Unless your name is Chick-Fil-A? You spiel their is pretty much what I have been saying about Chik-fil-a, or any other religious organization.

Except you dwell on the political bullshit details of the situation, joining in and encouraging the kind of bandwagoning i loath so much. You dont answer the question: "where do you stand on the debate?" but quickly jump on any percieved injustice on the part of the anti-gay side of the equation.

I would quite happily support you being aggrieved at injustice - its a worthy cause, but only if you were neutral in your analysis. I am sorry mate, but you are far from neutral in your analysis.

Oh and in order to once again clarify:
- CEO of chicken place is a bigot
- Mayor of Boston is either an idiot, or a stereotypical politician full of BS to win a couple of votes, or both
- I support gay marriage, and anyone who supports freedom should do the same*

* it is irrelevant to the debate whether or not the government should have any involvement in marriage; they currently do, this is a fact. As such you should support gay marriage based on your support of freedom. Do you?

[john9blue]

Marriage

=

do you support a state's right to legalize gay marriage?

if so, what would you do if all 50 states legalized gay marriage?

[Phatscotty]

Marriage

=

do you support a state's right to legalize gay marriage?

if so, what would you do if all 50 states legalized gay marriage?

of course.

My state is voting on a Constitutional Amendment on marriage this November. If my state passes it, it will not change anything for me personally, I'm not quitting my jobs or moving to another state or anything.

If all 50 states pass it, then all 50 states pass it. It is what it is. To support democracy is to be tolerant, to support the decision regardless of which side wins or loses.

I would support the decision on gay marriage if it passed here, that is to say I would respect the opposing position in their victory. But you gotta ask, will the other side respect our victory if we win? OF COURSE THEY WON'T!

[GreecePwns]

Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".

There is no respect given toward people who wish for big government at any level, like Phatscotty.

[john9blue]

Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".

so you're an anarchist?

because imposing morals is all the state does.

[Phatscotty]

Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".

There is no respect given toward people who wish for big government at any level, like Phatscotty.

Nice subject change from imposing morals to big government. Don't let your emotions get the best of you GP.

There is the perspective, with plenty of examples and evidence, that your agenda is trying to impose your morality on everybody else, and even position your morality as "superior" to the large majority of everyone else's universal morals and even basic definitions.

[Haggis_McMutton]

Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".

so you're an anarchist?

because imposing morals is all the state does.

One would hope the state imposes things based on reason not superstition.

The state imposing penalties to thiefs makes sense, as thieving detracts from society. The state imposing what types of people can and cannot get married, not so much.

Nice subject change from imposing morals to big government. Don't let your emotions get the best of you GP.

There is the perspective, with plenty of examples and evidence, that your agenda is trying to impose your morality on everybody else, and even position your morality as "superior" to the large majority of everyone else's universal morals and even basic definitions.

You are trying to prevent people from doing something they wish to do and that affects no one but themselves.
He wants to allow people to do what they want with their lives.

Religious people's right to be offended at gay people's lifestyle does not override gay people's fundamental human rights.
This is not rocket science.

[GreecePwns]

Nope. I don't respect the arrogance of those who wish to impose morality on others. I've made my argument that the state has no place in imposing morality and moral restrictions on its citizens, which was met with a 5-page "it is what it is".

so you're an anarchist?

because imposing morals is all the state does.

If by anarchist, you mean the belief in the end to coercion (but not laws), then yes. I guess I am. I guess the social contract should be in the form of an actual contract to be signed upon reaching the age of maturity? I don't really know my views for certain in this regard, I only started contemplating the necessity of the state at all.

What I do know is that no coercion is better than some coercion. And that the current system of government need be taken down to be replaced by one where there is no coercion.

[Army of GOD]

Marriage = Marriage due to the reflexive posulate