Re: Dont use the E word

by Sir Pun Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:13 pm

Might hav been bernie mack r.i.p.

by Dennis324 Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:37 pm

Bryant wrote:
Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:

I don't eat at Chik-fil-a and have no respect for that company. The appreciation day made me quite sad for the moral state of our country.
Why? Because they oppose same sex marriage? Or because they give to Christian organizations? Lots of people do. I do. Have you lost respect for me too?

Because it represented so many people uniting in a celebration of hatred toward a minority of their fellow country people.

I kinda see your point. I got to thinking about this and ...I have similar feelings about the "Occupy Mvt". Our friend Avlgal (a person I really like and wish we'd hear from more often), mentioned something awhile back that she was going to get involved with the Occupy Mvt. At least, I think she said this.

Anyway, since she said that, the occupy mvt got really radicalized. No longer is it a protest group. It became infiltrated by radical leftists, anarchist and some really violent people. They went from peaceful protest to thinking nothing of closing down businesses or going into shops and destroying property. I think this mvt was flooded by hateful people (who probably think Che Guevarra was a great guy) and the good but left leaning folks got pushed out.

So yeah...I cant stand what the Occupy mvt became and I guess you feel the same way about Chik-Fil-A.

by **Bryant** Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:57 pm

Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:
Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:

I don't eat at Chik-fil-a and have no respect for that company. The appreciation day made me quite sad for the moral state of our country.
Why? Because they oppose same sex marriage? Or because they give to Christian organizations? Lots of people do. I do. Have you lost respect for me too?

Because it represented so many people uniting in a celebration of hatred toward a minority of their fellow country people.

I kinda see your point. I got to thinking about this and ...I have similar feelings about the "Occupy Mvt". Our friend Avlgal (a person I really like and wish we'd hear from more often), mentioned something awhile back that she was going to get involved with the Occupy Mvt. At least, I think she said this.

Anyway, since she said that, the occupy mvt got really radicalized. No longer is it a protest group. It became infiltrated by radical leftists, anarchist and some really violent people. They went from peaceful protest to thinking nothing of closing down businesses or going into shops and destroying property. I think this mvt was flooded by hateful people (who probably think Che Guevarra was a great guy) and the good but left leaning folks got pushed out.

So yeah...I cant stand what the Occupy mvt became and I guess you feel the same way about Chik-Fil-A.

Some nasty elements defiantly slipped in with that movement. Unfortunately some people look for an excuse to riot...

by Sir Pun Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:39 am

Funny how radicals and lefties go hand and hand. Didnt see anything like that out of the manufactured, then evil, tea party movement. Ows was bullocks from the beginning. What started as a movement meant to tie into obamas class warfare rethoric and act as a manufactured democrat tea party for 2012, turned into a terrorist group if you ask me. Theyre entire mission - as stated in their name "occupy" - was/is to disrupt, harass, obstruct, and often destroy, with nothing but trash and human feces in their wake.

by Sir Pun Tue Apr 02, 2013 7:46 am

Its only because the left placated and tried to identify with them in the beginning that they grew so bold.

And not that i eat at chik-fil-a just because theyre expensive, but i still dont have a problem with them donating to tradiional and christian causes anymore than i do, say, starbucks if they supported gay causes. And chik-fil-a appreciation day was actually a backlash from all the liberal and gay attacks and boycott calls on the president of the company for expressing that he has a biblical view of marriage in a radio interview. HEAVEN FORBID!! Everything else is echo chamber bs

by Marconius Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:50 pm

Bryant wrote:
Miles1 wrote:Am going to guess that no-one in these schools actually had any complaints about easter, they're doing this in case someone might possibly be offended. So they had "a parent", who was "questioning" them about some of the things they did, so they got scared that they might possibly offend someone who would sue them/go to the news about them, so they overreacted. In doing so, they screwed themselves over even more because instead of it being a small local news story, it's now become national news and you have O'Reilly/Fox News/all the right-wing blogs that feed off Fox News on your case.

The way I see it, you're never going to please everyone, so just call it what you want to call it and what makes most people happy if little abdullah's or supreeeth's parents don't want their kid to go to an easter egg hunt, then they can keep him at home. The way I see it, political correctness can go kiss my hairy white Irish arse, and if you don't like me saying "white" or "irish", then I'm suing you for being racist :-P

All this political correctness crap is really just small people with a little bit of authority being scared of being sued, so if you want to blame someone for the "War on holiday-of-an-allegedly-non-state-religion", don't blame the athiests or the non-christians, blame the lawyers.

Technically its highly unconstitutional to observe Easter (in either the Christian or older pagan sense) in a public school.

Technically, it is not.

by Marconius Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:51 pm

Bryant wrote:Its not banning a word, its banning the school from participating in a religious observance. While this isn't where I'd choose to make a stand, I see the rational.

I see no rational behind banning the idea of something that is now secular.

by Marconius Wed Apr 03, 2013 5:59 pm

Bryant wrote:
Pun wrote:
Bryant wrote:
Pun wrote:No joke miles. And i ddnt know an easter egg hunt was a religious event, while a secular egg hunt wasnt. You heard the lady. "They just cant call it the easter bunny." Bullshit. I cant wait for my kids school to try some of this crap cuz im be there all day saying easter bunny, happy easter, merry christmas and all that and so will my kid. Im sry but this idea of the state not endorsing an official religion has been taken WAY too far in our schools, to the extent that they try to stifle free expression, not just of the faculty who have the same rights as anyone else, but of the students.

The kids can say it all they want. You (as a non-government agent) can say it all you want. The teachers in their spare time can even say it. The teachers and other school staff (or any government agent) can not constitutionally do any action that indorses a religion or religious practice while in the role of a government represenative. As much as you like to cry about (a faulty reading of) the second amendment, I'd have thought you would have some respect for the first!
a faulty reading of the second amendment? When its quoted?

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Pretty damn simple to me. And gou can say that the kids can call it whatever they want, but the lady said they couldnt. And by your reasoning the president cant take part in the EASTER egg roll on the white house lawn.

Where the right to bear arms is very carefully placed in the context of a well regulated militia. Most firearm owners in the United States do not qualify as a well regulated militia (not to say that you shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, just that I don't find the constitutional argument compelling).

No, technically the President should not. That said, as I observed earlier, this really isn't where I'd choose to make my stand.

You can only look at that writing in the context that it was written in and not in the context of today. The well regulated militia that you speak of is every property holder willing and able to muster and train on a regular basis. It was the levy and not what we think of a "national guard" today. Trying to determine what the framers meant without actually reading what it was that was said at the time is not fair to yourself or the document.

Considering the thoughts at the time, it also pertains to things other than small arms. Thanks to privately held artillery, the Continental army was able to field some. Thanks to privateers, we actually had a navy. Our country was never supposed to have the large military industrial complex we have today. We were supposed to hold true to the citizen soldier that this country was based on......thanks Lincoln and Roosevelt and Roosevelt and Truman and Johnson and Reagan.

by Marconius Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:05 pm

Pun wrote:And minority shminority, arent we all a partnof SOME minority, in some way? Of course we are, but the only ones that matter are the ones the establishment champions. This why minority status and classing people together isnt my thing, and i dont like how the left does it either - by voting blocs of course.

The world's smallest minority is the individual.

That is why trying to not offend one minority will always offend another. It only matters what minority the majority finds acceptable to be offended.

This whole idea is beyond stupid.

Better late than never......Happy Easter y'all.

by Marconius Wed Apr 03, 2013 6:08 pm

Bryant wrote:
Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:
Dennis324 wrote:
Bryant wrote:

I don't eat at Chik-fil-a and have no respect for that company. The appreciation day made me quite sad for the moral state of our country.
Why? Because they oppose same sex marriage? Or because they give to Christian organizations? Lots of people do. I do. Have you lost respect for me too?

Because it represented so many people uniting in a celebration of hatred toward a minority of their fellow country people.

I kinda see your point. I got to thinking about this and ...I have similar feelings about the "Occupy Mvt". Our friend Avlgal (a person I really like and wish we'd hear from more often), mentioned something awhile back that she was going to get involved with the Occupy Mvt. At least, I think she said this.

Anyway, since she said that, the occupy mvt got really radicalized. No longer is it a protest group. It became infiltrated by radical leftists, anarchist and some really violent people. They went from peaceful protest to thinking nothing of closing down businesses or going into shops and destroying property. I think this mvt was flooded by hateful people (who probably think Che Guevarra was a great guy) and the good but left leaning folks got pushed out.

So yeah...I cant stand what the Occupy mvt became and I guess you feel the same way about Chik-Fil-A.

Some nasty elements defiantly slipped in with that movement. Unfortunately some people look for an excuse to riot...

This is where we are seeing the roots of offense.

One is offended by OWS, one was offended by the TEA Party

One is offended by same sex lovers, one is offended by those who are offended by same sex lovers.

Whose offense deserves greater recognition???
Why should the rest of us even care???

by Dennis324 Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:21 am

Pun wrote:Its only because the left placated and tried to identify with them in the beginning that they grew so bold.

And not that i eat at chik-fil-a just because theyre expensive, but i still dont have a problem with them donating to tradiional and christian causes anymore than i do, say, starbucks if they supported gay causes. And chik-fil-a appreciation day was actually a backlash from all the liberal and gay attacks and boycott calls on the president of the company for expressing that he has a biblical view of marriage in a radio interview. HEAVEN FORBID!! Everything else is echo chamber bs

Exactly.

I dont eat much at Chik Fil-A but they do make a pretty good sandwich. Smile

I support the folks they give to as well, but dont have the money to give. And yes, I rarely eat at McDonalds or drink Pepsi because they do give to gay causes. But I dont think they are horrible companies. i just disagree with em and express that with my patronage (or lack of). Smile

by Sir Pun Fri Apr 05, 2013 5:55 am

I sort of agree with huckabee on this one. I dont frequent (or not) a business because i agree with the politics of its board, but rather for their product or service. Otherwise, i think i would rly be limiting myself to what businesses i can frequent.

by Sponsored content