• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Charlie Daniels unloads 'dag-blamed truth' on Obama

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,148
6,187
136
If you think that's paranoid just wait till you are living in the aftermath of the pure utter stupidity this generation is unleashing on the world. You wont understand frickin paranoia until you really learn how badly things have been screwed up.
Let me know when the first piece of sky falls so I don't miss it.
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,565
294
126
Absolutism? You mean demanding that the a word and its opposite are not the same thing? Demanding that tolerance and intolerance are not the same is absolutism? I suppose it could be, but saying they are the same is idiocy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

However, you are falling into the mental failure of thinking that all intolerance is the same. Talk about aboslutism. Some intolerance is good, other intolerance is bad.

Intolerance is certainly not tolerance. And your demand that an item and its opposite are the same things is a stupid position to hold, let alone defend. What next, you will claim that wet and dry are the same thing?

You do know that sometimes being wet is a good thing, but at other times being wet is a bad thing...but in all cases dry and wet are not the same thing, right?
I will not be dragged into a circular argument where first you accuse me of one thing, claim I support another, and ascribe to me both.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
Which means you agree that banning gay marriage is something elected officials must do, right? The majority of the nation opposes it.
Actually just a few months ago polls in the US for the first time started showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't make the statement you were quoting right however as even if a town wants something, they're not allowed to violate laws and the Constitution to have it.

I agree that even if I find the Chic-fil-A executives words to be despicable, he has a right to say it. And people who think that he's a piece of crap have the right to say that and to boycott his business. If he'd come out and said he thinks interracial marriage goes against God's will and that makes us as a nation arrogant, quite a few more people would have had a problem with what he said. But in the end it's the same thing substituting race for sexual orientation.

The mayors of Boston and other cities also while being elected officials, still have the right to free speech. They have the right to say "Boston doesn't want you in this town". However if they try to use their position as an elected official to punish Chic-fil-A for the speech of their executive, then they are violating the First Amendment. Right now what these mayors have said is rhetoric, we've yet to see if they will attempt to act upon it.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
Actually just a few months ago polls in the US for the first time started showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't make the statement you were quoting right however as even if a town wants something, they're not allowed to violate laws and the Constitution to have it.

I agree that even if I find the Chic-fil-A executives words to be despicable, he has a right to say it. And people who think that he's a piece of crap have the right to say that and to boycott his business. If he'd come out and said he thinks interracial marriage goes against God's will and that makes us as a nation arrogant, quite a few more people would have had a problem with what he said. But in the end it's the same thing substituting race for sexual orientation.

The mayors of Boston and other cities also while being elected officials, still have the right to free speech. They have the right to say "Boston doesn't want you in this town". However if they try to use their position as an elected official to punish Chic-fil-A for the speech of their executive, then they are violating the First Amendment. Right now what these mayors have said is rhetoric, we've yet to see if they will attempt to act upon it.
Aww crap, now I have to agree with thraashman. Something is wrong here :)
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
So you think it is fine for the government to discriminate against someone based on their moral or religious views?


You are confusing the actions of an elected official with the actions of a private citizen.
No. You had bolded the following quote from Daniels: "Daniels said. “Is it not downright un-American for an elected official to stand up and try to destroy a business?"

Being unable to open a couple of franchises would not destroy CFA as a business. I was pointing out that the statement by Daniels is idiotic and illogical; that you bolded it in your post "He has a point" makes me wonder about your sanity and thought processes.

Of course it's wrong for an elected official to use his power to ban a business, for any reason. The decisions as to allowing a business to open and operate within a city are made by an elected board according to zoning regulations, not by the mayor.

I think Daniels was talking about the anti-CFA folks when he used the phrase "these people"; at least that's how it appears from what you quoted out of the article.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
in·tol·er·ance

   /ɪnˈtɒlərəns/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[in-tol-er-uhns] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
noun

1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intolerance?s=t

If you lack toleration for something you are intolerant. If you are intolerant, you are not tolerant. That is what the word actually means. You cannot be both tolerant and intolerant. It is an all or none thing. If you lack toleration for the beliefs of another person, you are not tolerant. This means you are intolerant.


I will not be dragged into a circular argument where first you accuse me of one thing, claim I support another, and ascribe to me both.
You have no idea what a circular argument is. Saying a thing and its opposite are not the same is not a circular argument, it is a statement of face. Hot is not cold, dry is not wet, up is not down, insane is not sane, inside is not outside, intolerant is not tolerant.

Do you think intolerant and tolerant are the same thing?
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Actually just a few months ago polls in the US for the first time started showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage.
I did not know this. Thanks for the info.

That doesn't make the statement you were quoting right however as even if a town wants something, they're not allowed to violate laws and the Constitution to have it.

I agree that even if I find the Chic-fil-A executives words to be despicable, he has a right to say it. And people who think that he's a piece of crap have the right to say that and to boycott his business. If he'd come out and said he thinks interracial marriage goes against God's will and that makes us as a nation arrogant, quite a few more people would have had a problem with what he said. But in the end it's the same thing substituting race for sexual orientation.

The mayors of Boston and other cities also while being elected officials, still have the right to free speech. They have the right to say "Boston doesn't want you in this town". However if they try to use their position as an elected official to punish Chic-fil-A for the speech of their executive, then they are violating the First Amendment. Right now what these mayors have said is rhetoric, we've yet to see if they will attempt to act upon it.
Agreed. Hopefully it is just rhetoric...but I am not confident wrt Chicago.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
I see. So as long as the injustice isn't severe enough to destroy the business completely, it's fine?



As long as the organization (or individual for that matter) follows the legal framework for accomplishing their goals (ie, getting people elected who will enact certain legislation etc), there is absolutely no problem with what they are doing. Whether you or I agree with them is not relevant, they have every right to do what they do.
Actually if you read my post again you'd see that I was talking about Daniels idiotic statement that was bolded by cybr. I never said the injustice was okay.

Really? There's a legal framework within government to deny certain groups of citizens their constitutional rights and protections?
 

BudAshes

Lifer
Jul 20, 2003
12,697
1,600
126
If you think that's paranoid just wait till you are living in the aftermath of the pure utter stupidity this generation is unleashing on the world. You wont understand frickin paranoia until you really learn how badly things have been screwed up.
The baby boomers are the ones that fucked up the world. It's our job to piece it back together. That fact that you don't see this shows how delusional you really are.
 

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,474
2
0
Actually just a few months ago polls in the US for the first time started showing a majority of Americans now support gay marriage. That doesn't make the statement you were quoting right however as even if a town wants something, they're not allowed to violate laws and the Constitution to have it.

I agree that even if I find the Chic-fil-A executives words to be despicable, he has a right to say it. And people who think that he's a piece of crap have the right to say that and to boycott his business. If he'd come out and said he thinks interracial marriage goes against God's will and that makes us as a nation arrogant, quite a few more people would have had a problem with what he said. But in the end it's the same thing substituting race for sexual orientation.

The mayors of Boston and other cities also while being elected officials, still have the right to free speech. They have the right to say "Boston doesn't want you in this town". However if they try to use their position as an elected official to punish Chic-fil-A for the speech of their executive, then they are violating the First Amendment. Right now what these mayors have said is rhetoric, we've yet to see if they will attempt to act upon it.
I don't agree with you at the end. The referenced mayors didn't specify that they were speaking as private citizens so I believe the assumption is this was an official statement from their administration.

If the mayor of BFE, AL said he believed all blacks were criminals that needed to be arrested, you would be arguing that he was making an official statement.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
I wish musicians would just STFU when it comes to politics. That includes both sides.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
15,173
2,599
126
I wish musicians would just STFU when it comes to politics. That includes both sides.

Really?

What do you do for a living?

Does that gives you special insights into politics?

If not, you'd better just STFU.

:\
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Let me know when the first piece of sky falls so I don't miss it.
It has been happeneing ever since that half-black, foreignor became president of the US. The sky has been falling all over the place!!!!11!

Or at least people said it was...I did not notice it myself.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,148
6,187
136
Wow, struck a nerve with that one.
In order to 'strike a nerve' your comment would have to affect him in a very personal way. Maybe you think he is a famous musician and are so sure of this that you would think you could 'strike a nerve' with your comment?

No, my money is on the more likely case of you not understanding how communication works, not being able to interpret words and phrases, and not knowing how to use the english language properly.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,876
460
126
I wish musicians would just STFU when it comes to politics. That includes both sides.
Agreed. Shut up and sing applies to both sides. But since he at least isn't doing it on stage, he has the right to his opinions - as long as he mans up and accepts the financial hit he takes for doing so.
 

IBMer

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2000
1,137
0
76

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
I wish musicians would just STFU when it comes to politics. That includes both sides.
I don't know, we got some pretty good music in the 60's and 70's thanks in large part to politics. How about we modify it to musicians shut up about politics unless they're putting it into a damn good song.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
In order to 'strike a nerve' your comment would have to affect him in a very personal way. Maybe you think he is a famous musician and are so sure of this that you would think you could 'strike a nerve' with your comment?

No, my money is on the more likely case of you not understanding how communication works, not being able to interpret words and phrases, and not knowing how to use the english language properly.
I would rather listen to someone who has actually worked for a living and not been touring the world complaining about how bad things are for them. Not to mention the fact musicians typically have drug problems and are well known for flushing fortunes down the drain or up their nose.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,321
2
0
I don't know, we got some pretty good music in the 60's and 70's thanks in large part to politics. How about we modify it to musicians shut up about politics unless they're putting it into a damn good song.
There ya go, now you make me agree with you again. There were a few musicians that could make it work but lately songs that are political just sound stupid.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Really? There's a legal framework within government to deny certain groups of citizens their constitutional rights and protections?
Yes, there is. If you want to start a group that wants to get people elected who will push a constitutional amendment calling for all red haired people to be sent to prison camps, you are free to do so.

Apparently you have a difficult time understanding this "freedom" concept. As long as people abide by the laws of the land, they are free to do as they wish, and that includes pushing political changes or ideas others might not agree with. Laws can be changed, the constitution can be changed as well.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,478
0
0
i dunno.. i think the real point is civilians are leading the revolt against chick fila and the elected officials are just trying to reflect their people's wishes.
No, I think the real point is that business's employ people from all walks of life and the bisness owners should respect their employees opinions/rights enough to keep their mouths shut. They can send their money to whomever they like, that should be enough.

Somehow people have been ingrained to think that since big shots have more money and a better lawyers they also have more rights. Just because someone has a national business doesn't mean they should be able to use it as a platform to preach from.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY