• 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."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Charlie Daniels unloads 'dag-blamed truth' on Obama

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
1
0
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.
right.

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.
no. they can use it as a platform all they want. they are free to do so. it was just incredibly stupid of them to. now they narrowed their customer base by at least 30% and it wont be coming back. sure, they are doing fine right now because of all the hype around this pr disaster, but just wait.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
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.
Apparently you're confusing reality with a South Park episode.

Government is prohibited from creating or interpreting laws through the narrow lens of a religion. Since there is no logical secular argument to deny same sex couples the right to be issued a marriage license, using the government "framework" in that way would be unconstitutional.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
10,907
1,056
126
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.
Maybe we need to get Bob Dylan to start writing new political songs to show the youngsters today how to do it.
 

nobodyknows

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2008
5,478
0
0
no. they can use it as a platform all they want. they are free to do so. it was just incredibly stupid of them to. now they narrowed their customer base by at least 30% and it wont be coming back. sure, they are doing fine right now because of all the hype around this pr disaster, but just wait.
I disagree. If we want to make politics bipartisian then it should be illegal to use a corporate name to endorse one political ideology over another.
 
Last edited:

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,887
4,008
136
I wish musicians would just STFU when it comes to politics. That includes both sides.
Really, so he's good at making cat gut produce musical notes.

He really only had the one big hit as far as I know.

It's like caring about what sports figures think.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,613
3,406
126
He absolutely has a point. Is there any doubt that if a company like CFA would try to put a new store in Chicago, Boston, San Fran or some other intolerant leftist city, they'd magically run into huge roadblocks getting permits and not be able to open the store? Meanwhile, other businesses that have the 'correct' view point would have no problem getting everything processed. That's what the intolerant left calls "tolerance".
When I was a kid we never liked to play ball with assholes. It's always good to have the correct view. It has the advantage of being correct. Correct is written into our genes and most people find there way to it if not brainwashed. A free market is a market in which all the money goes to corrupting other people's natural moral sense so assholes can win. But every day a bunch of new healthy ethical folk are born without any horse shit in their heads.

Sadly, the aim of assholes is to co-opt the meaning of correct and apply it to themselves, like the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,908
44
91
www.alienbabeltech.com

“In my 75 years on Earth, it’s never been as clear-cut as it is now,” Daniels said. “We’re either going to go into socialism, where part of the people work and the rest of them don’t, and the ones that do will be taxed to death
==============
How is that Obama's fault Charlie and how will Romney fix it that Bush didn't for 8 years?
===============

For Daniels, the word “socialism” – synonymous in his mind with the big-spending, tax-the-rich, government-welfare, spread-the-wealth policies of President Obama and his fellow “progressives” – is a system not only destined for failure, but also inherently tyrannical.

==================

What did Bush do better for 8 years Charlie and how will Romney do better? I don't see any plan here just ranting against Obama and his "progressives".

====================

“You’re talking to a guy who travels coast to coast and border to border every year,” Daniels told WND. “There are bad things going on in this country. Too many empty storefronts, too many closed down businesses – the ‘economic recovery’ Obama has been spinning is not happening. The only answer [socialists] seem to have for it is to try over and over again. Look at the results. Look at the results of throwing money down a black hole in Washington.


=========================

How are these empty store fronts Obama's fault Charlie? What would Romney do different to fill the store fronts?

=========================



“We change the nation by putting people back to work again,” Daniels proffered.

========================



With what jobs Charlie? Bush and your Republican buds sent all the jobs to China and India. Are you saying Romney would bring them back?

========================



“I’m a Christian; I believe in helping people who can’t help themselves. I do not believe in helping people who can help themselves. Instead of putting them on the dole, put them on the payroll.
==========================

With what jobs Charlie? Bush and your Republican buds sent all the jobs to China and India. Are you saying Romney would bring them back?



==============================



“I heard a while ago that more people file for disability than file to get a job. Where in the heck is that at?” Daniels asked. “Is that America? Is that what made America great?
============================
What else would you expect them to do Charlie when there are no jobs?



==============================



“We need to get people back, to employ them,” Daniels concluded, “and it’s never going to be done in Washington. It’s going to have to be done in the private sector.”

============================
With what jobs Charlie? Bush and your Republican buds sent all the jobs to China and India. Are you saying Romney would bring them back?
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
Apparently you're confusing reality with a South Park episode.

Government is prohibited from creating or interpreting laws through the narrow lens of a religion.
Uh, prohibited by what exactly? Oh, by an interpretation of the constitution, which can be changed. If the people want to they can change the constitution in whatever way they want, there is a framework for doing so.

Further, regardless of what the government can or can't do in terms of legislation, people are free to push for whatever changes they want, as long as they don't break any laws in doing so. What you think of their goals and whether they would be constitutional is irrelevant. You need to take a course in civics 101, you clearly don't have even a basic understanding of how things work.

Since there is no logical secular argument to deny same sex couples the right to be issued a marriage license, using the government "framework" in that way would be unconstitutional.
There doesn't need to be any secular argument. In fact, there doesn't need to be any argument at all. Legislation is passed, end of story. The courts then get to decide if that legislation is constitutional or not. Since the constitution itself can also be changed, there is literally nothing that is set in stone in terms of legislation. Also, you don't seem to understand the concept of a framework for change. Again, civics 101.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
You tokin' again? Try forming a coherent sentence once in a while instead of useless drivel.
There aren't any big words in his post and every sentence is perfectly coherent. Maybe it's just you.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Sadly, the aim of assholes is to co-opt the meaning of correct and apply it to themselves, like the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests.
And colleges/universities. They are some of the worst offenders.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Apparently you're confusing reality with a South Park episode.

Government is prohibited from creating or interpreting laws through the narrow lens of a religion. Since there is no logical secular argument to deny same sex couples the right to be issued a marriage license, using the government "framework" in that way would be unconstitutional.
How do you explain public nudity laws?
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
right.



no. they can use it as a platform all they want. they are free to do so. it was just incredibly stupid of them to. now they narrowed their customer base by at least 30% and it wont be coming back. sure, they are doing fine right now because of all the hype around this pr disaster, but just wait.
Totally agree, real bonehead move by the CEO...after his statement I will never go to Chik Fil A again...the ironic thing is that if this was a public company that idiot would be out on his ass for making such comments...I'm sure he has investors of some sort and they cannot be happy at this point...much more to come on this story...
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,652
199
101
I'm sure he has investors of some sort and they cannot be happy at this point...much more to come on this story...
No, he doesn't have investors of some sort, his father founded the company, it's completely privately held. If money was the only driver, the company wouldn't have chosen to remain closed on Sunday. The fact that the company is willing to forgo profits from a 7th day of the week says a lot about their commitment to their values.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Not often, they do make tasty food however which explains why they are so huge...
We do not have any near us (closest is 15 miles, too far to go). I like their food. :(

You not going does have an impact (small, but still there). I have heard many people say they refuse to go but never actually went to start with - meaning no impact at all.
 
Last edited:

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
No, he doesn't have investors of some sort, his father founded the company, it's completely privately held. If money was the only driver, the company wouldn't have chosen to remain closed on Sunday. The fact that the company is willing to forgo profits from a 7th day of the week says a lot about their commitment to their values.

They should close on Saturday, which is actually the Sabbath Day. Emperor Constantine decided he was more powerful than God and made it illegal to rest on the Sabbath Day and said Sunday (the say holy to the god of the sun) would now be the new day of rest.
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,670
6
0
Apparently you're confusing reality with a South Park episode.

Government is prohibited from creating or interpreting laws through the narrow lens of a religion. Since there is no logical secular argument to deny same sex couples the right to be issued a marriage license, using the government "framework" in that way would be unconstitutional.
Funny how Japan and China, 2 countries who are not Christian, do exactly that.

Please stop repeating the liberal garbage that marriage being between a man and a woman is Christian idea.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
No, he doesn't have investors of some sort, his father founded the company, it's completely privately held. If money was the only driver, the company wouldn't have chosen to remain closed on Sunday. The fact that the company is willing to forgo profits from a 7th day of the week says a lot about their commitment to their values.
Values?? From their investor profile...as usual..who determines what and who is 'moral'...what a total crock

"The company looks for married workers who intend to work for the company long term and may reject interviewees on perceived moral lapses."

And yes, someone is lending them money and don't think for a second that this whole controversy does not have an impact...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Believing marriage has meaning is not hateful...and pretending it is is quite silly.

Many people I have read about went not because they were supporting the statements as much as they were supporting his right to not have to do what the intolerant left says he has to do.

The majority, though, support them because they agree with him and refuse to kowtow to the intolerant left.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Believing marriage has meaning is not hateful...and pretending it is is quite silly.

Many people I have read about went not because they were supporting the statements as much as they were supporting his right to not have to do what the intolerant left says he has to do.

The majority, though, support them because they agree with him and refuse to kowtow to the intolerant left.
Self-righteous hate is still hate. They don't think it is hate, for many of the same reasons that you don't. Justify it by saying that what they believe is that 'marriage has meaning' if you want, but it's transparent.

What is it that they think 'the left' wants him to do?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY