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

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
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.
You keep pretending it is hate, which it is not. That is why you are wrong.

What is it that they think 'the left' wants him to do?
Shut up and/or say what the intolerant left wants him to say...which is why they are so mad he said what he did.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
You keep pretending it is hate, which it is not. That is why you are wrong.
You keep pretending it is not hate, which it is. That is why you are wrong.



Shut up and/or say what the intolerant left wants him to say...which is why they are so mad he said what he did.
Exercising their rights to say they disagree with what he said or not patronize his establishment does not mean they want him to 'shut up and/or say what [they] want him to say.' It just means they disagree with him. That is why you are wrong.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
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.
and this is not a 'left' issue...your dear leader Dick Cheney is all for equal marriage rights...most moderate people, including moderate republicans have no issue with gay marriage..its a very small contingent of 'religious right' people that are the issue
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
You keep pretending it is not hate, which it is. That is why you are wrong.
Then explain to me how saying marriage should be between a man and a woman is hate. Be specific, do not just say "cause I said so" or something equally lame.


Exercising their rights to say they disagree with what he said or not patronize his establishment does not mean they want him to 'shut up and/or say what [they] want him to say.' It just means they disagree with him. That is why you are wrong.
You obviously have not listened to the DNC lately.
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
and this is not a 'left' issue...your dear leader Dick Cheney is all for equal marriage rights...most moderate people, including moderate republicans have no issue with gay marriage..its a very small contingent of 'religious right' people that are the issue

o_O Dick Cheney is not, nor has he ever been, the leader. Reality is calling, it misses you...you have been gone too long.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Then explain to me how saying marriage should be between a man and a woman is hate. Be specific, do not just say "cause I said so" or something equally lame.
First, you explain to me why you think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. Be specific.




You obviously have not listened to the DNC lately.
Nope, don't listen to them at all actually. Maybe you could provide a link showing that they said he should 'shut up' or that he should 'agree with them.'
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
First, you explain to me why you think marriage should be between a man and a woman only. Be specific.
No. You made the statement that holding this position is hate. Support your position.




Nope, don't listen to them at all actually. Maybe you could provide a link showing that they said he should 'shut up' or that he should 'agree with them.'
Ah, then that explains it. It was so bad, even Jon Stewart ridiculed them for what they said.

Jon Stewart ridiculed Democrat mayors Rahm Emanual of Chicago, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, and San Francisco mayor Edwin Lee, for escalating a “typical culture war skirmish,” over Chick-fil-A’s support of traditional marriage into a national controversy.
After highlighting their anti- Chick-fil-A comments, Jon Stewart mocked the mayors for blocking free speech.
“Pretty sure you can’t outlaw a company with perfectly legal business practices because you find their CEO’s views repellant,” Stewart said. “Not sure which amendment covers that, but it’s probably in the top one
http://washingtonexaminer.com/jon-stewart-ridicules-democrat-mayors-for-opposing-chick-fil-a/article/2503929

A Chicago politician said he will block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in his ward, following anti-gay marriage remarks by the fast food chain's president.
Alderman Joe Moreno, who represents Chicago's Logan Square neighborhood, plans to use his aldermanic privilege, a Chicago tradition in which City Council members defer to aldermen on local matters, to block the restaurant's permit.
"It's a very diverse ward-- economically, racially, and diverse in sexual orientation," Moreno told ABCNews.com. "We've got thriving businesses and we want more but at the very least don't discriminate against our LGBTQ folks."

Moreno said if the fast food chain wants to open a location in his ward, than they're going to have to make amends.
"They should be in the business of selling chicken, not promoting a political philosophy," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chicago-store/story?id=16853890
 
Last edited:

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
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...
So, because he owns a company he doesn't have the same free speech rights as anyone else? From everything I've heard, he has a strict non-discrimination policy for those that work for him; even members of the gay community have come out in support of him. You're welcome to take your business where you want of course.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
No. You made the statement that holding this position is hate. Support your position.
My position is simple: Denying something to one group of people while allowing another group of people to do the same thing is hateful.






So these 3 = the DNC? And I still don't see them saying he should 'shut up' or that he should 'agree with them.'
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
So, because he owns a company he doesn't have the same free speech rights as anyone else? From everything I've heard, he has a strict non-discrimination policy for those that work for him; even members of the gay community have come out in support of him. You're welcome to take your business where you want of course.
Where did he say he doesn't have the same free speech rights?
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
So, because he owns a company he doesn't have the same free speech rights as anyone else? From everything I've heard, he has a strict non-discrimination policy for those that work for him; even members of the gay community have come out in support of him. You're welcome to take your business where you want of course.
Not sure if you got the memo but capitalism does not have a free speech component...
 

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
My position is simple: Denying something to one group of people while allowing another group of people to do the same thing is hateful.
Then you find public bathrooms hateful, right? Men are denied entry. You also find Curves (the woman only workout place) to be hateful, right? You find abortion to be hateful, since men cannot abort their offspring but women can, right?

Just seeing if you follow your own logic.


So these 3 = the DNC? And I still don't see them saying he should 'shut up' or that he should 'agree with them.'
Using the liberal standards of what constitutes the entirety of something, yes.

Yes they did, they said that since they are not saying what the DNC demands, they are not allowed in their cities. Come on, it was so blatand even Jon Stewart made jokes about it.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
Then you find public bathrooms hateful, right? Men are denied entry. You also find Curves (the woman only workout place) to be hateful, right? You find abortion to be hateful, since men cannot abort their offspring but women can, right?
All men are denied entry to women's rooms and all women are denied entry to men's rooms. Everyone is treated equally. Fail on your part. Curves is a private establishment and their policies do not violate existing laws. Fail on your part. The day men can carry children inside them is the day I will say they should be allowed to have abortions. Epic fail on your part and a quite desperate attempt IMO.

Just seeing if you follow your own logic.
I can follow my logic. Not surprisingly, you cannot.




Using the liberal standards of what constitutes the entirety of something, yes.
Oh, so you agree that liberals are correct when do that?

Yes they did, they said that since they are not saying what the DNC demands, they are not allowed in their cities. Come on, it was so blatand even Jon Stewart made jokes about it.
No, that is your failed interpretation of what they are saying. They did not tell him to 'shut up' or tell him that 'he has to agree with them.' In their minds, I suppose they feel that they are doing what's right or representing their voters. For the record, I do not agree with them, but that doesn't justify you saying they said something that they did not say. That is spreading misinformation.
 

alzan

Diamond Member
May 21, 2003
3,861
2
0
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.



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.
I'm quite well aware of the framework for creating laws and that the constitution can be changed; prohibition certainly worked out really well. It's a waste of taxpayers' time and money to blatantly create and interpret laws through the narrow lens of religion that a legislator knows is not going to pass the constitutional sniff test. I simply see no reason for allowing legislators to attempt to do it in the first place.

Since there is no argument against SSM that doesn't stem from a religious view, the government cannot deny same sex couples a marriage license; something that large parts of the country need to be reminded of, constantly it would seem. Perhaps they're the ones who need civics 101.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam <drivel snipped>
You tokin' again? Try forming a coherent sentence once in a while instead of useless drivel.


Totally unsurprising that you can't understand Moonbeam's post and label it useless drivel

How do you explain public nudity laws?
You're welcome to start your own thread about public nudity laws.

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.
I'm pretty sure this thread is about Charlie Daniels and his ravings, not about Japan and China. Also, it's Christians claiming that marriage is only between a man and woman; there are liberal and conservative Christians.

Believing marriage has meaning is not hateful...and pretending it is is quite silly.
Marriage only has meaning to the two people who are married and to no one else.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
If it keeps us from a civil war or WW3 I really couldn't care less about this issue.
 

tydas

Golden Member
Mar 10, 2000
1,284
0
76
I'm trying to convince myself that Charley Daniels, Ted Nugent, Rush, Marc Levine, etc...are just using rhetoric and don't actually believe the stuff they spew but i'm not sure anymore??
 

MooseNSquirrel

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2009
2,564
293
126
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.
One more time, this time with feeling!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
 

FerrelGeek

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2009
4,669
271
126
Not sure if you got the memo but capitalism does not have a free speech component...
I'm well aware of that. But he can speak his viewpoint as an individual. And his actions as an employer demonstrate that he doesn't hate teh gayz.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
26,145
6,184
136
I'm well aware of that. But he can speak his viewpoint as an individual. And his actions as an employer demonstrate that he doesn't hate teh gayz.
Which action? The one where he wishes to deny them access to something the rest of us take for granted?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY