Charlie Daniels unloads 'dag-blamed truth' on Obama

[tydas]

http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/charlie-daniels-unloads-dag-blamed-truth-on-obama/

Wow, I'm guessing the Tea Party people are all on board with good old Charlie...how did it come to this? What is the source of this paranoid delusion?

 

[cybrsage]

He has a point:

Daniels brought up the recent controversy about Chick-fil-A restaurants – in which the Democrat mayors of Chicago and Boston threatened to ban the chicken sandwich makers from their respective cities because the owner is an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage – as an example.

“To me that tips off where these guys are coming from: ‘If you don’t agree with us, we don’t want you in our town, we don’t want you in our country, we don’t want you in our political system,’” Daniels said. “Is it not downright un-American for an elected official to stand up and try to destroy a business? As bad as we need jobs in this country?

“This is not about ‘gay’ marriage; this is about America being America, about people being able to stick by their deeply held religious beliefs and not to have these people trying to put them out of business,” Daniels said. “That’s what this boils down to: Are these people going to try to shut up everybody who doesn’t agree with them?”

 

[tydas]

Here is the paranoid part...and some mayors grandstanding and pandering to thier base does not a socialist nation make...

“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, or – I got the point where I don’t trust politicians anymore, but hopefully – the other side represents, ‘Let’s put America back to work; let’s re-instill the work ethic back in people.’”

 

[PokerGuy]

He has a point:

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".

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

World Net Daily....really?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

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".

I love it when you guys tie yourselves into knots trying to equate bigotry with intolerance of bigotry.

So cute!

 

[wirednuts]

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.

 

[wirednuts]

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".

elected officials must do what the public wants or they wont stay elected. so if cfa goes into a town that doesnt want them, trying to say its the elected officials fault is ridiculous. its cfa's fault for publicly promoting a cause that most people dont like.

 

[cybrsage]

I love it when you guys tie yourselves into knots trying to equate bigotry with intolerance of bigotry.

So cute!

Apparently, you are one of those people who say intolerance of something means the person is actually tolerant. Either that or you have no idea what the word bigotry means. I will assume the latter, since the former requires mental failure.

big·ot·ry

   /ˈbɪgətri/ Show Spelled[big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry?s=t

If you are intolerant of bigotry, you are also engaging in bigotry yourself. It really is that simple.

 

[cybrsage]

elected officials must do what the public wants or they wont stay elected. so if cfa goes into a town that doesnt want them, trying to say its the elected officials fault is ridiculous. its cfa's fault for publicly promoting a cause that most people dont like.

No, elected officials are required to follow the laws and apply them equally to everyone. They are not supposed to discriminate against people of differing viewpoints.

 

[cybrsage]

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.

Which is why they had a record sales day? The people are leading a revolt against them?

 

[Jaskalas]

...
If you are intolerant of bigotry, you are also engaging in bigotry yourself. It really is that simple.

Isn't that a badge of honor?

 

[PokerGuy]

elected officials must do what the public wants or they wont stay elected.

Uh, no. They are supposed to do what is required by law and regulations. The laws and regulations they put into place reflect the wishes of their constituencies. Hence legislatures are separate from the executive branch. In CFA's example, you have mayors and others in the executive branch and local government threatening to abuse their executive power to squash the first amendment rights of CFA.

so if cfa goes into a town that doesnt want them, trying to say its the elected officials fault is ridiculous. its cfa's fault for publicly promoting a cause that most people dont like.

That's plain stupid. If the people don't want to buy the product, that's fine. The store will go out of business. That's not a problem. That's not what was threatened in this case. Government officials were threatening to use their power in government to punish a business because of the views of the owner.

Government is for ALL people, not only to benefit those who share the views of certain officials.

 

[JKing106]

He's touching on what most blue collar people already know: the politicians have sold them out by supporting the exporting of labor to third world slave labor hellholes. And it's probably too late to do anything about it. How would one go about convincing someone to pay American's minimum wage to make t-shirts when you can pay Chinese children pennies to make them? Appeal to their consciences? To their patriotism? Nationalize all corporations, force them to manufacture here? The problem with human nature is that greed is good until it negatively effects you. And the people who it's benefiting right now see no reason to change. They're literally living like royalty, and make no pretense at pretending they're not royalty. American royalty. So, shut up, peasants, and take what they feel like giving. You're lucky you're getting anything at all.

 

[alzan]

He has a point:

Not really. As per your first bolded, while it was un-American for elected officials to say CFA franchises aren't wanted in their locale; I hardly think that not being able to open a couple more franchises is going to destroy CFA as a business. As far as "as bad as we need jobs in this country" the number of jobs created wouldn't be a blip on the unemployment nationwide.

2nd bold section: No one suggested taking away the 1st Amendment rights of CFA, Dan Cathy or CFA supporters. But since Charlie bought up restricting someone's right to free speech, let's talk about how some of the organizations that Mr. Cathy donates to actively work to disallow the LGBTQ community in this country all of their constitutional rights and protections.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Apparently, you are one of those people who say intolerance of something means the person is actually tolerant. Either that or you have no idea what the word bigotry means. I will assume the latter, since the former requires mental failure.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry?s=t

If you are intolerant of bigotry, you are also engaging in bigotry yourself. It really is that simple.

You get yourself too tightly into a knot and youll cut off the flow of oxygen.

See these bigot defenders must resort to absolutism - where intolerance of murder or rape puts you in the same category as a mysogonist and folks in the Aryan Nation clique.

 

[dank69]

Apparently, you are one of those people who say intolerance of something means the person is actually tolerant. Either that or you have no idea what the word bigotry means. I will assume the latter, since the former requires mental failure.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigotry?s=t

If you are intolerant of bigotry, you are also engaging in bigotry yourself. It really is that simple.

Hahaha, look at this guy, acting as if 'intolerance of bigotry' is a bad thing. You crack me up cybr.

 

[cybrsage]

Hahaha, look at this guy, acting as if 'intolerance of bigotry' is a bad thing. You crack me up cybr.

AH, that is the disconnect. You guys think that intolerance is a bad thing. It can be, but it also can be a good thing. Intelerance is neutral, it simply means you do not tolerate things.

Some intolerance is good, some intolerance is bad. But pretending that intolerance is actually tolerance is idiocy.

 

[cybrsage]

See these bigot defenders must resort to absolutism - where intolerance of murder or rape puts you in the same category as a mysogonist and folks in the Aryan Nation clique.

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.

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?

 

[dank69]

AH, that is the disconnect. You guys think that intolerance is a bad thing. It can be, but it also can be a good thing. Intelerance is neutral, it simply means you do not tolerate things.

Some intolerance is good, some intolerance is bad. But pretending that intolerance is actually tolerance is idiocy.

I've certainly never said that ALL intolerance is a bad thing. I've never seen anyone else post it either. At least you've found an argument you can win. Too bad it's against a straw man.

 

[wirednuts]

No, elected officials are required to follow the laws and apply them equally to everyone. They are not supposed to discriminate against people of differing viewpoints.

really? thats their job? to follow laws? im glad you told me that.

you missed my point. elected officials MUST do what the public wants, or they wont stay elected. keeping their place in office is above any law. i am not speaking on moral terms, i am speaking reality.

 

[cybrsage]

Not really. As per your first bolded, while it was un-American for elected officials to say CFA franchises aren't wanted in their locale; I hardly think that not being able to open a couple more franchises is going to destroy CFA as a business. As far as "as bad as we need jobs in this country" the number of jobs created wouldn't be a blip on the unemployment nationwide.

So you think it is fine for the government to discriminate against someone based on their moral or religious views?

2nd bold section: No one suggested taking away the 1st Amendment rights of CFA, Dan Cathy or CFA supporters. But since Charlie bought up restricting someone's right to free speech, let's talk about how some of the organizations that Mr. Cathy donates to actively work to disallow the LGBTQ community in this country all of their constitutional rights and protections.

You are confusing the actions of an elected official with the actions of a private citizen.

 

[cybrsage]

really? thats their job? to follow laws? im glad you told me that.

you missed my point. elected officials MUST do what the public wants, or they wont stay elected. keeping their place in office is above any law. i am not speaking on moral terms, i am speaking reality.

Which means you agree that banning gay marriage is something elected officials must do, right? The majority of the nation opposes it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not really. As per your first bolded, while it was un-American for elected officials to say CFA franchises aren't wanted in their locale; I hardly think that not being able to open a couple more franchises is going to destroy CFA as a business.

I see. So as long as the injustice isn't severe enough to destroy the business completely, it's fine?

let's talk about how some of the organizations that Mr. Cathy donates to actively work to disallow the LGBTQ community in this country all of their constitutional rights and protections.

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.

 

[sm625]

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.