Knight Templar
Commodore
the last two pages of this thread look like an intentional thread derailing by liberals when they didn't get their way.
Chick-fil-A digging themselves a hole
- Thread starter Ar-Pharazon
- Start date
A
Amaris
Guest
Actually, it's about food that we'd like to eat, since we're in a food thread, and Chick-Fil-A is off the menu for many of us.
What kind of food do you like to eat, KT?
Ahhh, so you're a waffle man!
A
Amaris
Guest
First, "didn't get their way" in what, exactly? Are you under the impression that you bigots won something other than our scorn?
Second, like accusing people of trolling, you are the last person who should be criticizing anyone for thread derailing. You excel at both, Mr. "homosexuality is like rape and child molestation."
Knight Templar
Commodore
Boneless fried chicken. Hamburgers. Chicken enchiladas. Breakfast burritos. Pinto beans. Eggs sunnyside up, runny with bisquits, bacon and sausage. bananas, apples,
A number of other things.
I can't help it if I post in a thread and half the other posters seem to lose all their composure and minds for that matter.
and you know full well it happens even when I post innocuous things about noncontroversial subjects.
A
Amaris
Guest
Eggs sunnyside up are the best, especially if you have biscuits to sop up the yolk, though I usually used a piece of white bread.
I can't eat them now, but I used to love salt and pepper grits, with lots of butter. Now that's good eatin'!
Knight Templar
Commodore
I agree on the eggs completely. Hard to get them "just right" it seems. Don't fry long enough and they are not done. A few seconds too long and the yellow gets hard.
When I don't have biscuits, I've used lightly toasted white bread before.
A
Amaris
Guest
It takes some skill to get them just right. I've got it down pretty good, but yeah, a few extra seconds, and you've got straight up fried eggs, and while it's still good, it's not the same.
Personally, it was just a way to pass the time until I got an answer to my questions:
Which, aside from gturner, who I thanked for his honest answer, I'm still waiting on an answer from those who said they supported Mr. Cathy and Chick-Fil-A in this.
I'm going out of town for the day and am not sure I'll be able to check much before late tomorrow, so I was hoping for some answers to my question before I left.
Last edited:
The bigotry in this thread is upsetting.
Equally disgusting is the display of a particular brand of Christianity that seems to be a totalitarian ideology not compatible with our democratic societies.
Equally disgusting is the display of a particular brand of Christianity that seems to be a totalitarian ideology not compatible with our democratic societies.
Emilia, prior to the mid-1990's probably not a single politician in all of Congress, including Barney Frank, would've come out publically for gay marriage. Bill Clinton wouldn't have touched it with a stick. I'm pretty sure we had a democracy back then.
In fact, when the first attempts were made at advancing the issue of recognition of gay unions, everyone supporting unions gave every assurance that it would not in any way, shape, or form lead to a push for gay marriage. At every step of the way for the next ten years, each step was justified with the promise that nobody was going to ask for recognition of gay marriage. Liberals made these promises. Gay liberals made them. Now, anyone who dares question gay marriage, taking the position Michael Dukakis had, Bill Clinton had, Al Gore had, John Kerry had, Hillary Clinton had, and Barack Obama had, is denounced as a hate mongering bigot.
We will remember what their promises were worth, and how anyone who dares voice a populur opinion is viciously attacked. How Christians were branded as Nazis, mocked, vilified, and denounced for voicing what had been the majority opinion in the gay community not 20 years earlier. To this day there are gays who denounce gay marriage as a heteronormist plot to destroy gay culture, forcing them into normal little lifestyle boxes that heteros are comfortable with. Most of their voices and opinions were crushed under the onslaught of vicious anger and hatred, too. Anyone who dares question the methods, goals, effects, or desirability of the outcome gets savagely attacked by people who claim they're tolerant.
Yet these same people have no problem embracing Islam to flaunt their cultural diversity, for a culture that would root them out and execute them in the public square. Go figure.
In fact, when the first attempts were made at advancing the issue of recognition of gay unions, everyone supporting unions gave every assurance that it would not in any way, shape, or form lead to a push for gay marriage. At every step of the way for the next ten years, each step was justified with the promise that nobody was going to ask for recognition of gay marriage. Liberals made these promises. Gay liberals made them. Now, anyone who dares question gay marriage, taking the position Michael Dukakis had, Bill Clinton had, Al Gore had, John Kerry had, Hillary Clinton had, and Barack Obama had, is denounced as a hate mongering bigot.
We will remember what their promises were worth, and how anyone who dares voice a populur opinion is viciously attacked. How Christians were branded as Nazis, mocked, vilified, and denounced for voicing what had been the majority opinion in the gay community not 20 years earlier. To this day there are gays who denounce gay marriage as a heteronormist plot to destroy gay culture, forcing them into normal little lifestyle boxes that heteros are comfortable with. Most of their voices and opinions were crushed under the onslaught of vicious anger and hatred, too. Anyone who dares question the methods, goals, effects, or desirability of the outcome gets savagely attacked by people who claim they're tolerant.
Yet these same people have no problem embracing Islam to flaunt their cultural diversity, for a culture that would root them out and execute them in the public square. Go figure.
Slavery isn't compatible with democracy either. Yet you'll still claim that the US was democratic back then. Calling the country a democracy doesn't mean the country or the civil rights situation is flawless. And it doesn't mean that certain attitudes aren't in opposition to the ideals of democracy and liberty.
Originally I was going to use the term "liberal-democratic state" by the way since that's what political science calls our countries. Liberal as in "freedom", you know.
But I figured some of the crazy conservatives would misunderstand the term because it includes the word "liberal". And as we all know the conservatives only yell "FREEDOM!" when it's convenient to their cause.
Knight Templar
Commodore
^You are making the classic mistake of equating "liberty" with "license"
First, I'm not convinced that there was ever a united "this won't lead to marriage" front as you claim. Second, in many cases, the people who made the arguments in the past are not always the same people making the arguments now. Third, people change their minds over a period of decades. That's not a bad thing.
It may have been wrong to not support gay rights in the early 90's, but even I can appreciate that doing so was a much different proposition than doing so now.
It's also a bit unfair to criticize people fighting for progress on gay rights at a time (and I'm just talking about the last decade here) when men could be arrested just for being gay, for understanding that this society was never going to go straight from putting gays in jail to granting us full and equal rights.
I'm not even going to touch the rest of your post.
Knight Templar
Commodore
I'm calling BS on this one.
Can you site at least three examples in the 1990s in the U.S. where people were arrested for "just being gay"?
Awesome, I've shopped with them for years already but that's certainly encouraging.
