Page 71 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 962

Thread: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

  1. #701
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    My response: what you consider sad or joyful is of monumental disinterest to me.
    Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic.

    The Supreme Court doesn't have to consider Prop 8 or the DOMA, neither does it have to consider the possible cases against Twinkies. The fact is SCOTUS considers Same Sex marriages as BOGUS. If that doesn't suit you, don't try to re-invent REALITY.
    Ooookay. First off the Supreme Court considers what is CONSTITUTIONAL not what is bogus. It's a big word, but its important if you are going to talk about SCOTUS. You might want to learn what it means. That being said, you might also consider what reality you are living in when you claim to have the psychic power to know what the Justices are thinking before they have even ruled on a subject.

    More of a cop out than a response.
    I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense.
    Last edited by CriticalThought; 07-27-12 at 11:21 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  2. #702
    I'm kind of a big deal

    AGENT J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,835

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    I don't explain the obvious.
    translation: you cant back up your false dishonest claim with any logic or facts but I already knew that

    I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh.
    This space is currently owned by The Great Winchester, stay tuned for future messages!
    Make America Great Again!
    Pro-Equal Rights / Pro-Gun Rights / Pro-Human Rights / Pro-Choice

  3. #703
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    Gottago.
    Big Surprise.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  4. #704
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    I don't explain the obvious.

    Gottago.

    Paraphrasing: I had no idea what I was getting myself into here on DP. I best skedaddle.

  5. #705
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    07-19-14 @ 03:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,109

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic.



    Ooookay. First off the Supreme Court considers what is CONSTITUTIONAL not what is bogus. It's a big word, but its important if you are going to talk about SCOTUS. You might want to learn what it means. That being said, you might also consider what reality you are living in when you claim to have the psychic power to know what the Justices are thinking before they have even ruled on a subject.



    I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense.
    Critical thought's observation that: "Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic. " is one of the typical all-embracing lefty negations of Reality that instead of saying "I disagree with you, because of thisa and thata" these bozos accuse one of lack of "logic", or some other deficiency without being able to be specific about it.


    The LIEberrhoidal posts attacking me with retorts like: "I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense." And, "I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh" ......are meaningless petards when they don't have a valid response, as in the first example. And the same with the second example feigning mental ineptitude as in not understanding the obvious, then using one's mental deficiency as an excuse to call the obvious "BS". Pathetic.

    FYI, when the Supreme Court, or any court considers a concept UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,as with the Same Sex Marriage, it simply means that the concept involved does not meet the criteria to be valid for acceptance in the usage it is petitioned for. When something is not valid for accepting it for the usage it was petitioned for it is rejected as a BOGUS proposition.

    If that is something you want to parse, weasel, and rationalize your way out of because it does not suit your bogus line of thinking then go ahead. You might consider using a chair as an apple and not consider that a BOGUS endeavor......I say, go ahead, flaunt your BOGUS activities, make yourself known for what you are.

    And, BTW, it is presumptuous to the point of being ridiculous to assume that every time a person leaves the Forum he is "skedaddling" because the person fears the nonsense he is inundated with.

    Gottago.
    Last edited by HoongLoong; 07-28-12 at 08:30 AM.

  6. #706
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    Critical thought's observation that: "Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic. " is one of the typical all-embracing lefty negations of Reality that instead of saying "I disagree with you, because of thisa and thata" these bozos accuse one of lack of "logic", or some other deficiency without being able to be specific about it.


    The LIEberrhoidal posts attacking me with retorts like: "I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense." And, "I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh" ......are meaningless petards when they don't have a valid response, as in the first example. And the same with the second example feigning mental ineptitude as in not understanding the obvious, then using one's mental deficiency as an excuse to call the obvious "BS". Pathetic.

    FYI, when the Supreme Court, or any court considers a concept UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,as with the Same Sex Marriage, it simply means that the concept involved does not meet the criteria to be valid for acceptance in the usage it is petitioned for. When something is not valid for accepting it for the usage it was petitioned for it is rejected as a BOGUS proposition.

    If that is something you want to parse, weasel, and rationalize your way out of because it does not suit your bogus line of thinking then go ahead. You might consider using a chair as an apple and not consider that a BOGUS endeavor......I say, go ahead, flaunt your BOGUS activities, make yourself known for what you are.

    And, BTW, it is presumptuous to the point of being ridiculous to assume that every time a person leaves the Forum he is "skedaddling" because the person fears the nonsense he is inundated with.

    Gottago.

    BOGUS being the key word...

  7. #707
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,136

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by HoongLoong View Post
    Critical thought's observation that: "Yeah, your posts don't show much interest in basic logic. " is one of the typical all-embracing lefty negations of Reality that instead of saying "I disagree with you, because of thisa and thata" these bozos accuse one of lack of "logic", or some other deficiency without being able to be specific about it.


    The LIEberrhoidal posts attacking me with retorts like: "I'm not sure how I'm suppose to respond to something that makes absolutely no sense." And, "I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh" ......are meaningless petards when they don't have a valid response, as in the first example. And the same with the second example feigning mental ineptitude as in not understanding the obvious, then using one's mental deficiency as an excuse to call the obvious "BS". Pathetic.

    FYI, when the Supreme Court, or any court considers a concept UNCONSTITUTIONAL ,as with the Same Sex Marriage, it simply means that the concept involved does not meet the criteria to be valid for acceptance in the usage it is petitioned for. When something is not valid for accepting it for the usage it was petitioned for it is rejected as a BOGUS proposition.

    If that is something you want to parse, weasel, and rationalize your way out of because it does not suit your bogus line of thinking then go ahead. You might consider using a chair as an apple and not consider that a BOGUS endeavor......I say, go ahead, flaunt your BOGUS activities, make yourself known for what you are.

    And, BTW, it is presumptuous to the point of being ridiculous to assume that every time a person leaves the Forum he is "skedaddling" because the person fears the nonsense he is inundated with.

    Gottago.
    Ooooookay. I'm not sure how to respond to your posts because most of the things you say make little if any sense. They just tend to be ramblings where you try to ridicule people who hold opposing views to your own and that just makes you look silly and childish. You don't actually address the arguments. I'll make it simple for you.

    At what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found same sex marriage to be unconstitutional?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The economy will improve under this bill. If a few people die, it will be for the betterament of this country.

  8. #708
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    10-28-17 @ 06:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    15,248

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by Eighty Deuce View Post
    This post is so stupid. The issue is not Chick-Fil-A just "wanting to open a restaurant wherever the hell it wants to", but rather in a proper location just as any other fast-food in that area.

    I wish we could give an award for the dumbest post of the day. You got it !!
    Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing. Anybody who believes that Chicken restaurants have a constitutional right not to be boycotted has automatically forfeited any right to serious consideration of anything he posts.
    "Groups with guitars are on the way out, Mr. Epstein"

    Dick Rowe, A & R man
    Decca Records
    London, 1962

  9. #709
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    12-29-15 @ 10:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    3,747

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiggen View Post
    Coming from you, that means absolutely nothing. Anybody who believes that Chicken restaurants have a constitutional right not to be boycotted has automatically forfeited any right to serious consideration of anything he posts.
    The issue is not wheteher they are to be boycotted. It is whether or not they will be denied the necessary business licenses because a mayor or alderman doesn't agree with their politics.

    I got your "forfeit" right here, btw.

  10. #710
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Rahm: “Chick-fil-A Values Are Not Chicago Values” [W:698]

    Staying on topic, it looks like the ACLU has supported Chick-fil-A, and that this Rahm schmuck was in the wrong for trying to hinder this business.

Page 71 of 97 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •