• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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:
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 :shrug:

I just want to see what type of BS you would post so I could prove it wrong then laugh.
 
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:
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...
 
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?
 
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.
 
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. :moon:
 
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.
 
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.

Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. DOesnt matter how ignorant and bigoted the views/statements are of the CEO/President are he has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.
 
Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. DOesnt matter how ignorant and bigoted the views/statements are of the CEO/President are he has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.
Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.
 
Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.

Oh I agree 100% if there are other reasons they say later it will be questioned and rightfully so. They did it backwards and now made it harder for themselves.

My GUESS is though they already knew this and they had no real intentions of stopping CFA because legally they know they can't. I think they just wanted to expose CFA's bigoted stance and get press showing they are against these types of bigoted stances.
 
Well its obvious that if the restaurant is denied a location/license and the ONLY reason is the bigoted views of the CEO/President its unfair discrimination. He has rights just like we all do and as long as the actual business conducts itself in a lawful manner they are fine.

Correct. ......
 
Even if there are legitimate concerns, i.e. parking, traffic, etc., CfA can now legitimately question whether those are just ruses for an underlying ulterior motive (political correctness regarding SSM). The Mayor and the Alderman are on record as saying they don't want CfA in their town, and that they have the power to do it, regardless any subsequent backtracking.

Why would you want to open a business where you are not welcome?

There's plenty of red stated where people have no clue of healthy eating.
 
Oh I agree 100% if there are other reasons they say later it will be questioned and rightfully so. They did it backwards and now made it harder for themselves.

My GUESS is though they already knew this and they had no real intentions of stopping CFA because legally they know they can't. I think they just wanted to expose CFA's bigoted stance and get press showing they are against these types of bigoted stances.
And this is a big reason why I now believe it was never anything more than political grandstanding.

Note that the initial announcement was made in front of tv cameras. Splashed all over the news. Everybody saw and heard it. Mission accomplished, so to speak.

Note also that any subsequent debate... with a few editorials here and there added, but not too common... was places like here at DP between relatively few politically-geeky people such as ourselves... hidden away from the masses. The vast majority pf people for whom the original message was intended aren't hearing the rational, Constitutional, and legal objections. No, they just heard the grandstanding, and that was pretty much it.

Note again that the subsequent backtracking regarding legal issues and the actual issuing of permits was done quietly and via relatively obscure press releases. No tv cameras for this. Oh no.

Essentially, they inflamed public opinion to their desired end result, then backtracked just enough to probably cover their butts in a potential future lawsuit, but left public opinion inflamed in their desired favor.


Why would you want to open a business where you are not welcome?
I'm not sure you understand that most businesses really don't care.

I worked for a company where Walmart was our primary client for over twenty years. This was a civil engineering firm, so we were intimately involved with their expansion process, not sales. We were directly involved with planning and approval processes, negotiating with cities, etc. Walmart has indeed been thwarted here and there, but it is rare. As a general rule, if only a city council objected, they'd ignore it and push through anyway. If "the masses" objected, there was a better chance that they'd actually cancel the store.

City councils are just 5/7/9 people, and contrary to intent, do not always represent the will of the people. Large businesses know this. Once the store is open, the city's opinion is pretty much irrelevant, and you don't get big by always being nice. "The masses" are actual potential customers, and are a better gauge of the community and potential sales base. If "the masses" object, then they take that as a sign that the store may not be profitable... which is really the only criteria.
 
And this is a big reason why I now believe it was never anything more than political grandstanding.

Note that the initial announcement was made in front of tv cameras. Splashed all over the news. Everybody saw and heard it. Mission accomplished, so to speak.

Note also that any subsequent debate... with a few editorials here and there added, but not too common... was places like here at DP between relatively few politically-geeky people such as ourselves... hidden away from the masses. The vast majority pf people for whom the original message was intended aren't hearing the rational, Constitutional, and legal objections. No, they just heard the grandstanding, and that was pretty much it.

Note again that the subsequent backtracking regarding legal issues and the actual issuing of permits was done quietly and via relatively obscure press releases. No tv cameras for this. Oh no.

Essentially, they inflamed public opinion to their desired end result, then backtracked just enough to probably cover their butts in a potential future lawsuit, but left public opinion inflamed in their desired favor.

well I dont know if its that dramatic but I agree, it is my guess its was just to expose the president for being a bigot and to show people they will expose future bigots because they had to know, or at least you HOPE they knew, they couldnt really win in this matter and stop CFA from opening etc. Just expose him for what he is :shrug:

also largely the american public arent swayed to much by this stuff and when they are its typically temporary, thats why I am for laws that protect us and not total libertarian anarchy when it comes to "matters like these". The key is though the law has to protect us all and in this case it will. CFA will be able to open if it wants and pushes too.
 
well I dont know if its that dramatic but I agree, it is my guess its was just to expose the president for being a bigot and to show people they will expose future bigots because they had to know, or at least you HOPE they knew, they couldnt really win in this matter and stop CFA from opening etc. Just expose him for what he is :shrug:

also largely the american public arent swayed to much by this stuff and when they are its typically temporary, thats why I am for laws that protect us and not total libertarian anarchy when it comes to "matters like these". The key is though the law has to protect us all and in this case it will. CFA will be able to open if it wants and pushes too.
Yeah, the scenario how it played out was probably more reaction than planned action.
 
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.

CRITICALTHOUGHT'S RESPONSE:
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?

MY RESPONSE TO CRITICALTHOUGHT:
With reference to your first paragraph:You're modus operandi has been exposed in great detail in my original abovementioned post to you. REREAD IT.

With reference to your second paragraph: You are desperately trying to obfuscate and deflect the fact that: SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by asking a ridiculous question such as at what point did they make their decision.

The important and relevant fact is that SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD !!! As to "at what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found the same sex marriage unconstitutional ?" Answer: When Scalia was tying his shoelaces, Ginsberg was considering a replacement for her douche bag, Kennedy was 1/2 way thru eating his ham sandwich.....you want me to go on ?
 
Last edited:
What was the case where the SCOTUS made this ruling?
 
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.

CRITICALTHOUGHT'S RESPONSE:
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?

MY RESPONSE TO CRITICALTHOUGHT:
With reference to your first paragraph:You're modus operandi has been exposed in great detail in my original abovementioned post to you. REREAD IT.

With reference to your second paragraph: You are desperately trying to deflect the fact that: SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by asking a ridiculous question such as at what point did they make their decision.

The important and relevant fact is that SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD !!! As to "at what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found the same sex marriage unconstitutional ?" Answer: When Scalia was tying his shoelaces, Ginsberg was considering a replacement for her douche bag, Kennedy was 1/2 way thru eating his ham sandwich.....you want me to go on ?

Please cite the case where the SCOTUS said that SSM, when included in state law, is unconstitutional. You have ranted about others "making stuff up" and using BS to back THEIR arguments, but this assertion OF YOURS may take the cake. I await your reply (link prefered). ;-)
 
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.

CRITICALTHOUGHT'S RESPONSE:
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?

MY RESPONSE TO CRITICALTHOUGHT:
With reference to your first paragraph:You're modus operandi has been exposed in great detail in my original abovementioned post to you. REREAD IT.

With reference to your second paragraph: You are desperately trying to deflect the fact that: SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL by asking a ridiculous question such as at what point did they make their decision.

The important and relevant fact is that SCOTUS ruled that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD !!! As to "at what point has the current sitting Supreme Court found the same sex marriage unconstitutional ?" Answer: When Scalia was tying his shoelaces, Ginsberg was considering a replacement for her douche bag, Kennedy was 1/2 way thru eating his ham sandwich.....you want me to go on ?

:shock:WOW that is f'ing hilarious!
 
Yeah, I'd like to see that case, too.

One thing we know is that this ruling has to have been made within the last two years, given that the judge in california to be constitutional due to the 14th (I think, can't quite remember) amendment and in no way would have if there was SC precedent.
 
Please cite the case where the SCOTUS said that SSM, when included in state law, is unconstitutional. You have ranted about others "making stuff up" and using BS to back THEIR arguments, but this assertion OF YOURS may take the cake. I await your reply (link prefered). ;-)

I'm not going to do your homework fer y'all.

The important and relevant fact is that SCOTUS made the ruling that Same Sex Marriage is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The other BS is just a desperate effort to obfuscate and deflect the above ruling.

I don't play silly games. You're welcome to do that without me.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom