• 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!

Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

ThePlayDrive said:
I don't understand your point. Do you think I'm lying when I say that I think Obama was anti-SSM as a political move? If so, on what basis do you accuse me of that?
Click to expand...

I am sick and tired of you accusing people who disagree with you of calling you a liar. That record's been broken for quite some time, PlayDrive. You are the one saying it was a "political move." I don't have to prove you're right. You do. Ridiculous.
 
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, went to one 5 times today. Love that place, not the food so much but the owner's outcry.
 


hahahahahaha
 
MaggieD said:
I am sick and tired of you accusing people who disagree with you of calling you a liar. That record's been broken for quite some time, PlayDrive. You are the one saying it was a "political move." I don't have to prove you're right. You do. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Why did you think it was funny that I said Obama's anti-SSM stance was "for show"?
 
CriticalThought said:
It's a franchise. You know what that means, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, I used to work for them and I know that they are owned and managed by individuals. However, it was nice to be among the community and stand up for the First Amendment. I hope that this shows the intolerant local governments of some the bigoted officials that Americans who even support SSM will stand behind a company when the government tries to punish them over an owner's opinion on a social issue.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, I used to work for them and I know that they are owned and managed by individuals. However, it was nice to be among the community and stand up for the First Amendment. I hope that this shows the intolerant local governments of some bigoted officials that Americans who even support SSM will stand behind a company when the government tries to punish them over an owner's opinion on a social issue.
Click to expand...

By "the intolerant local governments" I assume you mean those two politicians in those two different cities? Seriously?
 
digsbe said:
I didn't go to support their views on SSM, but because even I disagree with them I went to support the business that is being targeted for the CEO's opinion, which I think is a violation of the freedom of speech. It was a day designated by the public to support them, not something that the company put on.
Click to expand...
I disagree with them as well and I went their recently to get food because I viewed it simply as a restaurant with views I disagree with. Now, these purposeful "appreciation" efforts by anti-SSM people and those who sympathize with them (you) have turned Chik Fil A into an anti-SSM mascot which I and other liberals don't even want to be associated with anymore which does more harm than good for them.
 
digsbe said:
I didn't go to support their views on SSM, but because even I disagree with them I went to support the business that is being targeted for the CEO's opinion, which I think is a violation of the freedom of speech. It was a day designated by the public to support them, not something that the company put on.
Click to expand...

If he had instead voiced his support for the agenda of the Westboro Baptist Church or the American Nazi Party, would you still go out of your way to support the business?
 
CriticalThought said:
By "the intolerant local governments" I assume you mean those two politicians in those two different cities? Seriously?
Click to expand...

Yes. I mean those in the governments that want to punish a business over the CEO's personal opinion. They are intolerant of one man's opinion and thus have voiced the desire to abuse the law in order to punish his business.

Kandahar said:
If he had instead voiced his support for the agenda of the Westboro Baptist Church or the American Nazi Party, would you still go out of your way to support the business?
Click to expand...

Westboro is not in my location, the Nazi's also don't sell good chicken. But if an owner of a business was a member of these organizations and the local government wanted to punish his business over his personal views I would support that business' owners right to voice his opinion without retaliation by the government even though I strongly disagree with the CEO's view (as I do with Cathy's view).
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Yes, I used to work for them and I know that they are owned and managed by individuals. However, it was nice to be among the community and stand up for the First Amendment. I hope that this shows the intolerant local governments of some the bigoted officials that Americans who even support SSM will stand behind a company when the government tries to punish them over an owner's opinion on a social issue.
Click to expand...
Actually, you just look stupid because not even most liberals supported those government's decisions to push away Chik Fil A. This "appreciation day" nonsense is much ado about nothing.
 
They should have gone national with supporters being able to buy gift certs for food for the homeless or some such. I'd love to show them my support. None in my state.
 
MaggieD said:
I am sick and tired of you accusing people who disagree with you of calling you a liar. That record's been broken for quite some time, PlayDrive. You are the one saying it was a "political move." I don't have to prove you're right. You do. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What's your point? You asked why there was a supposed "double standard" between Obama and Dan Cathy. The answer is simply that Obama's earlier position was insincere and everyone knew it, whereas Dan Cathy actually believes what he says and everyone knows that too. Therefore no double standard exists.
 
Chick-Fil-A couldn't have bought this much publicity! People lining up to buy there who never did before. Personally I always through their prices too high for what you get and we don't eat fast foods anyway.

How many millions of dollars do you think they'll make off this?
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Why did you think it was funny that I said Obama's anti-SSM stance was "for show"?
Click to expand...

All of Obama's positions are for show, as he has no clue how to govern. Look behind that telepromter curtain, there is no great wizard Obama at all. When we wake up the world will be back to black and white, only the huge national debt and high unemployment rate will remind us that it was not really just a dream. We can still HOPE for CHANGE on 11/6/12. ;-)
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I disagree with them as well and I went their recently to get food because I viewed it simply as a restaurant with views I disagree with. Now, these purposeful "appreciation" efforts by anti-SSM people and those who sympathize with them (you) have turned Chik Fil A into an anti-SSM mascot which I and other liberals don't even want to be associated with anymore which does more harm than good for them.
Click to expand...

I hadn't considered that and now I feel bad. While this boost of business will be good for a lot of them, I think the long term may turn out badly for those located in more liberal areas. Huckabee managed to put them in a bad position with this strategy.
 
Kandahar said:
What's your point? You asked why there was a supposed "double standard" between Obama and Dan Cathy. The answer is simply that Obama's earlier position was insincere and everyone knew it, whereas Dan Cathy actually believes what he says and everyone knows that too. Therefore no double standard exists.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why I'm confused as to why she thinks me saying Obama's earlier position was insincere is funny. That's just what it was. /shrug
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Actually, you just look stupid because not even most liberals supported those government's decisions to push away Chik Fil A. This "appreciation day" nonsense is much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...

Did I ever mention liberals? Did I not very directly and specifically make my comments towards the individuals in local governments that have voiced the desire to harm Chick Fil A over the owner's views? Re-read my posts if you must. You can think the "appreciation" day stuff is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that my purpose for going was to support my local franchise since they have recently come under fire.
 
digsbe said:
Yes, I used to work for them and I know that they are owned and managed by individuals. However, it was nice to be among the community and stand up for the First Amendment. I hope that this shows the intolerant local governments of some the bigoted officials that Americans who even support SSM will stand behind a company when the government tries to punish them over an owner's opinion on a social issue.
Click to expand...

What actually happened was a couple of mayors ran their mouths off a bit too much, quickly walked those statements back, and never took any legal action to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities. Dan Cathy, on the other hand, has done far more to deny people their constitutional rights than merely running his mouth. He has actively donated money to pro-discrimination hate groups.

So can we drop the nonsense about how you only supported them because they were being persecuted by the government?
 
digsbe said:
Did I ever mention liberals? Did I not very directly and specifically make my comments towards the individuals in local governments that have voiced the desire to harm Chick Fil A over the owner's views? Re-read my posts if you must. You can think the "appreciation" day stuff is stupid, but that doesn't change the fact that my purpose for going was to support my local franchise since they have recently come under fire.
Click to expand...
Actually, you should probably re-read my post because it wasn't premised on you saying anything about liberals since you didn't say anything about them. However, my comment was premised on the fact that this "support for Chik Fil A" is based on an hyperbolic reaction to a nearly nonexistent problem as evidenced by the fact that hardly anyone, including liberals, supported Chicago and Boston's efforts against Chik Fil A.
 
Did any of you buy iPhones, iPads, whatever iCrap? You know the CEO was a major asswipe, right? Got his girl high to get laid and sure enough got her pregnant, and then denied the kid was his from the getgo. Even when paternity tests proved it, he persisted and set his army of lawyers in delay after delay. That was just a small part of the assmunch that was Steve Jobs.

You folks who don't support Chik, who think what the CEO says or does should affect the government's ability to license to them - do you support that? How dear are your convictions? Gonna give up that iGarbage?
 
Kandahar said:
Why do you continue to lie about your reasons for supporting them? What actually happened was a couple of mayors ran their mouths off a bit too much, quickly walked those statements back, and never took any legal action to keep Chick-Fil-A out of their cities. Dan Cathy, on the other hand, has done far more to deny people their constitutional rights than merely running his mouth. He has actively donated money to pro-discrimination hate groups.
Click to expand...

How am I lying exactly? It's nice that the mayors retracted their statements if this is true.

ThePlayDrive said:
Actually, you should probably re-read my post because it wasn't premised on you saying anything about liberals since you didn't say anything about them. However, my comment was premised on the fact that this "support for Chik Fil A" is based on an hyperbolic reaction to a nearly nonexistent problem as evidenced by the fact that hardly anyone, including liberals, supported Chicago and Boston's efforts against Chik Fil A.
Click to expand...

I know that most liberals and Americans recognized the intolerance, ignorance and hatred voiced by these individuals in governments that wanted to hurt Chick Fil A. I think it's a problem if a local government thinks they can punish a business over the CEO's personal views :shrug: Also, wouldn't these planned "kiss-ins" also be a hyperbolic reaction? You can have your opinion on the "appreciation day" stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that I went out today, purchased their food and met many many people in my community who were pro-SSM but also wanted to support a company that recently came under fire over the CEO's personal beliefs (which are also fairly mainstream). I want to stand up against bigotry, hatred, ignorance and intolerance by hopefully showing these people in governments that when they want to abuse their power to punish a company over the owner's personal views that the American community will side with the First Amendment and support that company ;)
 
Last edited:
digsbe said:
Yes. I mean those in the governments that want to punish a business over the CEO's personal opinion. They are intolerant of one man's opinion and thus have voiced the desire to abuse the law in order to punish his business.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't agree with that, but I'm not sure how buying a chicken sandwich translates to showing them. Wouldn't donating money to a PAC that supports one of their opponents make more sense than ingesting fried food? The message you are really sending is, "I'm for traditional marriage and I agree with the remarks of the president of this company" not "I don't like intolerant government officials".
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Exactly, which is why I'm confused as to why she thinks me saying Obama's earlier position was insincere is funny. That's just what it was. /shrug
Click to expand...

Unbelievable. So, what you're saying is that Barack Obama was a liar. (You should like that designation, PD.)

He was lying here:

In June of 2006, Senator Obama stated on the Senate floor that marriage was between one man and one woman. He spoke during the debate over a constitutional amendment on marriage and asserted his support for marriage as one man and one woman and his view that debating the issue was merely a distraction from the real issues.

While in office, he voted against an amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. He also co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2007.
Click to expand...

He was lying here:

These views on marriage, civil unions, and religion were continually reaffirmed throughout the 2008 campaign. In an interview with Pastor Rick Warren, Senator Obama defined marriage as between one man and one woman and noted that it was also a sacred union in which God was a factor. He then stated that he would not support an amendment to the constitution to define marriage as this is not something left to the constitution to define. He states that the matter of marriage is left to the States.
Click to expand...

And he was lying here:

In 2004, Barack Obama stated in a US Senate campaign debate with Alan Keyes that marriage is between one man and one woman, and that he supports civil unions but not gay marriage. He stated that his religion dictated that marriage was defined this way and that when a man and a woman are married, they are performing something before God. He also stated that this position does not translate into public policy. He continued by asserting that homosexuality is innate and is not a choice, and that marriage is not a civil right but a tradition that needed to be preserved.
Click to expand...

No, I guess he was just pretending. *Sigh*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom