patrick.net

Meccos says

So i guess you have simply regressed to talking about grammar since its clear you have no other point to be made.

My point is that you're an asshole, but you make that point far better than I could. Keep posting, please.

Meccos says

BTW here is what Dan copied and pasted. Please, everyone check it out for youself... he copied the first three examples to the right... LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

That is what the blockquote tag is for. Was the subtly of quoting lost on you?

Meccos says

OH BTW, go on the website where you copied and pasted your retarded quotes from. The 7th quote is in German. Perhaps "assine" is a word in German!?!?!?!?

And the first six are in English. Do the math.

xrpb11a says

Dan8267 attempts to inform the world that "assine" is a legitimate word....

It may be a degeneration of asinine, but it's still used all over the Internet. Much like "pron" is porn, "pwned" is owned, interweb is Internet / World Wide Web, and "ok" is all right.

Dan8267 says

My point is that you're an asshole, but you make that point far better than I could. Keep posting, please.

So have you simply resorted to name calling now that you have nothing better to say? hahahha

Dan8267 says

Meccos says

OH BTW, go on the website where you copied and pasted your retarded quotes from. The 7th quote is in German. Perhaps "assine" is a word in German!?!?!?!?

And the first six are in English. Do the math.

Are you still arguing that "assine" is a word? You do realize that the quotes you used were examples of people who used "assine" incorrectly such as yourself? Its hilarious that you used that as an example to prove yourself right. LOLOLOL

Dan8267 says

xrpb11a says

Dan8267 attempts to inform the world that "assine" is a legitimate word....

It may be a degeneration of asinine, but it's still used all over the Internet. Much like "pron" is porn, "pwned" is owned, interweb is Internet / World Wide Web, and "ok" is all right.

WOW you are still trying to prove that you are right? You can fool yourself but you cant fool anyone else. LOLOLOLOL Clearly you are someone who cant admit they are wrong even when given clear evidence of it.

So the gay community is all butt-hurt about one rich cracker having a personal opinion?!

Last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion.
End of story, live with it boyz.

I don't think you can hurt this guy, he's extremely wealthy, what you gonna do boycott his stores and hurt his minimum wage employees?

divingengineer says

So the gay community is all butt-hurt about one rich cracker having a personal opinion?!

Nope, not hurt at all. Actually I prefer it when asswipes like him, and you for that matter, go on the record with their homophobia. Except at least he has more balls to do it with his real name.

I can understand the Islamist fanatics being 'mad' all the time, due to lack of female companionship, or when they do have it, the women are all covered up. Wondering if something similar is going on here....

Meccos says

Dan8267 says

Nevertheless, I can tell, Mecoss, that you are a republican despite your denial because you use the word "liberal" as if it had shit on it. Only republicans do that.

Wow, so I cant even use the word liberal now without taking crap for it? Geez, you guys are always so mad...

divingengineer says

So the gay community is all butt-hurt about one rich cracker having a personal opinion?!

Last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion.
End of story, live with it boyz.

Wait...So... *Err*I am not sure what you are getting at here...

So, it is "legal" for some "rich cracker" to have an opinion about gays, but not OK for others to have an opinion about the rich guys gay opinion?

Kind of sounds like you are getting "butt-hurt" over people having a personal opinion.

Ack! A food fight devolves into name calling, to the surprise of no one. If I may please offer some information, which might draw tomatoes from all sides, there is a bit more going on here than one fool rushing into an issue by expressing a personal opinion and then others reacting to his words. There is also his funding of hate groups:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/chick-fil-a-anti-gay-controversy-employees-speak-out_n_1729968.html

And, in major cities, independent businesses tend to oppose chains anyway. The mayors aren't tyrannically oppressing free speech, they're gaining votes and donations from local business interests that don't want to compete with chains. The mayors could have gained an equal number of votes by simply saying "I support equal rights, including marriage equality." Taking the extra step of using it as a reason to keep out a chain adds the incentive of donations from local independent business.

If you want to understand any story, always follow the money.

I thought PETA was either 1) the name of that dude with the hungry games, or perhaps 2) an acronym for People Eating Tasty Animals.
I'm ok with it either way. That movie was pretty good and my chicken/kitten sandwich totally rocks!

curious2 says

Ack! A food fight devolves into name calling, to the surprise of no one.

Yeah, this thread has deteriorate into meaningless ranting. The original point of the thread was that Boston and Chicago don't have the right to ban CFA. The only refutation of that point was an argument I proposed that cities do ban business like strip clubs, auto dealerships, etc. and cities do prohibit the sale of legal goods like alcohol on Sundays (so-called blue laws). If cities have the right to do that, then a CFA ban is no different.

Yet, the original point and counter-point were dropped as the conversation took off on the question of whether or not gay marriage should be a secular right. Since that's an important issue, I don't mind that. Last I checked, the two sides of that debate were left with the arguments:

For legal gay marriages
----------------------
The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment requires state recognization of gay marriages just as it does the recognization of interracial marriages as shown in the Supreme Court decision of Loving vs. Virginia.

Against gay marriages
---------------------
Gays are retards and rapists who cannot consent to sex. Therefore, gay sex and pedophilia are exactly the same thing.

Finally Meccos hijacked the thread and turned it into “all liberals hate all republicans” and then further deteriorated it into a meaningless argument about spelling and grammar. Granted I did contribute to his tirade by demanding complaining about all the incoherent postings that the social conservatives have made. But come on, if you want to discuss an issue, especially a controversial one, it’s useful to avoid misinterpreting what the opposition is saying, and that’s a hell of lot easier if they write coherently.

I say it’s time to get this thread back on track. The two real issues being discussed here are
1. Whether or not gay marriage should be recognized equally under laws.
2. Whether or not municipalities have the right to ban or restrict legal businesses.

On issue one, I stand by my thesis:

Marriage should not exist as a secular institution since it is not the right or the responsibility of government to intervene or judge personal relationships. All laws regarding marriage should be repealed or replaced with marriage agnostic laws.

That said, if America does recognize marriage as a legal institution, then the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the philosophy of equality under law demands equal recognition of gay marriage.

One issue two, I propose that if the blue laws are legal, so would attempts by Chicago and Boston to ban CFA. Conversely, if Chicago and Boston have no legal right to ban CFA, then no state or municipality has the right to ban other legal businesses including strip bars, auto dealerships, and alcohol sales (even on Sundays).

Intelligent counter-arguments welcomed.

divingengineer says

So the gay community is all butt-hurt about one rich cracker having a personal opinion?!

Last time I checked, it was still legal to have an opinion.
End of story, live with it boyz.

I have yet to hear anyone state that the CFA CEO is not entitled to his opinion or to express that opinion. What I have seen is people expressing their opinions contrary to his. Furthermore, boycotting is a perfectly legitimate way to exercise one's freedom of speech, whether or not a boycott has ever been successful.