Chic-Fil-A

Local governments restricting free enterprise is very common and I don't see that as a valid point. Slow growth ordinances, deciding big box stores don't fit in, deciding that the community doesn't want that chemical plant, etc. Would you want a dusty and noisy open pit mine next door to your Church?

Walmart coca cola starbucks BP shell standard oil united fruit frenches mustard Jack Daniels union carbide .....bloody endless list, no elected official had better have ever done anything ever to affect those companies over other issues, I certainly hope none of those would ever be issues for politicians and the public.

There comes a time when people have hung themslves so thoroughly they need support.
So I agree with Haplo, freedom of speech means any elected representative had better shut the hell up on anything involving politics business and social issues and I don't want some muppet in office telling people they should buy freedom fries or not buy Cape Apples or shop at a mom an pop store as that is just wrong, I also want to introduce a man in a skirt shouting FREEDOM as he is a "traditional" "christian" with his own views on marriage and I don't want no one saying anything that may be affecting his business of making films just because he said nasty things about Jews as he has the right to say what he wants and there should be no consequences at all as that is what freedom of speech means.

See, this is what get's me. I didn't say anything ABOUT my own views on gay marriage

And Zeewolf didn't say anything about his views on Jews when he brought up the topic of the USS Liberty.
But anyone can see why he raised the subject.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Again you say I discussed my desire to use government to restrict gays was a sidetrack...

I said you sidetracked it with your bogus comparisons. You keep avoiding that.

Well that is one way to censor or try to browbeat someone, isn't it... Just tell them - in so many words - that their opinion is unwelcome and that if they post, you will just call them names and accuse them of saying stuff that they didn't say. Classy.

Now you're jumping into "I'm being attacked" mode, another of your favorite diversions. I never said, or implied, that your opinion is unwelcome. I only commented on the cheap tactics you use, and even that is only my opinion.

I posted up front that my intent was to discuss abuse of power by politicians against private enterpirse.

I stated at the outset that I didn't want this to be about gay marriage.... I did not bring up gay marrriage, nor did I start the subject of government's role in marriage.

Fair enough. You did say that. You should have stuck with that high road and refused to be drawn in.

Yet you accuse me of "sidetracking". What is more - to be blunt - one person starts moving the subject to marriage and who gets to control it while calling me a hypocrit (even though I agreed him), then you pile on saying I said things I haven't said and claiming this whole thing is all my fault while echoing the name calling and trying to justify it with all kinds of literary contortions.

If you reread my initial post (#70) you'll see that my "sidetracking" comment was aimed directly at what I repeated here - your bogus comparison, and nothing else. In that post I only responded to what you said in this thread regarding the subject. You have yet to answer what I said there other than with prevarication and dodging.

I brought it up because it speaks DIRECTLY to the original intent of my post...You know - trying to steer this back to the original subject????

Again, fair enough, except...

See, this is what get's me. I didn't say anything ABOUT my own views on gay marriage - but others brought them up just to call me a hypocrit. So basically I am free to present my views, unless of course, my views are already "well known" because then I simply just get called names and get accused of saying stuff I have not said, right? Yeah, got it.....

Neither did I. I answered specific comments made by you, and you have yet to answer my response.

Again - you either didn't read or are intentionally misrepresenting my response. I didn't address the criminal and mentally ill because I can see your point on that - but the politician and pastor side I did specifically answer. Again - you call it "changing the subject" when if you actually READ post 73 (my response to you) I even used the politician answer to try to point back to the ORIGINAL subject of this thread while answering.

You changed the subject with your comparisons, which had nothing to do with either your original post or reality. I responded directly to what you had said.

Or are you saying that me trying to get the discussion to the original subject is somehow me trying to "sidetrack" the thread?????

No, I explained exactly what I meant several times, and you are still avoiding it.

Oh - and personal animosity? I don't have any toward you - but I wish I could say that the reverse is not the case. It seems to me there is.

I never said you did. I questioned your bringing up Tak's Moderator status when he didn't. My "animosity" comment was concerning him, not me. As for my own feelings, I've already said that I avoided entering this thread (except for my playful comment to Frau Kaleun) until you started using bad debate tactics in the form of diversion.

[Bilge_Rat]

This debate again? ...meh.

The handwriting is already on the wall for opponents of Gay marriage. They are getting desparate now.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

This debate again? ...meh.

The handwriting is already on the wall for opponents of Gay marriage. They are getting desparate now.

That's why I continue to eat at Chick-fil-A. If they want to waste their money donating to causes that are fighting against something that's going to happen anyways, I don't care. It's dumb on their part, but I get some tasty chicken out of the deal.

How about a real freedom of speech issue?
Rogers communications is fighting the Canadian government over their attempts to stifle the companies free speech.
The evil government is blatently affecting their business interests by saying that their adverts cannot be made up of lies and the claims they make must have some factual basis.
It is a companies right to lie to the public, someone needs to boycott Maple syrup over this to teach those damn canadian governmenters a lesson in the name of FREEDOM.
If no one stops these evil politicians then Rogers communications will end up going extinct like coca cola did when the evil US politicians clamped down on their free speech

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

There comes a time when people have hung themslves so thoroughly they need support.
So I agree with Haplo, freedom of speech means any elected representative had better shut the hell up on anything involving politics business and social issues and I don't want some muppet in office telling people they should buy freedom fries or not buy Cape Apples or shop at a mom an pop store as that is just wrong, I also want to introduce a man in a skirt shouting FREEDOM as he is a "traditional" "christian" with his own views on marriage and I don't want no one saying anything that may be affecting his business of making films just because he said nasty things about Jews as he has the right to say what he wants and there should be no consequences at all as that is what freedom of speech means.

... Mel Gibson?

Not even sure why I am bothering following this thread... Oh wait... it's my job

PS I hope the Canadian Government nails Rogers to the wall. They are one of the most dishonest and scummy companies that gouges their customers every single chance they get.

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

PS I hope the Canadian Government nails Rogers to the wall. They are one of the most dishonest and scummy companies that gouges their customers every single chance they get.

Right there with you! Rogers is absolutely awful Though to be fair, all of Canada's telecommunications and media is in a shameful state, because of the virtual Rogers-Bell duopoly. It's not surprising that they've been able to exert so much pressure over customers and government alike.

... Mel Gibson?

Yes, after all Hikind is an elected politician, he blocked one of his films in his district and his protests about the man in the skirt being a jew hating bigot were outside Murdochs offices when newscorp ditched poor oppressed Mels business.
It is wrong for politicians to say anything that affects peoples business because there is FREEDOM of speech and it doesn't come with consequences.

Not even sure why I am bothering following this thread...

Because the attempt at an opening arguement guaranteed it would be quite funny?

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I said you sidetracked it with your bogus comparisons. You keep avoiding that.

No - post 70 and 85:

Your desire to use the government to enforce it is.

Yes, it was you who sidetracked it. It was you pointed out that you wish for government to withhold the right of gays to marry, and you've been dancing around that accusation but never quite answering it.

You said I sidetracked by saying that I wish for government to withold the right of gays to marry. So now your saying not only did I say something I didn't say, your claiming you didn't say what you said! Unreal....

Now you're jumping into "I'm being attacked" mode, another of your favorite diversions. I never said, or implied, that your opinion is unwelcome. I only commented on the cheap tactics you use, and even that is only my opinion.

No - I am pointing out that you have made up crap by claiming I have said something I didn't. How would you take that if someone did it to you?

Fair enough. You did say that. You should have stuck with that high road and refused to be drawn in.

Drawn in? You mean someone else changed the subject and by responding I am at fault for sidetracking? So your admitting that someone else broached different subjects, but you still blame me for it all. Again - yea ok....

If you reread my initial post (#70) you'll see that my "sidetracking" comment was aimed directly at what I repeated here - your bogus comparison, and nothing else. In that post I only responded to what you said in this thread regarding the subject.

Again - bullcrap. You state in that thread that I desire to use government to enforce no gays being married. Yes again - you can't show me where I say that "in this thread"! That seems to me to be a response to your view of me and based on something not in this thread. Takeda accused me of wanting that, you picked it up and when I have tried to deal with the accusation, you have just added to it with further accusations of me saying things I haven't, sidetracking, etc.

You have yet to answer what I said there other than with prevarication and dodging.... I answered specific comments made by you, and you have yet to answer my response.

Again - if you would stop reading "between the lines" to see what you want and instead actually read what I have written without prejudging it, maybe you would see your answer. I said I don't have an issue with your points on criminals and the mentally ill.

You changed the subject with your comparisons, which had nothing to do with either your original post or reality. I responded directly to what you had said.

The first 2 comparisons I have dealt with - and saying that talking about restricting politicians when the original post is about how politicians were abusing their office and that should not be allows has EVERYTHING to do with the original post. DUH!

No, I explained exactly what I meant several times, and you are still avoiding it.

Only if you choose to ignore what I write......

As for my own feelings, I've already said that I avoided entering this thread (except for my playful comment to Frau Kaleun) until you started using bad debate tactics in the form of diversion.

So you jumped in because you didn't like some of my comparisons. Fine. So why jump on me over the hypocrit issue? Why claim I said something I didn't? Why say its my fault that the thing gets sidetracked when I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question? Why suggest/imply I have a problem with a mod just because I use his (right and proper) actions to demonstrate the difference between good official uses and bad ones?

These kind of reactions - and your continuation of "trying to move the ball" to defend your actions while ignoring my answers simply doesn't make sense if you just didn't like me using criminals and mentally ill people as examples of reasonable restrictions. If that was the only problem, this would have been gone a while ago.

Whatever the real issue is - my PM box is open. We can deal with it there as necessary.

[eddie]

A lot of companies here in the States are taking sides now!

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/...ake-sides?lite

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by eddie

A lot of companies here in the States are taking sides now!

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/...ake-sides?lite

That is kind of funny - they take a picture of a couple kissing in front of a CLOSED chik-fil-a in what looks like a food court - and claim they are "participating" in the kiss-in. Uhm - the business would have to be OPEN!

The idea of the kiss-in was to protest the company - but that is kind of hard when the company isn't open.

Has nothing to do with the couple or with the restaurant - its funny because NBC displayed the pic (taken at the CNN Center) and can't even figure out such a glaring error. This passes for journalism?

I mean - I know there were locations where the kiss in was held and pictures of such could have been used.

[Ducimus]

This has gone on for 8 pages? Really?! Must be a "slow news day" on GT.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I mean - I know there were locations where the kiss in was held and pictures of such could have been used.

Maybe there aren't as many (usable) pictures as some would have us believe.

I mean the lines for appreciation day were around the block in dozens of cities so I figured the numbers for protest day would be similar but apparently the whole thing was a bust and the media has to put in fake pictures to compensate.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

You said I sidetracked by saying that I wish for government to withold the right of gays to marry. So now your saying not only did I say something I didn't say, your claiming you didn't say what you said!

You've said many times that you believe gays should accept what they're given. How else do you enforce that if not by government?

Unreal....

You forgot to include the eye-rolling emoticon.

No - I am pointing out that you have made up crap by claiming I have said something I didn't. How would you take that if someone did it to you?

It's happened many times in many arguments. Yes, I get excited too. You still haven't addressed my original comment.

Drawn in? You mean someone else changed the subject and by responding I am at fault for sidetracking? So your admitting that someone else broached different subjects, but you still blame me for it all.

Sure, why not.

Again - yea ok....

Again, you forgot the

You state in that thread that I desire to use government to enforce no gays being married. Yes again - you can't show me where I say that "in this thread"! That seems to me to be a response to your view of me and based on something not in this thread. Takeda accused me of wanting that, you picked it up and when I have tried to deal with the accusation, you have just added to it with further accusations of me saying things I haven't, sidetracking, etc.

I'll repeat myself. You have said many times you are against gay "marriage". Please explain how you enforce that if not by government.

[quote]Again - if you would stop reading "between the lines" to see what you want and instead actually read what I have written without prejudging it, maybe you would see your answer. I said I don't have an issue with your points on criminals and the mentally ill.
I'm not reading between the lines. Just because you didn't say it "in this thread" doesn't mean you haven't said it. If you've said it anywhere then it is a valid argument toward your overall attitude.

The first 2 comparisons I have dealt with - and saying that talking about restricting politicians when the original post is about how politicians were abusing their office and that should not be allows has EVERYTHING to do with the original post. DUH!

What you haven't dealt with is my original point, which is that the restrictions you mention all have good reasons, but the restriction on gays doesn't, which makes the comparisons invalid. Yes, I wandered too, but you still haven't answered that.

Only if you choose to ignore what I write......

Pot and kettle.

So you jumped in because you didn't like some of my comparisons. Fine. So why jump on me over the hypocrit issue? Why claim I said something I didn't? Why say its my fault that the thing gets sidetracked when I proved that it wasn't me that even brought up the marriage and government question?

Fair and valid point. I'll apologise here and now for falling into that line of argument.

Why suggest/imply I have a problem with a mod just because I use his (right and proper) actions to demonstrate the difference between good official uses and bad ones?

Then why bring up his status at all? There was no point to that.

These kind of reactions - and your continuation of "trying to move the ball" to defend your actions while ignoring my answers simply doesn't make sense if you just didn't like me using criminals and mentally ill people as examples of reasonable restrictions. If that was the only problem, this would have been gone a while ago.

Again, the restrictions you mentioned were indeed reasonable, which is why I pointed out that the comparison is invalid, as you compared them with the restrictions you believe should be on gays, which are not reasonable.

Whatever the real issue is - my PM box is open. We can deal with it there as necessary.

What real issue are you thinking I hold? My only problem here is with bad debate tactics and invalid comparisons.

[CaptainHaplo]

I am going to skip some stuff because I think its better we just move forward.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You've said many times that you believe gays should accept what they're given. How else do you enforce that if not by government?

I'll repeat myself. You have said many times you are against gay "marriage". Please explain how you enforce that if not by government.

I can believe they shouldn't be married. That doesn't mean that I think the power of Government should be used to prohibit it. I don't think its the role of Government to be involved in it (other than protecting minors and others unable to give consent). The distinction is that we can't just snap our fingers and make Goverment get out. So what I AM for is maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (and I am ok with civil unions as a step) until we can do things RIGHT - instead of trusting Government to "get it right" with its next "fix". Basically, I would rather see something broken left alone so we can fix it, instead of breaking it MORE through getting government DEEPER into it - thus making it harder to get government out. As I have said before, I support but have issues with DoMA, and if government was out of the equation then gays could get married (either in a church or just agreeing to it themselves or however else they want) and my beliefs be damned. I am ok with that.

Ultimately - its not a great solution. I acknowledge that. But its better than making the problem worse - unless you think that Government should be in the business of marriage. Now if you think the government should be - then its a different discussion. If Government should be involved - then marriage becomes a civil contract. If it is a civil contract, it should - based upon the US constitution, be under the regulatory authority of the individual States. Thus it WOULD fall to the State government to regulate such contracts as each State decides is appropriate.

As I said - I would prefer government be out of it. However, if the alternative is governmental interference - then it should be done in a way that is constitutionally correct. While you say I am hypocritical, let me point out that there are states that have legalized gay marriage - and I don't think you can find any post I have made saying that the federal government should over-rule those states so that gays should be restricted. I don't think wanting government out - and then following the US Constitution if I can't have my "wish" is somehow hypocritical. While I don't expect you to agree with my line of reasoning, I trust this helps you understand it a little more.

Fair and valid point. I'll apologise here and now for falling into that line of argument.

Apology accepted and its water under the bridge.

Then why bring up his status at all? There was no point to that.

I brought up his status because his role as a moderator is what made the comparison to a government official possible. If he was "just" a regular member - the analogy of a moderator/politician speaking from an offical position vs speaking as a private individual wouldn't work. A moderator here is "like" a subsim gov't official. See the analogy? Takeda has always done a great job seperating the two - and I was holding him up as an example of what some politicians SHOULD be doing - keeping the two roles seperate. Hopefully, it makes more sense now.