Leaderboard

The Chic-fil-a dude didn't start it. A national gay/lesbian group asked his corporate headquarters for a large donation. Corporate politely replied in the negative. The group immediately started media bashing Chic-fil-a as bigoted, racist, anti-gay, what have you. The owner of the company replied in an interview that homosexuality was against his faith, and therefore his (family owned) company chose not to donate to their political warchest. Does that make him a bigot? A homophobe? Isn't it okay to decline to fund something you believe is wrong? Some folks here have immediately leapt to the defense of Islam (whose practitioners worldwide kill homosexuals), then turned around and attacked Christians who don't discriminate, merely refuse to donate to an organisation they believe is promoting values actively hostile to their faith. This disconnect from rationality is called 'liberalism'. I'm not sure why, as 'liberals' are some of the most intolerant people I've ever seen. Any departure from their party line is met with scorn, hatred, libel, and threats. Apparently individual liberty is incompatible with their worldview.

A true conservative wouldn't vote for Romney. This " a vote for anybody but my guy is a vote for evil satan" is truly getting old. You could also say that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a vote for Romney. Does that make you feel better?

I'm filing suit against McDonald's cause my gut hangs over my belt.

Ninth Amendment

When gay soldiers recently violated DODI 1334.01, by participating in a gay parade while in uniform, liberals and the media considered it a Ist Ammendment right. Yet, they are offended when a business chooses not to donate to a national gay group. Why should this insignifiant group of liberals think they should dictate to a corporation, how it chooses to donate it's money?

Visit a local range with rentals. Try out a bunch and see what you like.

Oh man, the Christian bookstores would be in trouble.

If he'd been able to return fire, the thug would either be dead or wounded and probably apprehended at a local hospital.

Dude, you stippled your Glock? !! What are you, some kind of dumb tn inbreeding baptist moron or something? !! - OS

OMG! Look at this HUGE cache of guns and 5,800 rounds of ammo in a car in San Fran. (Look closely at the photo of the "cache.") http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/08/01/homeless-man-found-with-weapons-cache-list-of-names-in-sf-golden-gate-park/ " San Francisco Police displayed an array of high power weapons and ammunition Wednesday that were found in a homeless man’s car last month in Golden Gate Park." I suppose a BB gun is "High Powered" in CA. " When police found a huge cache of guns, knives, a shotgun, 5,800 rounds of ammunition and camouflage gear in Robert Johns’ car on July 21st it was thought they may have diverted some kind of planned attack." Want to bet the ammo is .22?

It really doesn't matter. Obama will get his 2nd term. Romney really isn't much better anyways. Cut the supreme court bullsh*t, it makes no difference.

Yes I would vote for Mickey Mouse over Obama or Romney because I dont want either.The GOP chose Romney so The GOP lost me period. but luckily I can Vote for Gary Johnson and If that is a Vote for Obama then the way I see it is Obama won because to many people voted for Romney eitherway they are voting for More of the same.

I think that pic is trying to point out how the media sensationalizes someones thoughts on gay marriage this much and doesnt really say much about our real problems in this country I could care less if folks are gay , I coluld also care less what other folks think about gay folks we need less regulation and more personal freedom but most of all day in and day out the #1 story on all major media should be this countrys toilet of an economy and the debt maybe then those would be the issues our political candidates have to discuss not "what do you think about gays" who gives a darn about what they think about gays

Personally i wont give my money to an organization who's views i differ with that significantly. I firmly believe that homosexuality is not a disease or a choice anyone makes, they are born that way period end of story. I can not see the harm to America that could possibly come from allowing homosexual marriage.

Why? Would you approve of people coming to heckle you? Should they have filed trespassing complaints on anyone who hadn't purchased food during yesterday's little protest? This is the problem with our country right now. People want to ignore our constitutionally protected right to equal protection under the law and pick and choose who gets legal rights and who gets the boot of the government on their throat, not because they are actually harming you in any way, but because they are different than you.

Guess I might as well jump in for a bit. The one that annoys me the most is when they try to talk you down after you've agreed on a price.

I hear a big whooosh.

Since my original reply was apparently misunderstood or not clear, I’ll try again… No - driving a car at all or of any specific quality is not a right. Since, in my opinion, it is not a right the cost of stolen vehicles or what would happen if the commies took over (actually, they already have with Obama being the chief one) is moot. I absolutely agree; the idea that there are not people in prison for theft who were not high on drugs IS ludicrous which is why I never said it. Insinuating that I did say it is disingenuous. One could argue that but I don't think the argument has merit. ----------------------------- I'm not sure why you keep posting to me about this issue - I don't know if the issue is really important to you or if you just don't have a lot to do this afternoon or if you think I'm a lost sole that you need to bring to the right position. Anyway, I think the U.S. legalizing narcotics would be a terribly stupid and destructive thing to do and I doubt anyone is going offer enough evidence here to change my mind about that. Now, some may think I'm stupid or uninformed or don't understand State's rights or whatever but I'm okay with that. Have a nice day...I've go to go vote now.

I think I'll just try to make an NRA convention some day.

The argument does have merit based on your implied argument that we should only be allowed access to what are rights. You are either craftily arguing a straw man or you keep changing your argument from people committing crimes because they are on drugs to people committing their crimes to get drug money. My original statement was to which you replied:

Where do our rights come from? Do you deny the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights? The converse could be said about your contention that no evidence has been presented but only opinion, with regard to decriminalization. Your argument is that drugs cause people to commit crimes, when in fact, they no more cause people to commit crimes than guns cause people to commit crimes. If a person robbed you to buy a big mac or some 24" rims, would you propose to outlaw big macs and 24" rims?

I wouldn't buy anything from any manufacturer of gun accessories who states something this ignorant. I put this on the same level as the CCW badges. No, actually, a notch lower.

LOL. They piled up at the door didn't they?

If all you straight people would stop breeding like rabbits and/or have more abortions, there would be less gay people in the world. Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

It hurts just to look at that.

The Constitution is a limit on the Federal Government. The 10th amendment makes it a protected State/personal right. Now you are taking me to task with staying strictly on what you have defined as the topic? Where in this thread was it declared that we are only talking about full legalization across the board for every state? State's rights have everything to do with everything where the federal government oversteps it's limits as spelled out in the Constitution. The largest organization specifically tasked with enforcing drug laws is the DEA which is federal. Everyone has stats, but does that make them all useful? For Ss&Gs here is something for you to chew on: http://bjp.rcpsych.o...96/3/245.1.full http://www.msnbc.msn..._and_nutrition/ http://www.addiction...sugar-and-crime http://www.usatoday....eens/50916334/1 While most studies only show association and not cause and affect, the same is true for drug stats. Correlation is not causation. Yes that would be ok with me. Your feelings and beliefs are not facts or admissible in court. I believe people should be held accountable for their actions, you obviously feel inanimate objects should be. Then using that line of thought... Repeated studies show that nicotine is more addictive than most "hard" drugs, but we don't see the victimization you suggest due to folks addiction to it do we? http://www1.umn.edu/...o/nicaddct.html That's fine how about Steve Jobs? http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all "He told a reporter that taking LSD was one of the two or three most important things he had done in his life. He said there were things about him that people who had not tried psychedelics — even people who knew him well, including his wife — could never understand" or Bill Gates? http://beginnersinve...llgatesint5.htm Your assumption that those who "use" drugs whether habitually or occasionally are all broke and that's just your assumption. Show me the stats on that. How is this idea any different than what Bloomberg wants to do with french fries and milk shakes in NY? A nice strawberry milkshake really pleases me, but I'm not going to kill a man for one. I'd argue it would not foster greater use. Again, would you start using hard drugs if they were legal? Why would you assume any less for other citizens? Do you feel you are better at controlling yourself than unenlightened folks? Then why do you continue to respond in detail? Just brush me off. Ok, so you are for all or nothing. That's fine. I am for the federal government abiding by the Constitution and allowing the states to decide what is best for it's citizens. I do give rats ass about a delineation of federal and state responsibilities.

Very true.Just yesterday (early evening) I was sitting in my vehicle in a Starbucks parking lot on West End (waiting for a fellow TGO member as a matter of fact) when a fellow approached me and asked me for a handout...he was almost "on me" before I realized he was there. I did, however, have time to reach for and have my hand on (but not expose) the G21 I had with me before he actually reached the window...I simply said I couldn't help him and he moved on. After it was over, I realized that I simply wasn't paying enough attention to what was going on around me and I had to acknowledge that had his intention been hostile, I could have been in a very bad situation. I guess we just have to keep practicing.

Tread carefully...you are dangerously close to presenting so many facts that you are going to make some folks feel uncomfortable.

I graduated in 1989 and had no cell phone. In fact, I didn't even have a phone in my room. You'd probably only have to go back a few generations before there were no phones private residences. You know, come to think of it, I say no one needs 911 for emergencies because there was a time when there was no 911 and people got by. In fact, people survived during a time when there were no telephones, at all. So if there is an emergency then someone should just jump on a horse and ride on over to fetch the Doc. Better yet, just run and grab the witch doctor because there was a time before domesticated horses and scientifically trained medical practitioners, too. My point is, while the human race as a whole may have survived without certain technological advances - like cell phones - automobiles - fire - that is no reason to shun those advances once they exist. In fact, for certain applications, those advances might even make things 'better'.

That's a forking shame.

Bill O'Reilly is a douche bag.

Although this is partly a free-speech issue, if the subject wasn't gay marriage, almost no one would be showing this kind of support. If the CEO of C-F-A said that he believed Chevy was better than Ford and pissed off the Ford lovers, no one would be waiting in line to show support for his 1A right. Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

No, you didn't. But you did compare it to the Second Amendment, which is in the Bill of Rights. The two are not related. Gay marriage is not a right, especially in a state where it is not even legal according to the State Constitution. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is not valid if it isn't in conjunction with the law. You can't marry a goat just because it makes you happy. To clarify, I'm not looking at this from a Biblical perspective. My personal opinion is that I couldn't care less who gets married to who. Just don't push it down my throat and don't make it an issue if I don't jump up and down and celebrate a lifestyle that I don't share.

Ha. Yes, I get that and support it as I stated. Wherever. This topic is one that people will argue till they are blue in the face because they have nothing better to get behind. I'm out on this one.

I must take exception to the above statement. I've followed the Chick-fil-a reporting for several days now, and have yet to identify the "bigot who infringes on others rights" in this story. I do celebrate and support Mr. Cathy's exercise of religious freedom, and free expression of same. I condemn the facists in government who seek to deny his business based on his personal beliefs. If that's bigotry - if you have specific evidence of bigotry in this case - or can show where TGO members celebrate and support such - then by all means, bring it up for discussion. Otherwise, check your mirror... BTW, Chick-fil-a's support around the country is overwhelming, to say the least.

Exactly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CG5HozkvAc

I am ok with them turned off, even on recess. But I don't believe schools should be able to dictate that they cannot have a cell phone on their person so that they can have them for emergencies.

What is "CL"?

I graduated high school in 1985. No cell phones back then. I am just wondering what we did when we had an emergency. I guess there were no emergencies before cell phones were invented. I also think they should not be allowed at work unless you are using for work related calls. Nothing that I have seen in the last 25 years has led to more unproductivity and lack of respect for the workplace than cell phone usage and texting.

My son is 12 and a half. My wife and I have decided that he is going to grow up like us. No cell phone until he gets a job and pays for the entire bill himself (and car insurance too). If his behavior goes south, regardless of him paying for it, he will lose that privilege. So, no job, no phone. We are pretty old fashioned in my household. Cell phone is a no no but guns and slingshots are ok.

Turned off is acceptable to me. But if a teacher sees it in use, the teacher should now own it.

I hate it when anti gun people breathe oxygen that the rest of us could be putting to better use.

Exactly. California is a pure comparative fault state. What that means in a nutshell is that if a percentage test is performed by a jury to determine fault for an accident then a plaintiff can potenially recover damages even if Mr. Deep Pockets defendant is only, say 20% at fault. Or in this case 1% at fault. Pure comparitve fault can reach some pretty weird results. A few states still have have the contributory negligence doctrine which means that if the plaintiff (injured victim) does anything to contribute to their accident they get nothing. This can have some pretty unfair results too. For example imagine one driver is going 58mph in a 55mph zone when another driver (who is updating his twitter feed while crossing a four-lane highway) crosses into his path causing a serious accident. Contributory negligence doctrine would indicate that because he was speeding the driver with the right-of-way should be barred from recovering any money for his injury. Pretty unfair if you ask me. Tennessee follows a modified comparitive fault doctrine with a 49% rule which means that a plaintiff cannot recover damages if he's more than 49% at fault for the events that lead to injury, and if they are attributed fault less than 49% their judgment is reduced by an equal percentage. Most common example would be Plaintiff driver is following all traffic rules and driving within the speed limit but has one headlight out. Defendant driver is not paying attention and pulls into an intersection causing an accident. Plaintiff has mutiple fractures and kneee surgery, lost wages etc... for damages of $100K. If a judge or jury believes that the accident was 30% caused by the headlight being out and the Plaintiff has $100k in damages he would only get $70k instead of the $100k he'd normally recieve. I may be biased because I'm from Tennessee or because I've been practicing law in Tennessee since 2004 but I think Tennessee's negligence doctrine gets it right. Or it could be that I've got common sense, but probably not....

Also, it's not "going Zimmerman" on someone. For goodness sake, we have enough struggles getting reasonable media treatment. The last thing we need to do is call something what it is not. It is up to us as a community to not create controversy with the way we talk and converse among ourselves. It is defense of a third party, not "going Zimmerman".

To borrow from clint eastwood.... when I see a guy chasing a woman with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I shoot the bastard. So I guess my vote is to shoot the guy. That is the assumption that he has already stabbed her once, mind you, as the text you gave indicates. Also, in the case of already stabbed, he gets no warnings, no commands to stop. Back of the head, I don't really care. If the woman is unharmed, 911 is your friend.

Well, there is a chance that he might have wrestling and martial arts training too. And like so many people today, I also have martial arts training, but I don't have any desire to mix it up with anyone just because they sent me an insulting email. I have much better things to do with my time.

Report him to the mods.

Welcome to the Internet.