You know what, #%@! Chick-Fil-A!

[yeold360s]

How do you know he doesn't have a basis for his statement?  Your almost criminal lack of knowledge on the subject speaks for itself.
What you're doing is the equivalent of banging your head against the wall, and questioning others when they tell you its not a very smart thing to do.

There's no point in educating someone who has no desire to learn.

READ! I said IF you dont have a basis. I still haven't read anything from either one of you other than disagreement. I didn't write a dissertation, just posted some basic statements which is the way I see things- and there is plenty of facts and data to back it up. "criminal lack of knowledge" and "questioning others when they tell you its not avery smart thing to do"- who the hell do you think you are anyways- go ahead and try to educate me or anybody else- I would love to hear it. You have said NOTHING or taken any stances except for the fact that you disagree with my post. All this tells me that you have opposing views and lack a means of justifying what you say. I've witnessed and been educated on the topic this is in regards to. Why dont you go buy a tent and occupy a public park somewhere- maybe make a sign like one of your posts that has no meaning, yet appears to be knowledgeable

I did read, that's why I know there's no point in getting into a discussion with you on how wrong you are.  You're not going to drag me down to your level for a "debate".

If you can't glean a meaning from this post, it's a wonder that you have the motor skills to operate a computer.  Additionally, you should work on your grammar and sentence structure, it leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[essential1]

Be on the lookout for Obama to get his piece of this and use these "wrongful donations" to incorporate a tax - maybe even called the Chick Fil A tax. Double taxation at its finest, haha- still makes me heated that there is such a ridiculous inheritance tax (there shouldnt be at all), but taxing on something that already been paid in at least once (sometimes twice with dividend taxes)- ol thieving @#$ government- and some of yall wonder why people get angry about wealth redistribution: maybe because the money is being taken from those that earned it and being blindly given out to those that haven't, and in many cases dont deserve it. Not to mention the obnoxiously absurd spending of actual government employees on anything they do.
If the people doing this "kiss-in" are doing so inside the store and dont actually purchase anything, they deserve to be kicked out. Otherwise, if they are purchasing something, then their whole angle is hypocritical- because they're just contributing to the whole entity that they're trying to protest. Right?

READ! I said IF you dont have a basis. I still haven't read anything from either one of you other than disagreement. I didn't write a dissertation, just posted some basic statements which is the way I see things- and there is plenty of facts and data to back it up. "criminal lack of knowledge" and "questioning others when they tell you its not avery smart thing to do"- who the hell do you think you are anyways- go ahead and try to educate me or anybody else- I would love to hear it. You have said NOTHING or taken any stances except for the fact that you disagree with my post. All this tells me that you have opposing views and lack a means of justifying what you say. I've witnessed and been educated on the topic this is in regards to. Why dont you go buy a tent and occupy a public park somewhere- maybe make a sign like one of your posts that has no meaning, yet appears to be knowledgeable

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/taxes-hit-lowest-level-since-1950

"Federal, state and local taxes -- including income, property, sales and other taxes -- consumed 9.2% of all personal income in 2009, the lowest rate since 1950, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports. That rate is far below the historic average of 12% for the last half-century. The overall tax burden hit bottom in December at 8.8% of income before rising slightly in the first three months of 2010."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121074648

"[The estate tax] hits about 2 out of every 1,000 estates, and these estates are the wealthiest of the wealthy. - Ben Harris, a researcher with the Tax Policy Center"

"So Democrats brought to the House floor something of a compromise: a permanent estate tax at this year's levels. That means that if a couple's estate is worth more than $7 million or an individual leaves behind more than $3.5 million, the money over that threshold is subject to a 45 percent tax. The tax policy institute estimates that will affect about 6,000 estates this year — of which about 100 are small businesses or farms."

http://thinkprogress.org/tag/estate-tax/page/4/

"Under the 2009 rate, estates worth less than $3.5 million pay no taxes at all, while larger estates pay 45 percent of anything above that threshold. As a bill to reinstate the estate tax is negotiated in the Senate, some senators have been pushing to cut this tax on millionaires to 35 percent, while raising the exemption to $5 million."

"Under 2009 law, 99.8 percent of estates owe no estate tax at all, and 62.5 percent of estate tax revenue comes from estates worth more than $20 million. And because the exemption is so high, the average effective rate — the amount paid as a percentage of the entire estate — for those subject to the tax is about 14 percent.

It’s already going to cost $250 billion over ten years to keep the 2009 level in place, as current law calls for the tax to reset to the 2001 level (55 percent, with a $1 million exemption) in 2011. There’s simply no reason for spending another $80 billion on top of that to further reduce the tax burden on the richest of the rich."


So you want to abolish the state tax... Which lowers taxes on the rich.. That $250bill must be made up somewhere.... And who would suffer? The middle class and the poor.. The middle class' taxes will skyrocket, and the poor will lose what keeps them from living on the street.

http://money.msn.com/taxes/todays-taxes-lowest-in-60-years.aspx
"As Republicans and Democrats continue to bicker over who should be taxed and how much, one fact rarely gets mentioned: Most Americans today pay less in federal income taxes than they have in 60 years,"

"By 2007, the richest 400 Americans paid an average of 16.6% in income taxes, thanks to exemptions and low capital-gains taxes, far less than the same group had paid decades ago and well below the 26.4% that group had been taxed only 15 years earlier.

Add the hit of economic turmoil, and in the past two years the federal government has collected less of the nation's income than at any time since 1950: 14.9% of gross domestic product in taxes, compared with a post-World War II average of about 18%. One percentage point today equates to about $140 billion."

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/
"Under Obama, Taxes Hit A 30-Year Low"

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/05/10/173943/oecd-inequality-chart/

AND LET'S TALK ABOUT EARNED!
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rt-family-wealthier-40-percent-united-states/

""Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

Sanders speaks and writes frequently about wealth distribution in the U.S., a hot-button issue among liberals and a rallying cry of the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

The Waltons, of course, are members of the proverbial 1 percent. But are they really sitting on that much wealth?

We decided to fact-check Sanders claim and rated his statement True."


YOU'RE WELCOME

 

[yeold360s]

^^ Exactly what i thought, nothing to say but disprespect and avoiding anything of significance. I'll take conent over sentence structure anyday, and I CHOOSE to type like i do, because nobody is grading it and i dont work as a writer. You sure do act like a female, and since you chose to basically call me mentally challenged and critique the way i type: I have no problem telling you that you come off as a catty girl. Quit D-riding other "well known" members to build a rep, and try to think for yourself. If you had anything of substance to back up what you said, you would've already done so. Since you dont- you chose to call me stupid, and try to belittle me and comment on my sentence structure. What are your credentials anyways? Or, are you really just a teenage girl?


^Hmmm, i'll make sure to read those

Am I supposedly d-riding Essential1? I don't have an NT popularity index so forgive me for not knowing he was popular

But remember, in my first post I said that I've seen you post in a similar vein before. So that "argument" is null and void.

@ calling me a female.  Oh, okay.

I made no comment towards your stupidity, I only questioned your reading comprehension and ability to communicate thoughts.

For the third time, the reason I have no desire to back up my position with the BEVY of facts that are available, is because I know you would not change your position, despite being in the wrong.

Luckily for you, Essential1 deigned to pick apart the senseless drivel you compiled and called a "stance".

Good day, sir.

 

[mebo03]

still makes me heated that there is such a ridiculous inheritance tax (there shouldnt be at all), but taxing on something that already been paid in at least once (sometimes twice with dividend taxes)- ol thieving @#$ government- and some of yall wonder why people get angry about wealth redistribution: maybe because the money is being taken from those that earned it and being blindly given out to those that haven't

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

" The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."

 

[True Blues]

Why is everything about sides with yall anyways- if its wrong, its wrong. Everybody wants to make things Liberal Vs. Conservative. If you're a Obama supporter, he does nothing wrong. If you're a Republican, he does nothing right. Obama has done some good things, and some that I dont agree with- and I happen to see flaws in both sides (him and Romney). So many are all wrapped up in 1 side vs. the other, they cant just call a spade a spade. Thats what the media does, and thats what they want us to do. Both sides are screwed up, and thats why I'm an independent, and also because I'm conservative on some issues, and liberal on others (because we all live different lives, everything isn't black and white). Politics as usual, and annoying as always

How is this at all relevant to the discussion? Essenital1 and YeOld360s did not mention ideology in any of their recent posts, nor did they deliberately pigeonhole you as a conservative.

In fact, to use your words, they both noted how "wrong" you were on the issue, and provided evidence to that end.

I mean, I appreciate that you're passionate-- and that means something-- but you're really not helping yourself or your argument here.

 

[thunderchunk69]

dope

 

[essential1]

"They are facts".... BUT BUT BUT... But they're biased..

Let me downgrade the facts he posted.. By putting my bias on something else..

You felt disrespected because you were expecting to not be challenged.. You were challenged.. You were wrong... Now your defense is the FACTS he uses is using the wrong interpretation, MY (Nowitzness41) interpretation is right.



About the trillion.. Obama didn't pass the tax "hike" on the rich. So eliminate $338billion from that Trillion.. Go by what ACTUALLY happened..Not what would have happen.. If Bush pursued Bin Ladin better he probably would have killed him... But Obama actually killed him... Facts and Probabilities are different.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-mon...s-cost-projections-for-extending-bush-tax-cus

"Extending only the middle-class tax cuts — those benefiting individuals making less than $200,000 per year and couples earning less than $250,000 — would cost $2.2 trillion over the next decade, including interest. "


$2.2trillion in tax cuts over 10 years just off of this 1 tax is > $1 trillion...

If they all get extended
"The organization (Pew Research) predicts that extending all of the Bush tax cuts would cost $3.3 trillion over 10 years. This figure includes interest payment on the debt."

 

[yeold360s]

Why is everything about sides with yall anyways- if its wrong, its wrong. Everybody wants to make things Liberal Vs. Conservative. If you're a Obama supporter, he does nothing wrong. If you're a Republican, he does nothing right. Obama has done some good things, and some that I dont agree with- and I happen to see flaws in both sides (him and Romney). So many are all wrapped up in 1 side vs. the other, they cant just call a spade a spade. Thats what the media does, and thats what they want us to do. Both sides are screwed up, and thats why I'm an independent, and also because I'm conservative on some issues, and liberal on others (because we all live different lives, everything isn't black and white). Politics as usual, and annoying as always

How is this at all relevant to the discussion? Essenital1 and YeOld360s did not mention ideology in any of their recent posts, nor did they deliberately pigeonhole you as a conservative.

In fact, to use your words, they both noted how "wrong" you were on the issue, and provided evidence to that end.

I mean, I appreciate that you're passionate-- and that means something-- but you're really not helping yourself or your argument here.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious. 

That's why I didn't want to waste time pointing out facts, dude is too small-minded to do anything other than rephrase his argument or post ENTIRE PARAGRAPHS of non sequiturs.

 

[yeold360s]

@ YeOld- you aint contributing anything, and this type of discussion/post is actually good for a message board. You're the only one being disrespectful and ugly, so keep quiet

Arguing about taxes is good for a thread about Chik-Fil-A and homosexuals? Orly?

I haven't used a single word that wasn't apt in my description of you.  All you can do is call me ugly and a female

As for the thread's original purpose, this pic killed me:

 

[tupackshaker]

Never even heard of this restaurant before this whole gay thing. Now I want to try it!

 

[ooiron manoo]

Never even heard of this restaurant before this whole gay thing. Now I want to try it!

Do you live under a rock?

This place is so good, nearest location doesn't have pesky protesters.

I have nothing against Gay marriage, frankly because I don't believe or care about the "sanctity" of marriage. Frankly, I always though gay couples were happier because they weren't married. If they want to be miserable like married straight couples, then by all means be miserable. Add to the divorce rate. I keed I keed, not really.

Anyway, haven't really explored this topic, but it sounds like Chick Fil A took a stance and now everyone is bent out of shape about it. From the gist, we are to support gay marriage and if you don't you get chastised? So let's forget about free speech and democracy?

I just don't get what the fuzz is, it's a big business that is founded by a heavily religious person, people/groups/businesses are free to support who they please.

So yeah, I'm going to Chick Fil A tomorrow. I support businesses that have a ******g back bone.

 

[essential1]

if you don't you get chastised? So let's forget about free speech and democracy?

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from consequences of saying something stupid...

Him being chastised doesn't violate his freedom of speech or his democratic rights.

 

[ooiron manoo]

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from consequences of saying something stupid...
Him being chastised doesn't violate his freedom of speech or his democratic rights.

From my understanding is that Chick Fil A basically said they stand behind core Christian values. Now Santorum, Huckabee, etc are using Chick Fil A as a vehicle to push their view on same sex marriages. Somehow, Chick Fil A is made to be a villain.

How is that saying something stupid?

On that note, don't think we are talking about the same thing.

 

[essential1]

From my understanding is that Chick Fil A basically said they stand behind core Christian values. Now Santorum, Huckabee, etc are using Chick Fil A as a vehicle to push their view on same sex marriages. Somehow, Chick Fil A is made to be a villain.
How is that saying something stupid?
On that note, don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Fine.. Saying something controversial.. We're talking about the same thing.. Yes they have a freedom to say it.. But that freedom does not mean they are absolved of all consequences of saying something controversial (sit ins, kiss ins, protests, boycotts, etc.)...

Your freedom of speech does not protect you from being chastised or to be made a villain if you take a stance..

As long as they CAN say it... Which they can, their freedom of speech is not being violated no matter how much backlash they receive.

That's how freedom of speech works.. Yes you can say it, but if it is controversial, don't be surprised if people take offense to it and push back

 

[futuremd]

Freedom of Speech doesn't protect you from consequences of saying something stupid...
Him being chastised doesn't violate his freedom of speech or his democratic rights.

From my understanding is that Chick Fil A basically said they stand behind core Christian values. Now Santorum, Huckabee, etc are using Chick Fil A as a vehicle to push their view on same sex marriages. Somehow, Chick Fil A is made to be a villain.

How is that saying something stupid?

On that note, don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Is something ever objectively stupid? Probably not. Stupidity is a subjective claim in and of itself.

However, is it a discriminatory view? Absolutely. 

 

[essential1]

Is something ever objectively stupid? Probably not. Stupidity is a subjective claim in and of itself.

However, is it a discriminatory view? Absolutely. 

That's why I restated it with Controversial.. Because stupid is subjective..

 

[futuremd]

From my understanding is that Chick Fil A basically said they stand behind core Christian values. Now Santorum, Huckabee, etc are using Chick Fil A as a vehicle to push their view on same sex marriages. Somehow, Chick Fil A is made to be a villain.
How is that saying something stupid?
On that note, don't think we are talking about the same thing.

Fine.. Saying something controversial.. We're talking about the same thing.. Yes they have a freedom to say it.. But that freedom does not mean they are absolved of all consequences of saying something controversial (sit ins, kiss ins, protests, boycotts, etc.)...

Your freedom of speech does not protect you from being chastised or to be made a villain if you take a stance..

As long as they CAN say it... Which they can, their freedom of speech is not being violated no matter how much backlash they receive.

That's how freedom of speech works.. Yes you can say it, but if it is controversial, don't be surprised if people take offense to it and push back

I agree entirely.

Most times, the "freedom of speech" thing is used to protect minority and controversial views themselves. But it then doesn't protect you from those you've "offended." You have the right to offend and the right to be offended, yet no one is responsible for making you feel one way or the other but yourself. 

 

[liban906]

 

[futuremd]

You could always choose the Venezuela (chavez) owned CITGO if you feel like making less of a statement.

 

[sreggie101]

*shrug* ain't eem mad at this...although to be fair its hard to avoid getting gas that isn't saudi (if not impossible? ) whereas you can easily avoid chic fil-a and eat alternatives. either way, its a fair argument and i can't say i wouldn't see myself eating from there in the future.

@ YeOld- you aint contributing anything, and this type of discussion/post is actually good for a message board. You're the only one being disrespectful and ugly, so keep quiet

Arguing about taxes is good for a thread about Chik-Fil-A and homosexuals? Orly?
I haven't used a single word that wasn't apt in my description of you.  All you can do is call me ugly and a female

As for the thread's original purpose, this pic killed me:

i am kinda mad at this...

at some point this chic fil a issue has to end. ceo/comapny is anti gay. people need to keep it moving. no1 is required to accept or eat from there. it was more than just saying i don't believe in gay marriage, dude funded anti gay groups and was all around active in pushing for gay marriage bans, whether thru his name or the company's. but at the end of the day, life goes on, nothing illegal was done, so all people can do is disagree or agree.

im just tired of people using Christianity to define a marriage. already argued this before so i won't preach again. but its getting old. separation between church and state is way too blurred in this society. you're a pedophile if you smash below 18, but in other parts of the world, you're a man once you hit 13 or something and as such, would be allowed to marry. not that im agreeing with/or saying its all good under 18 (its not, depending on your age) im just saying theres a difference between the letter of the law and traditional values.



i lowkey want chic fil a now...

 

[futuremd]

These jokers dont care about that- because the media didn't tell them to do it (and the media wouldn't, believe that)

Yeah! How dare people address one injustice at a time. 

Stupid Sheeple!

 

[scuse7]

Do you live under a rock?

This place is so good, nearest location doesn't have pesky protesters.
I have nothing against Gay marriage, frankly because I don't believe or care about the "sanctity" of marriage. Frankly, I always though gay couples were happier because they weren't married. If they want to be miserable like married straight couples, then by all means be miserable. Add to the divorce rate. I keed I keed, not really.
Anyway, haven't really explored this topic, but it sounds like Chick Fil A took a stance and now everyone is bent out of shape about it. From the gist, we are to support gay marriage and if you don't you get chastised? So let's forget about free speech and democracy?
I just don't get what the fuzz is, it's a big business that is founded by a heavily religious person, people/groups/businesses are free to support who they please.
So yeah, I'm going to Chick Fil A tomorrow. I support businesses that have a ******g back bone.e

yeah I can't understand the big deal. like he wasn't allowed to say this

No way I don't go there and scoop some waffle fries and chil fil a sauce. They're the best.

 

[rashi]

im just tired of people using Christianity to define a marriage.

Christianity isn't discriminating against people from being married, the government is.

 

[futuremd]

Do you live under a rock?

This place is so good, nearest location doesn't have pesky protesters.
I have nothing against Gay marriage, frankly because I don't believe or care about the "sanctity" of marriage. Frankly, I always though gay couples were happier because they weren't married. If they want to be miserable like married straight couples, then by all means be miserable. Add to the divorce rate. I keed I keed, not really.
Anyway, haven't really explored this topic, but it sounds like Chick Fil A took a stance and now everyone is bent out of shape about it. From the gist, we are to support gay marriage and if you don't you get chastised? So let's forget about free speech and democracy?
I just don't get what the fuzz is, it's a big business that is founded by a heavily religious person, people/groups/businesses are free to support who they please.
So yeah, I'm going to Chick Fil A tomorrow. I support businesses that have a ******g back bone.e

yeah I can't understand the big deal. like he wasn't allowed to say this

No way I don't go there and scoop some waffle fries and chil fil a sauce. They're the best.

No one cares about Dan Cathy, its the company that has this stance and actively promotes to anti-gay politically active groups. 

 

[ninjahood]

I'm so ashamed... 

Blacks fighting for rights to be looked upon as human instead of livestock from slavery ≠ same sex marriage