Wendy's Supports Chick-Fil-A

[Wry Catcher]

I'm opposed to Fast Food; Chicken, Fish or Red Meat and deep fried items are bad for you and me.

Chicken Sandwhich: Cal. 440; Fat, 16g; Sodium, 1400 g; Sugars, 6

Spicy Delux CS: Cal. 570; Fat, 27g; Sodium 1790; sugars 7

Add a Sweet Iced Tea to the spicy delux and the calories grow to 700 and the sugars to 39 grams.

Nice to know the owner is so god fearing yet willing to sell food harmful to the health of children, women and men.

 

[signelect]

Chick-fil-a is standing up for what the owner believes, it would be refreshing if others had the same fortitude to stand up and be counted for what they believe.

 

[JoeB131]

CFA is a privately held company that can to what the hell they want to. I will continue to eat there.
And I am one of the biggest suporters of gay rights anywhere.
Gays have lost some ground on this one.

The thought of the little people telling a corporation its behavior is unacceptable is just frightening to you, isn't it?

Because at the end of the day, we have the economic power. They don't.

I agree that CFA's behavior is unacceptable and that is my opinion.
And your opinion is the same.
And many times your opinion and my opinion is unacceptable TO OTHERS.
Doesn't give you a right to make them do a damn thing.
How do you like it Joe when someone tells you YOUR OPINION of something is unacceptable?
Or are you the arrogant son of a bitch that you appear to be here and believe everything you say is acceptable and right?
Cathy started with NOTHING with his little old Dwarf House hole in the wall restaurant.
He is worth 1.5 billion now.
Just a little bit of economic power. Power is abused when you go around telling other folks what they can and can not say.

Everything I believe is acceptable and right. Learn to deal.

I know you worship greed and somehow think it's a virtue, but I find nothing admirable about Mr Cathy, who is a bigot and someone who probably made his fortune cheating the working stiffs who work for him while selling patently unhealthy food. I just can't imagine a bigger jerk.

 

[JoeB131]

"86 locations is not a lot..."

How interesting that the number "86" comes up in your post:
"It is also frequently used as terminology in busy commercial kitchens when the supply of a particular item has run out, such as "86 on the scallions!"

See...."86" as in the amount of insight in your posts!

Does your doctor know you are off your medication?

Erroneous Joe....an attempt to get back for all the spankings I've administered...still smarting, an rightly so.


But you've never asked about my 'medication'....glad to share.


Liberty.
One can never overdose on same.

You've never tried it....have you.

Well, I'm sorry, when you start doing numerology like Louis Farakhan, I have to wonder if your medication is getting faulty and you are going to go full Loughner on us...

 

[Full-Auto]

I'm opposed to Fast Food; Chicken, Fish or Red Meat and deep fried items are bad for you and me.

Chicken Sandwhich: Cal. 440; Fat, 16g; Sodium, 1400 g; Sugars, 6

Spicy Delux CS: Cal. 570; Fat, 27g; Sodium 1790; sugars 7

Add a Sweet Iced Tea to the spicy delux and the calories grow to 700 and the sugars to 39 grams.

Nice to know the owner is so god fearing yet willing to sell food harmful to the health of children, women and men.

Calorie counts well within respected limits.....

Whats your problem?

 

[Ravi]

Tolerance. Its the american way.

I wonder how many of these guys who say Gays are wrong becasue the bible says so, have x wives.

See if you understand this:



To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything.
Chesterton

I have a feeling that Jesus would disagree. Not that it matters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tolerance. Its the american way.

I wonder how many of these guys who say Gays are wrong becasue the bible says so, have x wives.

See if you understand this:



To embrace tolerance is to cease to believe in anything.
Chesterton

I have a feeling that Jesus would disagree. Not that it matters.

1. Interesting that you bring Jesus into the discussion....

...it allows me to ask you, a thoughtful individual, this question.

Throughout history, with rare exceptions, homosexuality has seen less than encouragement.

2. But to be very clear, being gay is not under discussion…there are some folks who find that they cannot be attracted to members of the opposite sex. I don't believe that anyone in this debate has voiced any desire to say that they must live a lonely existence.

3. What is under discussion is the hubris, the arrogance exhibited by those who demand this change in society, gay marriage….when no other religious leader put forward this idea….

Were Moses, Jesus, Mohammad, Thomas Aquinas, stupid, immoral leaders?
Were they bigots? Were they 'haters'?
Not one religious and nonreligious moral thinker in history has advocated changing the definition of marriage to include the same sex.


4. What other moral issue has been so ignored? Not slavery…many spoke out against it throughout the ages. Not religious bars to marriage. Christianity was not opposed to interracial marriage. Nor Judaism, nor Islam, nor Hindus nor Buddhists…

But none espoused gay marriage.



So....what is it that inspires you on the Left to suppose greater wisdom in this matter?

 

[Ravi]

I can't speak for everyone on the "left" PC, but none of those ancients, to my knowledge, brought up a definition of marriage that would exclude lawfully abiding citizens.

Nor did they preach intolerance toward lawfully abiding citizens.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't speak for everyone on the "left" PC, but none of those ancients, to my knowledge, brought up a definition of marriage that would exclude lawfully abiding citizens.

Nor did they preach intolerance toward lawfully abiding citizens.

So...you agree that none of the icons of morality and religion broached the subject?

None?

In all of recorded history?


May I suggest that the reason is to be found in an understanding of the Frankfurt School, neo-Marxism.



The Frankfurt School, begin in Germany, attracted gifted scholars not only in economics but also in philosophy, history, psychology, sociology… convinced that the major impediment to the spread of Marxism was Western culture. In particular, they despised traditional Judeo/Christian ethics and morality, which they believed prevented the widespread acceptance of Marxism.

Basically, the Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief - or even the hope of belief - that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution.

Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judaeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
Catholic Insight : Features : The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt


I hope you might give this thesis some consideration.

 

[Ravi]

I can't speak for everyone on the "left" PC, but none of those ancients, to my knowledge, brought up a definition of marriage that would exclude lawfully abiding citizens.

Nor did they preach intolerance toward lawfully abiding citizens.

So...you agree that none of the icons of morality and religion broached the subject?

Yes. The rest of your post was nonsense, no offense.

 

[Plasmaball]

I can't speak for everyone on the "left" PC, but none of those ancients, to my knowledge, brought up a definition of marriage that would exclude lawfully abiding citizens.

Nor did they preach intolerance toward lawfully abiding citizens.

So...you agree that none of the icons of morality and religion broached the subject?

Yes. The rest of your post was nonsense, no offense.

the rest?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can't speak for everyone on the "left" PC, but none of those ancients, to my knowledge, brought up a definition of marriage that would exclude lawfully abiding citizens.

Nor did they preach intolerance toward lawfully abiding citizens.

So...you agree that none of the icons of morality and religion broached the subject?

Yes. The rest of your post was nonsense, no offense.

No offense taken.

I often find that those who haven't done the studying that I have, respond with the 'nonsense' claim.
I answer with the words of Alexander Pope:

A little learning is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.


If you ever have the time, a study of the Frankfurt School will explain much of what is going on in our nation.

 

[Gadawg73]

The thought of the little people telling a corporation its behavior is unacceptable is just frightening to you, isn't it?

Because at the end of the day, we have the economic power. They don't.

I agree that CFA's behavior is unacceptable and that is my opinion.
And your opinion is the same.
And many times your opinion and my opinion is unacceptable TO OTHERS.
Doesn't give you a right to make them do a damn thing.
How do you like it Joe when someone tells you YOUR OPINION of something is unacceptable?
Or are you the arrogant son of a bitch that you appear to be here and believe everything you say is acceptable and right?
Cathy started with NOTHING with his little old Dwarf House hole in the wall restaurant.
He is worth 1.5 billion now.
Just a little bit of economic power. Power is abused when you go around telling other folks what they can and can not say.

Everything I believe is acceptable and right. Learn to deal.

I know you worship greed and somehow think it's a virtue, but I find nothing admirable about Mr Cathy, who is a bigot and someone who probably made his fortune cheating the working stiffs who work for him while selling patently unhealthy food. I just can't imagine a bigger jerk.

You claim everything you believe is acceptable and right and you call me the big jerk.

I remember vividly your support of a father of a gay kid who was a church deacon who beat the hell out of his kid for being gay and wanting to attend that church.
You are a hypocrit of the highest order.
Sorry that you are envious and jealous of folk like me that work harder than you do.
A simple "thank you" would be in order but go ahead and suffer in your cry baby world of "It is not fair Mommy".

 

[Ravi]

LOL! You know I love you PC, but blaming the lack of comment from the ancients on gay marriage on marxism is fucking lame.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does your doctor know you are off your medication?

Erroneous Joe....an attempt to get back for all the spankings I've administered...still smarting, an rightly so.


But you've never asked about my 'medication'....glad to share.


Liberty.
One can never overdose on same.

You've never tried it....have you.

Well, I'm sorry, when you start doing numerology like Louis Farakhan, I have to wonder if your medication is getting faulty and you are going to go full Loughner on us...

When you have no response, you often sink to to fabrication.

I have never done as you state: "when you start doing numerology."

You know that, don't you.


What you don't know is how obvious your disreputable technique is.

Not just on the board.....I'll bet that those you encounter in real life also roll their eyes behind your back.

Pathetic.

 

[Gadawg73]

Gay marriage is a non issue, affects no one.

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL! You know I love you PC, but blaming the lack of comment from the ancients on gay marriage on marxism is fucking lame.

And the same, no ill feelings here....but that is not what I said.

1. There is no movement toward re-defining marriage in the annals of history.

2. The movement is a creation of those whose intent is the neo-Marxist control of the world.


My suggestion is that the sudden introduction of the the gay marriage theme is, actually, an attack on the religious traditions of Western civilization.


Be well.

 

[Plasmaball]

LOL! You know I love you PC, but blaming the lack of comment from the ancients on gay marriage on marxism is fucking lame.

And the same, no ill feelings here....but that is not what I said.

1. There is no movement toward re-defining marriage in the annals of history.

2. The movement is a creation of those whose intent is the neo-Marxist control of the world.


My suggestion is that the sudden introduction of the the gay marriage theme is, actually, an attack on the religious traditions of Western civilization.


Be well.

Marriage has been redefined numerous times over the ages. Stop lying.

 

[Gadawg73]

LOL! You know I love you PC, but blaming the lack of comment from the ancients on gay marriage on marxism is fucking lame.

And the same, no ill feelings here....but that is not what I said.

1. There is no movement toward re-defining marriage in the annals of history.

2. The movement is a creation of those whose intent is the neo-Marxist control of the world.


My suggestion is that the sudden introduction of the the gay marriage theme is, actually, an attack on the religious traditions of Western civilization.


Be well.

You claim that the gay marriage movement wants Marxism to take over the world?
You really need to get out more. If that is what you believe you are bat shit crazy.
Most all the gays I know are lawyers, doctors, business people that make a lot of $$$.
And you claim they support and are controlled by Marxism.

 

[Gadawg73]

What a waste of fucking time fighting gay marriage.
Religion has no place in banning gay folk from getting married.
Unbelievable any conservative wants government to spend time denying folk that love each other a marriage license.