Chick-fil-A Fiasco

[jmervyn]

I am reminded of the arguments my Dad and my Uncle used to engage in.

It's white with black stripes, of course. Anyone claiming otherwise is a fool or a traitor.

I have twin Aunts. One was married to an Air Force Colonel from the Cold War era who later worked for Howard Hughes. The other married a professor from a Colorado university. It goes without saying that the two aunts have barely spoken for 20 years (and the one from Colorado asked me to stop communicating with him when I unwittingly sent him a variant of this old chestnut.

[Nicodemus]

Even if I was a liberal I'd eat there anyway, because that chicken is way too delicious to let political considerations stand in the way.

Maybe everybody would calm down if they Eat Mor Chikin® hahaha

[Stevinator]

I don't even know what to make of you here Jmerv. but here we go:

The words were BLOCK, FIERY, WAY, SO, and DOING. While you conveyed your irritation at Rahmbo, you were just as angry at the Christians for their very existence.

Block referred to Rahm's bad behavior (Anti-rahm)
Fiery referred to the strength of the right's response (Sort of neutral i guess--emphasis on that it was a strong response)
Way was that rahm was way over the line--or how bad his behavior was
So referred to how bad his behavior was.
Doing was emphasized to say chick-fil-a wasn't doing anything wrong, just having an opinion


None of those were directed at christians in a bad way. In fact, the doing part was defending chick-fil-a, because I said they have a right to an opinion. Now, after dueling with you several times, I know you're not dumb, so you must be acting like an idiot on purpose for some mysterious reason.

Nope. Go read your own post again.

For real? I'm not quoting the whole damn thing. Your reading comprehension issue is your own issue. I make a post about freedom of speech and you get all crazy on me about persecuting christians. Supporting *** marriage is not persecuting anyone. It's a political position. And it's really only tangentially related to the topic.

Ah, so anyone who enters the doors of a church is a frothing queer-hating monster-bigot. Grand thing, tolerance.

oh stop it. the point was about whether those were anti-*** marriage groups. you responded that they support christian family values or some such. that means anti-*** marriage, you even admitted the point in your post. Not that this point matters anyway, because the guy himself has publicly said he is against *** marriage, and he's clearly hyper-religious. Furthermore, my point was that i didn't care about that, that I wa more interested in letting him have his opinion, and me having tasty sandwiches. you're making this religious hate thing up. I've never espoused dictating anything to christians other than "wanting them to examine their own beliefs and organizations". all this at the point of a gun stuff, and this i hate them stuff is things you just invented in your brain. You see people who truely love freedom are okay living besides people with different opinions. that's why you AND Rahm are both totally wrong. you can't handle someone next door who disagrees.

Just above, for starters. You just don't get it, do you? YOU HATE CHRISTIANS SO MUCH THAT YOU'RE HOLDING THEM TO THE SAME STANDARD OF BLAME AS RAHM.

Um, quote please? this was clearly about Rahm being wrong. Yes, I think the religious nutbars are wrong on *** marriage, but that's besides the point. in this case rahm's behavior is clearly worse. Also, the fake dumb/victim routine is annoying and obvious.

As to your equivocation about how much you like Chick-Fil-A's fare, that's not the issue. Again, you're blaming them for having opinions which you dislike as being equivalent to hating and persecuting queers. Your scenario is that of the CEO directing corporate contributions to Stormfront, or indeed Louis Farrakhan. This is clearly not the case, yet you are unwilling to admit this.

I never mentioned farrakhan, you did. I think you said he was one of my notables (???), but that was more of your paint my position as something else BS that you do so i ignored it.
I DO think that not allowing gays to marry is a form of persecution, but I did not equivocate it with BANNING companies from cities. That's your fake victim complex running wild.

But you ARE. You HAVE. Go re-read your original post, as you suggested I do. Your hate has blinded you so much that you don't recognize the legitimacy of Rush's statement, and beyond - even if Chick-Fil-A was contributing to the Westboro Baptist Church, rather than a Christian Athletes' fund, it would STILL be beyond reprehensible.

I don't even know what rush said about all this. Was it interesting or more of the same?

Actually, that's what you ought to have posted initially

.

Ha, I did, you just got all lathered up about *** marriage. You should have just READ WHAT I WROTE ORIGNALLY!

Pity a Christian Archbishop had to say it first, since you were previously unable.

*groan. Now you're just doing it to be obnoxious.


Loz, the problem on this one is I said white with black stripes and jmerv argues I should have said black stripes on a white background and that I say it wrong because I'm a socialist.

[jmervyn]

None of those were directed at christians in a bad way.

Fiery kind of was, but since you'll say that don't inherently equate "right wing" with Christian it's of no importance.

so you must be acting like an idiot on purpose for some mysterious reason.

Again, you assumed Christian hate & homophobia as the root cause, when there was little or none to actually be found. You found fault - extensive fault - with the Christians for having an opinion that wasn't even stated, and (again) your reaction should have been the one you found fault with the "right" for having.

The actual reason for the whole song & dance was that the CEO said on an obscure radio interview that we shouldn't be shaking our fist at God and telling Him we know better than he does (what marriage is about). Then the Muppets made a big announcement, and the rest snowballed to the point that an ACLU punk is cheering for the death of Christians. If this was the 9/11 Mosque controversy, or the Westboro Baptists, or Farrakan's goons, or Stormfront, I'd not be sneering at you. It's the reverse though, and in your view, anyone who is religious no different from all of the hate groups above.

THAT's why I find fault with you; no mystery at all.

Supporting *** marriage is not persecuting anyone. It's a political position. And it's really only tangentially related to the topic.

The reason I'm sneering at you is that if you substitute the word "Supporting" with "Opposing", you can't explain your hypocrisy. Suddenly you believe that Chick-Fil-A deserves all this hatred.

you responded that they support christian family values or some such. that means anti-*** marriage, you even admitted the point in your post.

Fascist much? For someone who IIRC made much hay of the "If you're not against the terrorists, you're with the terrorists" view, you're certainly blithe about the sort of draconic stances that anger you when I take them.

and he's clearly hyper-religious. Furthermore, my point was that i didn't care about that,

By that measure, Farrakhan is far more hyper-religious. So's Reverend Wright. So's Father Phlager. SO's OBAMA.

You're a blatant hypocrite.

I've never espoused dictating anything to christians other than "wanting them to examine their own beliefs and organizations".

No, you've espoused silencing them, suppressing their votes, preventing their expression in the public square, and a couple of other things that Rahm would be just fine with. You can't shout "strawman" when they're actually your own "tolerant" beliefs.

you can't handle someone next door who disagrees.

Right, that's why my best next-door-neighbor ever was an ex-Black Panther and Muslim Mullah. Or why my two best-beloved teachers were a hard-core draft-dodging Socialist and a flaming queer. Or why some of my best work relationships have been with queers, while some of the worst were with butch military wannabee types. YOU are the one with the hateful intolerance, and your first post reeked of it; if you weren't so hate-blinded about the queer marriage issue and your deep emotional hang-ups about Catholicism and shame you might be able to grasp that.

Yes, I think the religious nutbars are wrong on *** marriage, but that's besides the point.

I hardly need to say anything when you immediately call all Christians "religious nutbars". Your hypocrisy oozes from every pore.

I never mentioned farrakhan, you did. I think you said he was one of my notables (???), but that was more of your paint my position as something else BS that you do so i ignored it.

Correct; I brought Farrakhan up because he's a Chicago notable who is FAR more hateful against queers, J00z, whites, Christians, everyone else... and Rahm is happy to snuggle up to him.

I DO think that not allowing gays to marry is a form of persecution, but I did not equivocate it with BANNING companies from cities. That's your fake victim complex running wild.

Nope. You're so wrong I wonder how you're even alive; nothing to do with me playing victim. Not allowing queer relationships equal "rights" is a political issue, and one which is invariably defeated by significant margins at polls; not only are such relationships far less stable than regular relationships but nobody in their right mind wants to extend traditional protections over an extremely non-traditional scenario, particularly when the issue only concerns under 2% of the population yet would allow all KINDS of lawsuits to be filed (as is already happening per the link below).

Same-sex CHURCH marriages, OTOH, are a religious issue, and one which should be covered by Constitutional protections. Your hateful beliefs about religion have little to do with false claims of queer persecution, and even if they did, Christians are far more liable to be persecuted by you lot for not supporting queer marriage.

What's nice is that this, another attempt at Christian-bashing by your allies, has turned into a good socio-political expression of where exactly one stands. You're on the side that Rahm is, and you just don't like the sunlight.

I don't even know what rush said about all this. Was it interesting or more of the same?

I've cited it twice, you've ignored it twice, and you claim I can't read.

Ha, I did, you just got all lathered up about *** marriage. You should have just READ WHAT I WROTE ORIGNALLY!

See, this is why I really can't stand 'debate' with you - you did NOT take a reasonable, not-anti-Christian stance in the initial post, and that's why I'm giving you such a hard time. In fact, I believe Philadelphia councilman Kenney was channeling you when he said, "If he really, truly believes what he believes, that is his right to do so,” “But there is often a price to pay for that."

Cue sounds of broken glass...

[Nicodemus]

I visited my local Chick-Fil-A today, and the food was glorious. I got a fried breaded chicken sandwich, lemonade, and one of those premium chocolate chip cookies for about $5.50

I had to wait a while because there were hundreds of people there, but it was worth it.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

But white stripes are so *** and thus are against all laws of man and God. Not to mention the fact that zebras are social animals and therefore ... well, you want me to join the dots for you?

Butting in rudely here ... bite me.

[...]

Again, you assumed Christian hate & homophobia as the root cause, when there was little or none to actually be found. You found fault - extensive fault - with the Christians for having an opinion that wasn't even stated, and (again) your reaction should have been the one you found fault with the "right" for having.

Pots and kettles. Even light cannot escape, although clearly some form of gaseous compound can and does.

The actual reason for the whole song & dance was that the CEO said on an obscure radio interview that we shouldn't be shaking our fist at God and telling Him we know better than he does (what marriage is about).

Just by-the-by, HTF does anyone know what God's ideas on marriage are? C'mon! Really? Seriously?

Then the Muppets made a big announcement, and the rest snowballed to the point that an ACLU punk is cheering for the death of Christians.

Wait. So you're saying, like, Steve is a Muppet? I had no idea

If this was the 9/11 Mosque controversy, or the Westboro Baptists, or Farrakan's goons, or Stormfront, I'd not be sneering at you. It's the reverse though, and in your view, anyone who is religious no different from all of the hate groups above.

Hate groups can differ wildly between themselves ... and still be hate groups.
Different goals, different methods and methodologies, different parlances and messages ... but still, they hate.

THAT's why I find fault with you; no mystery at all.

I've I ascribe the amount of fault that you have done, for the things I imagine Steve stood for based upon God knows what is going on in my head, well ... I guess I'd get pretty worked up too! That BASTARD.

The reason I'm sneering at you is that if you substitute the word "Supporting" with "Opposing", you can't explain your hypocrisy. Suddenly you believe that Chick-Fil-A deserves all this hatred.

If I substituted the word "Chick-Fil-A" with the word "Hitler", will that mean the end of the thread? Or how about "rubber-baby-buggy-bumpers"? How would that affect things, sneer-wise?

Fascist much?

I interpreted Steve's comments as the common mistake that is made by newly-arrived visitors from outer space. Do you think Steve is a Space-Fascist? Cos that would be really bad, wouldn't it?

For someone who IIRC made much hay of the "If you're not against the terrorists, you're with the terrorists" view, you're certainly blithe about the sort of draconic stances that anger you when I take them.

So it's going to be dragons now? FIERY indeed!

By that measure, Farrakhan is far more hyper-religious. So's Reverend Wright. So's Father Phlager. SO's OBAMA.

OK, not "Hyper-religious" then. How about "supra-religious"? Yes? Can I get a "supra-religious", amen?

You're a blatant hypocrite.

Not only that, he's a space-faring FASCIST hypocrite. A-MEN!

No, you've espoused silencing them, suppressing their votes, preventing their expression in the public square, and a couple of other things that Rahm would be just fine with. You can't shout "strawman" when they're actually your own "tolerant" beliefs.

Steve? Is THIS true? I mean, is this true in a way that all the other things you have been accused of can be attributed to the ravings of a lunatic troll? Or true in the really-real sense? I won't be mad, but I WILL be disappointed.

Right, that's why my best next-door-neighbor ever was an ex-Black Panther and Muslim Mullah. Or why my two best-beloved teachers were a hard-core draft-dodging Socialist and a flaming queer. Or why some of my best work relationships have been with queers, while some of the worst were with butch military wannabee types. YOU are the one with the hateful intolerance, and your first post reeked of it; if you weren't so hate-blinded about the queer marriage issue and your deep emotional hang-ups about Catholicism and shame you might be able to grasp that.
I hardly need to say anything when you immediately call all Christians "religious nutbars". Your hypocrisy oozes from every pore.

Hee hee! Black is white and up is down and sideways is straight-ahead.

Rule of thumb - you can only be enlightened, tolerant, self-consistent and moral if you are the guy pounding on Sleazy-Stevie! It's true!

[...]
Nope. You're so wrong I wonder how you're even alive; nothing to do with me playing victim.

Translates: You thinking I'm playing? You think this is a game?

Not allowing queer relationships equal "rights" is a political issue

You should be absolutely right about that.

and one which is invariably defeated by significant margins at polls;

I forgot to vote on this. When was it?

not only are such relationships far less stable than regular relationships

I agree, all marriages that are not stable should be banned.

but nobody in their right mind wants to extend traditional protections over an extremely non-traditional scenario,

The danger here is that something non-traditional should somehow become traditional by sneaking in the back door! Ugh! We must be on our guard against Les Nouveaux Traditionalés! Heh heh he said back door.

particularly when the issue only concerns under 2% of the population

We need to hammer that 2% minority - and then we look at the next biggest minority and get us some righteous retribution goin' on them, laws yes!

yet would allow all KINDS of lawsuits to be filed (as is already happening per the link below).

Wait. What? Lawsuits are good! This is America we're talking about here!

Same-sex CHURCH marriages, OTOH, are a religious issue, and one which should be covered by Constitutional protections.

Yes, constitutional protections! Absolutely! Then we burn crosses on their front porches and ... uh? huh?

Your hateful beliefs about religion have little to do with false claims of queer persecution, and even if they did, Christians are far more liable to be persecuted by you lot for not supporting queer marriage.

Those evil 2%'ers, picking on Christians like that. It's just not cricket.

What's nice is that this, another attempt at Christian-bashing by your allies, has turned into a good socio-political expression of where exactly one stands. You're on the side that Rahm is, and you just don't like the sunlight.

I'm confused (no surprise there), is Steve really on the side of evil or is this another one of those internal-monologues-becoming-facts-in-threads that we've seen so much of recently?

I've cited it twice, you've ignored it twice, and you claim I can't read.

Is this the right room for an argument?

See, this is why I really can't stand 'debate' with you - you did NOT take a reasonable, not-anti-Christian stance in the initial post, and that's why I'm giving you such a hard time.

Steve, if you simply will not say the things you're supposed to have said ... well, it's off down the woodshed with you for a little bit of what did folks no harm at all in my day.

In fact, I believe Philadelphia councilman Kenney was channeling you when he said, "If he really, truly believes what he believes, that is his right to do so,” “But there is often a price to pay for that."

It's $7.50 for the fillet sandwich, right? Cos I would pay that price, gladly

Cue sounds of broken glass...

I love the sound of breaking glass. *guitar chord*

[jmervyn]

Butting in rudely here ... bite me.

That was indeed rude. I take it you're also racist, what with all suppressed the black-on-white anger?

Pots and kettles.

Howso? Why should all Christians be hated for not approving of queer marriage? Why is it okay for Europeans to hate J00z, but not for Christians to express mild dislike of homosexuality?

Just by-the-by, HTF does anyone know what God's ideas on marriage are? C'mon! Really? Seriously?

Uncontested. The CEO just thinks we shouldn't be redefining it (it being a religious rite) based on political agitation.

Wait. So you're saying, like, Steve is a Muppet? I had no idea

I thought it was obvious.

Different goals, different methods and methodologies, different parlances and messages ... but still, they hate.

Steve is calling all of Christianity a hate group. That's why he's a muppet.

If I substituted the word "Chick-Fil-A" with the word "Hitler", will that mean the end of the thread? Or how about "rubber-baby-buggy-bumpers"? How would that affect things, sneer-wise?

Point being, Steve is condemning the overwhelming vast majority of people who have no hate for queers as being hatemongers, simply because they don't like the idea of taking a ride up the Hershey highway being treated as equivalent to making children.

So it's going to be dragons now? FIERY indeed!

St. George will take care of that.

OK, not "Hyper-religious" then. How about "supra-religious"? Yes? Can I get a "supra-religious", amen?

Why? Why any modifier? The groups Chick-Fil-A contributes to are religious ones, and certainly not hate groups, so why the frothing?

Steve? Is THIS true? I mean, is this true in a way that all the other things you have been accused of can be attributed to the ravings of a lunatic troll? Or true in the really-real sense? I won't be mad, but I WILL be disappointed.

I'm sure he'll deny it now.

I forgot to vote on this. When was it?

It's an American thing; you wouldn't understand.

I agree, all marriages that are not stable should be banned.

The danger here is that something non-traditional should somehow become traditional by sneaking in the back door! Ugh! We must be on our guard against Les Nouveaux Traditionalés! Heh heh he said back door.

We need to hammer that 2% minority - and then we look at the next biggest minority and get us some righteous retribution goin' on them, laws yes!

Wait. What? Lawsuits are good! This is America we're talking about here!

The point being, why carve out extensive, legally cumbersome and trial-lawyer-enriching criteria that goes against thousands of years of social convention, simply to mollify an insignificant portion of a population which is effectively smaller than statistical noise?

Since you're dancing so gleefully about your interjection here, I suppose I ought to re-state my own position. I have no issue whatsoever with civil "commonlaw" contracts covering homosexual relationships, if that is what a State decides. Like Britain has. States generally do not do so, because they recognize that this is actually an attempt to turn sexual proclivity into a protected class, rather than some sort of freedom issue.

What I object most strenuously is the redefinition of the religious rite of marriage as forcibly covering homosexual relationships, because this is used in court by anti-Christians such as Steve to go after the religious for their beliefs. Like we're seeing with Chick-Fil-A, yet strangely not with Farrakhan. The reality is that religious marriage and state contract law should not overlap, yet they do so because of the religious tradition of many states.

I also am quite hostile to the idea that the Federal Gov't is going to dictate what the states are allowed to decide, even when the voters have spoken.

Yes, constitutional protections! Absolutely! Then we burn crosses on their front porches and ... uh? huh?

Since when did you confuse race with what you like do with your genitalia?

Is this the right room for an argument?

All you need to know about my position can be gleaned from a different John Cleese skit.

Hoping that it's this one? I'll check later to verify.



By the way, why hasn't ENGLAND approved queer marriage? You're so much more enlightened and advanced than us dumb Yanks, after all.

EDIT - fixed the link; I was concerned it was something involved with Rick Astley...

[Nicodemus]

Breaking glass? That looks like a picture of Kristallnacht to me. For the both of you guys, your posts are TLDR so I'm not gonna bother trying to figure out what you were attempting to say.

But what I do know is this. There's no reason to invoke Nazism (in any way) when you're talking about the non-violent political stances taken by the owners of a American chicken restaurant. Bringing Nazi oppression and violence into your argument is ridiculous and offensive.

[LozHinge the Unhinged]

That was indeed rude. I take it you're also racist, what with all suppressed the black-on-white anger?

It's not racism if they're a different species!

Howso? Why should all Christians be hated for not approving of queer marriage?

Er ... I was referencing the mis-characterisation you were pasting Steve with. It resembled the kind of mis-characterisation of yourself that you accuse Steve of. Hence my comment de snark.

Why is it okay for Europeans to hate J00z, but not for Christians to express mild dislike of homosexuality?

It's OK in the same way as it is OK to blame magpies for stealing CPU cycles out of people's home computers. Or, put another way - WTF? Do you struggle getting house insurance, Merv? Fire risk deemed too high? Why is your home crammed to the rafters with straw men?
/laboured metaphor

Uncontested. The CEO just thinks we shouldn't be redefining it (it being a religious rite) based on political agitation.

I contest your uncontest!

I thought it was obvious.

I thought it was Wednesday.

Steve is calling all of Christianity a hate group. That's why he's a muppet.

What? All of them? Where does he get the time?

Point being, Steve is condemning the overwhelming vast majority of people who have no hate for queers as being hatemongers, simply because they don't like the idea of taking a ride up the Hershey highway being treated as equivalent to making children.

Pejoratives aside ... wait, no. I cannot get past the hate that drips from your statement here. It even eclipses the hyperbole inherent in the broad-stroke misrepresentation of Steve's allegedly broad-stroked, uh, broad-brush, uh, thingy.
No, I'm still stunned here. The sheer hatred!

A-hem. Really? Steve condemned the overwhelming majority? All of them? Man, that guy's work-rate ...

St. George will take care of that.

Legendary figures, is there anything more real?

/subtle

Why? Why any modifier? The groups Chick-Fil-A contributes to are religious ones, and certainly not hate groups, so why the frothing?

OK, not hyper, not supra. How about, "above-average"? Can we settle on "above-averagedly religious"? Compromise?

I'm sure he'll deny it now.

He won't, he simply doesn't have the time to.

It's an American thing; you wouldn't understand.

I wish I was American. It would make my US passport with my US place of birth on it seem less of a lie.

The point being, why carve out extensive, legally cumbersome and trial-lawyer-enriching criteria that goes against thousands of years of social convention

Are we talking here about ambulance-chasing lawyers persuading stupid people that the stupid thing they did wasn't their fault and that they shoud sue the *** off somebody?

simply to mollify an insignificant portion of a population which is effectively smaller than statistical noise?

Oh.

Shouldn't we just kick 'em out of the country, them being so small and noisy and such?

Since you're dancing so gleefully about your interjection here,

You're quite the Ginger Rogers yourself there, Merv.

I suppose I ought to re-state my own position. I have no issue whatsoever with civil "commonlaw" contracts covering homosexual relationships, if that is what a State decides. Like Britain has.

*waves Union Flag excitedly*

States generally do not do so, because they recognize that this is actually an attempt to turn sexual proclivity into a protected class, rather than some sort of freedom issue.

Whereas "religious proclivity" has so much more legitimacy. It's righter.

What I object most strenuously is the redefinition of the religious rite of marriage as forcibly covering homosexual relationships, because this is used in court by anti-Christians such as Steve to go after the religious for their beliefs.

Oddly, I have something approaching sympathy for your POV here.
I suspect that it is as a result of my own personal disdain for religious ceremony in general and my specific disdain for those people wishing to take part in it regardless of their real, actual personal beliefs. Examples include the hoops couples will jump through to get married in a Catholic Church (that building they go to maybe four times in their lives). Why *** couples want to get married under a convention that doesn't accept their validity seems, well, kinda dumb to me.

Like we're seeing with Chick-Fil-A, yet strangely not with Farrakhan. The reality is that religious marriage and state contract law should not overlap, yet they do so because of the religious tradition of many states.

And this is where we go on the bus.

I also am quite hostile to the idea that the Federal Gov't is going to dictate what the states are allowed to decide, even when the voters have spoken.

Try living under a Parliamentary Democracy. The oxymoron that ate all the other oxymorons.

Since when did you confuse race with what you like do with your genitalia?

Uh, it's Wednesday today, right, we established that already ... uh, was it last Friday? Is that when I did that?

All you need to know about my position can be gleaned from a different John Cleese skit.

Hoping that it's this one? I'll check later to verify.

Non-functional link ... but for some suspicious, unworthy reason, I suspect you knew that already.

By the way, why hasn't ENGLAND approved queer marriage?

I don't know, I'll ask them!

You're so much more enlightened and advanced than us dumb Yanks, after all.

*Looks at US passport*
*locks up in a logic loop*

Curses.

Breaking glass? That looks like a picture of Kristallnacht to me. For the both of you guys, your posts are TLDR so I'm not gonna bother trying to figure out what you were attempting to say.

Ah Nic, we wrote them just for you! Gutted!

But what I do know is this. There's no reason to invoke Nazism (in any way) when you're talking about the non-violent political stances taken by the owners of a American chicken restaurant. Bringing Nazi oppression and violence into your argument is ridiculous and offensive.

You're so right, I can't believe we did that. You'd think, after all these years bouncing around various forums in the Interwebz, we'd realise what would happen.

Er, I hate to ask, but would the Hitler reference have been OK if we were demonising McDonalds or Burger King? Especially BK, they nearly poisoned me to death that one time with their flame-grilled, raw-on-the-inside Whopper and ...

Uh, is this too long, have you gotten this far?

[Stevinator]

Breaking glass? That looks like a picture of Kristallnacht to me. For the both of you guys, your posts are TLDR so I'm not gonna bother trying to figure out what you were attempting to say.

But what I do know is this. There's no reason to invoke Nazism (in any way) when you're talking about the non-violent political stances taken by the owners of a American chicken restaurant. Bringing Nazi oppression and violence into your argument is ridiculous and offensive.

Nico, I think the more time you spend here the more Jmerv will seem ridiculous and offensive. Remember, this is a thread where in my original post, I said that blocking chick-fil-a for their political position was wrong, and he went after me like a rabid dog. Whatever you do, don't say anything that could be misinterpreted. Let me give you a few examples of why we both love and are irritated by Jmerv:

Steve: America is good.

Jmerv: Not great? Why do you hate america? (except he would make a link out of the word america that would link to an article on "the blaze" talking about how liberals don't believe in American Exceptionalism OR if he's at home and has youtube, it would be reagan's shining city on a hill speech).

Steve: I had a fruit smoothie for breakfast

Jmerv: Without meat? You're clearly a <insert awesome vocabulary word here> hippie (hippie of course would be turned into a link about how PETA took money from the government and then bought tofu made in china, in a back section of fox news).

Steve: This weekend I did laps in the kayak instead of running because I was worried I wasn't getting enough work in my arms.

Jmerv:

This weekend

Why weren't you in church you dirty commie Atheist (Atheist is a link about how belief in god makes you live longer and more likely to not kill puppies, from christiannews.com)

I did laps in the kayak

Elitist (it's a link to obama landing his helicopter in the middle of lake shore drive, which ironically would annoy me more than Merv since I occasionally want to drive on lake shore drive, but that's besides the point, oh that one came from newsmax)

instead of running

Your generation is so lazy you have to sit down to exercise, that's the real reason unemployment is so high. Obama lies about unemployment all the time <he'd probably get another good vocab word in here, he's got a great vocabulary> (the word unemployment is a link to how the "real" unemployment rate is much higher than the other newspapers claim because of people who stopped looking. this is actually true, but the implication is that I am the one propagating the misunderstanding, anyway he would get that one from the NY post or something similar.)

I wasn't getting enough work in my arms

You have the problem all turned around. you're getting too much work in your legs and you must be a closet liberal if you don't realize it. Why do you need the government to do your workouts for you? (closet liberal would be a link to a story about how roberts was the deciding vote in the obamacare decision, government would be a link to the wiki page for Stalin).


This line by line teardown, is called a "fisking". Jmerv is bar none, the very best at it, and being not so bright, I FALL FOR IT EVERYTIME. I can't control it. I may need to seek counselling. Anyway, so the key to a good fisking is to get as much as you can out of context, then infer things the author never would have said and establish them as fact quickly. It doesn't matter if this happens only in your own head. This is particularly effective in the line by line. It doesn't matter what I actually say, all of his replies SEEM to stem from the few words he actually quoted. If I do happen to respond and I invariably do, then he just further fisks. check out above.

Right about the picture of the breaking glass, he clearly implies that my original stance wasn't reasonable because it wasn't pro-christian. Slick huh? It gets better, did you catch the part about louis farrakhan? that was way out of left field right? well, once it was out there, he uses his own way out i left field comment to make it look like I'm somehow aligned with farrakhan. wow, it's like magic right? ka-poof and all the sudden Steve=Farrakhan. You might be impressed, but you shouldn't be. When he says the line about being with or against terrorists, that was even better. He specifically says i said that, which I didn't, but even better, he aligns me with bush, so now I'm tied to people on both sides of the aisle, with whom I may not agree with on much of anything, BUT they are super easy to attack. But that's not all. he's also tied me to Rahm, multiple times, EVEN THOUGH THAT WAS THE GUY I ORIGINALLY COMPLAINED ABOUT!!!

I am telling you. jmerv IS the master. Loz is much funnier, true, but jmerv fisks with the best of them.

Anyway, since you godwinned the thread i guess it's over, but don't worry, i'm sure there will be more.