Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters

As obnoxious as Myke is, he's got nothing on the bikers around here. They act like they are a combination of Jesus and Superman, they think they are saving the world and they ride as if they are impervious to damage.
 
It only takes me about 20 minutes to drive to work, I have no idea how many miles it actually is. I've actually eyed some of the scooters I've seen people driving. Here's the thing though, the road I take to work has a top speed limit of 50 miles per hour, but people regularly travel down it doing 70 or even more in some cases. There is no way in hell I'd ride a scooter down that road with cars whipping around me constantly. Even in my small car I sometimes feel like I'm going to be run over by some of the rednecks in their giant pick up trucks.

edit- While I'm at it, who the hell pissed in some of your corn flakes today? Geez....
 
I hate to play the truth-is-in-the-middle card, so I'll just side with camoor on this one. :D

He certainly has a point in regards to the "inefficiency" of public transportation, if not just for himself, but for others that certainly rely on it for eeking out a living. Now I know that for him, it's a bit of a luxury to be able to drive instead of taking a bus/train(nothing personal dude and I completely understand where you're coming from), but the real issue here is that public transportation not sufficient for a lot of people.

I have a hard time calling cars a necessity, but because of urban/suburban planning, I can see how it could be, although those that are on the outskirts of metropolitan areas generally have the means to be closer. Looking at the big picture, I see it as less of a luxury issue and more of a class/race issue. After all, gentrification usually solves the problem for the lack of public services like public transportation. I mean, there's a reason why people are in the periphery, right?
 
[quote name='RealDeals']Lol, I feel for you guys that put up with poor public transit systems. In the suburbs of Chicago, everyone just uses the Metra/local Amtrak lines that are spread out every two to three cities. Most people I know just park their cars in the lots (my city added almost 3000 extra spaces last year :hot:) and use the train to work, use the buses that go practically everywhere throughout the city, and train back with their car still waiting there. Not completely abstaining from car use, but, hey ;) Now, going to and from the spreadout and still developing suburbs via public transit, is nearly impossible :whistle2:#[/QUOTE]

When I rode the Metro in Chicago when I went there as a kid (1994 I believe), I remember panhandlers going from train to train trying to sell you shit like dried beans. Does that still happen?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Yeah, there are very few places you can realistically live with out a car. Best most can do is minimize the amount of gas they use by buying a higher MPG car, living close to work an frequented shopping areas etc.

I'd love to not need a car, but public transit in my city sucks and things are very spread out. If I lived somewhere like NYC I'd definitely not have a car and just rent one when I needed to drive somewhere outside the city. As is I just live 3 miles from work, 1-2 miles from the grocery store etc. and thus drive very little and gas up once a month or less.[/QUOTE]

It really isn't that hard to do once you start it. I don't live completely "car free" yet (my wife has a car, I bum a ride with her sometimes) but thus far I've gone since end of April/start of May with just a motorcycle and bike. Work is 20 miles round trip, grocery store a 15 or 20 minute walk, and I can bike just about anywhere in less than an hour.

[quote name='dmaul1114']Bicycle or scooter is a big hassle though. Sucks in rain or snow. Tough to grocery shop etc. and a lot of cities are like ATL and lack safe bike lanes on most roads which is a shame.[/QUOTE]

Buy a rain suit and the rain no longer is a factor.

[quote name='mykevermin']That all said, I'm still pretty skeptical of the "you need a car" argument unless you commute more than 5 miles each way every day.[/QUOTE]
I'd say 5 miles is pretty low, but then again I'd kill to only have a 5 mile ride lol.

I'd rather save on gas, pollute less, and give away less of my money to oil companies/government on a daily basis. That and it feels great to ride all the time.
 
I try every year to get out of driving anywhere...I would choose anything over driving but the career I picked leads me to drive about 300+ miles a week. I think last year I wrote off about 9-10k in gas.

I would love to get back to my college days where I rode a bike everywhere........ah wells.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It really isn't that hard to do once you start it. I don't live completely "car free" yet (my wife has a car, I bum a ride with her sometimes) but thus far I've gone since end of April/start of May with just a motorcycle and bike. Work is 20 miles round trip, grocery store a 15 or 20 minute walk, and I can bike just about anywhere in less than an hour.

Buy a rain suit and the rain no longer is a factor.

I'd rather save on gas, pollute less, and give away less of my money to oil companies/government on a daily basis. That and it feels great to ride all the time.[/QUOTE]

Major props for being willing to do all that. I could probably do a one car household if I lived walking distance to work since we'd have the one car for groceries and going outside the city etc. I just can't see biking to work as viable for me as I sweat profusely, so I'd rather just keep running before/after work and on weekends for fitness when I can shower right after. :D Atlanta just isn't a bike friendly city with the heat from mid spring to mid fall, and lack of bike lanes. Just don't see as many people bicycling around as you do in other big cities.

The environmental angle is the one thing that tugs at me. But I'm not that hardcore about that stuff anyway, and feel ok just recycling etc. Plus, with not having kids I cut my carbon foot print off rather than going on for generations. :D

Saving money would be nice to, but only gassing up once a month or less isn't a burden at all. Car insurance and property tax is around $800 a year, also not a big deal. Car is paid off so only other expense is oil change and other maintenance stuff--my car is still low mileage (21K) so that's still pretty cheap. So currently the car probably runs me around $1,500 a year. The convenience is easily worth that to me since it's not a big hit to the budget.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']It really isn't that hard to do once you start it. I don't live completely "car free" yet (my wife has a car, I bum a ride with her sometimes) but thus far I've gone since end of April/start of May with just a motorcycle and bike. Work is 20 miles round trip, grocery store a 15 or 20 minute walk, and I can bike just about anywhere in less than an hour.[/QUOTE]

What is the traffic like?

I would never ride a motorbike on the DC beltway. A coworker tried it and wiped out, had to have pins put in his ankle and also got a hit to the head. For me, the safety factor is worth the extra cost in gas.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
I have a hard time calling cars a necessity, but because of urban/suburban planning, I can see how it could be, although those that are on the outskirts of metropolitan areas generally have the means to be closer. [/QUOTE]

Atlanta is interesting in that public transit is more viable in the suburbs and outskirts.

That's where the traffic here really sucks--that and the interstate through the city. Most of the local streets in the city don't have much traffic at all in terms of stop and go non-sense everywhere like in DC and other traffic plagued cities.

So living in the city, it takes 2-3 times longer to MARTA somewhere than to drive. But out in the suburbs and exburbs, it's going to be more viable to drive and park for free at a MARTA station and ride in/home as it will take the same or less time from most areas without the stress of morning and evening rush hour traffic.

The subway lines that are a plus sign through the city also split in the burbs and cover more areas. Seems like the system was built more as transit to/from the suburbs than to efficiently move people around the system. Made worse by the bus system being a lot more limited than in most big cities--especially after route cuts the past few years.
 
To shift back on topic somewhat...


539235_336240503130326_1081223607_n.jpg
 
[quote name='roedaniel19']A "real" Christian believes the Bible from cover to cover. Maybe you should read it sometime. My beliefs aren't my own. They come straight from the Bible.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to break it to you roe, but the Bible has lifted from the best of Pagan religions. Jesus Christ is derivative of MANY of prior religions/myths. Unfortunately, most Christians do not eve know what they believe. So, don't bother trying to tell everyone about Christianity's ownership of this concept of marriage.
 
[quote name='KtMack23']Seriously, the liberal circle-jerk that is the CAG vs. Forum is way more vicious and "fuck faced" then that guy, and you're post just proves my point. Someone expresses their beliefs and you guys jump on him and beat the crap out of him with your tired old arguments.[/QUOTE]

Some people just don't really understand things (any wonder they retreat to fairy tales for their understanding of the world). You can speak "nice" words and all but if what lies under it is hate then you can sugarcoat all you want; it is hate. I hate that doublespeak which goes on today. People ACT nice but deep down they support war, racism, exploitation, etc. From my experience, I have not seen such falseness to the degree that I have with relgion-ists. I suppose those who vociferously stood against slavery, e.g. John Brown, were immoral and the people in the churches just sitting there ever so Leave it to Beaver pleasantly while supporting the status quo were such good people. Such a lack of depth.
 
Personaly I never get tired of hearing the truth. Most people just can't take having their most closely held beliefs questioned. People get called assholes for pointing out holes in someone's beliefs, it's ridiculous.
 
[quote name='joeboosauce']Some people just don't really understand things (any wonder they retreat to fairy tales for their understanding of the world). You can speak "nice" words and all but if what lies under it is hate then you can sugarcoat all you want; it is hate. I hate that doublespeak which goes on today. People ACT nice but deep down they support war, racism, exploitation, etc. From my experience, I have not seen such falseness to the degree that I have with relgion-ists. I suppose those who vociferously stood against slavery, e.g. John Brown, were immoral and the people in the churches just sitting there ever so Leave it to Beaver pleasantly while supporting the status quo were such good people. Such a lack of depth.[/QUOTE]

Don't you just mean Abrahamic religions?

The other religions aren't so two-faced.
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']I know where im going for lunch....[/QUOTE]

Look, if you want to troll, you gotta go full UncleBob or just back off. This half-ass stuff just won't cut it.

Which means you'll either have to up your game or start posting comments that actually contribute intellectually to the discussion at hand.

No slouches allowed here, my friend.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Sadly the woman is real but the chick fil a was photoshopped.[/QUOTE]

Yep.

Sadly asses like that are far to common. Especially here in the south.
 
On that note, I watched the film Food, Inc. last week. Still digesting its message, not sure what I think. Other than hating HFCS that much more.
 
Why all the HCFS hate, playa? Your body can't tell it apart from regular sugar. Commercials told me so. It's good in moderation, which is probably why it's in every single piece of food under the sun in this country. Thank goodness for subsidized nutrition being chosen for me so I can focus more on the finer things in life.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Look, if you want to troll, you gotta go full UncleBob or just back off. This half-ass stuff just won't cut it.

Which means you'll either have to up your game or start posting comments that actually contribute intellectually to the discussion at hand.

No slouches allowed here, my friend.[/QUOTE]


sorry man but i love their chicken! you trolled urself
 
[quote name='Strell']Why all the HCFS hate, playa? Your body can't tell it apart from regular sugar. Commercials told me so.[/QUOTE]

:applause:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Look, if you want to troll, you gotta go full UncleBob or just back off. This half-ass stuff just won't cut it.

Which means you'll either have to up your game or start posting comments that actually contribute intellectually to the discussion at hand.

No slouches allowed here, my friend.[/QUOTE]

Gotta be honest, I'm a big CFA fan. Started ramping up early this year, but now I'm in full CFA addict mode. Can't beat their spicy chicken sandwiches & milkshakes.

Still support gay marriage though.
 
I don't get why people care. What does the bible have to do with gay marriage. Jesus didn't invent marriage. Marital commitment was around long ago in many cultures.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't get why people care. What does the bible have to do with gay marriage. Jesus didn't invent marriage. Marital commitment was around long ago in many cultures.[/QUOTE]

They shouldn't. But the people who would believe such a thing are idiots and think that the bible is the be all and end all of everything. How do you logically argue against someone like that? You really can't.
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't get why people care. What does the bible have to do with gay marriage. Jesus didn't invent marriage. Marital commitment was around long ago in many cultures.[/QUOTE]

Nothing, and the bible shouldn't have any domain over any part of government. But the bible-thumpers want this to be a "Christian" nation, out of fear that god will take his vengeance on us as a whole when the day of judgment comes. Us heathens are "rocking the boat," so to speak.

At least that's how I see it, but what the fuck do I know?
 
[quote name='Blaster man']I don't get why people care. What does the bible have to do with gay marriage. Jesus didn't invent marriage. Marital commitment was around long ago in many cultures.[/QUOTE]

The bible doesn't have anything to do with gay marriage. The hook comes from bigots hiding behind the bible because for a long time we as a society have shown to be more tolerant of things if they are rooted in spirituality or religion. They don't get their ideals/morals from the bible, they use the bible as a shield to protect their bigotry. If they used the bible as their guide they wouldn't wear blended fabrics or get tattoos, those things would be too inconvenient to give hope in order to follow the bible for though.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Nothing, and the bible shouldn't have any domain over any part of government.[/QUOTE]

Marriage shouldn't even be in the domain of government. It's an antiquated institution and there is no benefit for a man to get married anyway. Let people concoct private contracts and let them call it whatever they want.

However, if we are going to stick this notion that the government should recognize a marriage, then gays should have the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of society.
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Nothing, and the bible shouldn't have any domain over any part of government. But the bible-thumpers want this to be a "Christian" nation, out of fear that god will take his vengeance on us as a whole when the day of judgment comes. Us heathens are "rocking the boat," so to speak.

At least that's how I see it, but what the fuck do I know?[/QUOTE]
That's another group who I would chip in to buy them their own island.They can call it Christiana, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Marriage shouldn't even be in the domain of government. It's an antiquated institution and there is no benefit for a man to get married anyway. Let people concoct private contracts and let them call it whatever they want.

However, if we are going to stick this notion that the government should recognize a marriage, then gays should have the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of society.[/QUOTE]


That right there is the problem. The term "marriage" should be renamed "civil union" for all. With that, all benefits come with it, as they do now with legal "marriage."

The term "marriage" should be relegated to religious recognition, with no impact outside of your church. First, you have a "civil union," and if you wish to appease your god, have it upgraded to "marriage" (or "tlhogh", "fonfon rubok", or whatever) at your local place of worship.

Keep the two separate entities and everyone should be happy. Of course, in a perfect world, this would work, but it would never actually happen. :roll:
 
[quote name='Spokker']Marriage shouldn't even be in the domain of government. It's an antiquated institution and there is no benefit for a man to get married anyway. Let people concoct private contracts and let them call it whatever they want.

However, if we are going to stick this notion that the government should recognize a marriage, then gays should have the opportunity to be as miserable as the rest of society.[/QUOTE]

It's strange that you would say that marriage isn't beneficial to men. I am married and I have kids. I know the statistics that one household with two parents and the kids together will always be financially better off than a single parent household with kids and a second household with one parent (probably the father) living alone. This increases poverty and decreases the likely the children will succeed.

So yes, marriage does benefit a man (until the children reach adulthood)......as long as he has any kind of evolutionary drive at all....
 
[quote name='Blaster man']It's strange that you would say that marriage isn't beneficial to men. I am married and I have kids. I know the statistics that one household with two parents and the kids together will always be financially better off than a single parent household with kids and a second household with one parent (probably the father) living alone. This increases poverty and decreases the likely the children will succeed.

So yes, marriage does benefit a man (until the children reach adulthood)......as long as he has any kind of evolutionary drive at all....[/QUOTE]

But marriage is not a necessity for what you claim, as you are neglecting to mention anything other than a) marriage or b) divorced/separated parents.

I was married for about 6 years and have a daughter from it, of whom I have custody. That point aside, that marriage and her mom, to be more specific, was more detrimental to the family structure, both emotionally and financially. Money missing, neglect of our child while I was working 12-16 hours a day, having affairs, etc. Combine that with the topper of a pretty nasty split and you can imagine how fucked up my daughter is/was emotionally/developmentally.

I am now in another relationship, and we are foregoing marriage for the time being (living in sin, if you will). We own a house, run a successful business and have a second child together. We are seeing vast improvement in my daughter on all levels, as she her biological mother is more or less out of her life.

So, I can say that based on my personal experience, marriage, by default, does not trump every other family structure. Living unmarried, as if we were married, works perfectly fine for some of us.
 
I've noticed a lot of people who think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and only recognize civil unions have no problem having the state recognize their marriage to get the benefits that come with it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']I've noticed a lot of people who think the government shouldn't be involved in marriage and only recognize civil unions have no problem having the state recognize their marriage to get the benefits that come with it.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, that's the biggest problem with that argument. Most people had no problems with until the gays wanted in.


As for the benefits of marriage. I'm somewhat mixed. I'm not at all religious, not at all into tradition, and I don't want kids period. So I don't care about it that much.

That said I think there is some benefit in terms of the symbolism of it, having extra incentive to work out problems in a relationship rather walking away when things get a little rough. That can be a plus. But when a relationship is really dead it's really dead marriage or not. In that case it's just extra hassle, and staying together can be worse on kids as outlined in the above post. So it's really a mixed bag for me and I just don't have a strong opinion on it.
 
There are legal perks to marriage, plus things like being able to get insurance through a spouse etc. Other than that I don't really see it. Since divorce is a hassle I guess it might make people more willing to work out differences, maybe.
 
Yeah, I do think people make a lot of mistakes when getting married. Be it getting married too young, getting married after not dating the person long enough, getting married before living together and making sure you're compatible (though some people have religious/moral inclinations against doing that) etc.

You really need to settled down and stable in your own life--stable career, set life goals and priorities, etc. before even thinking of marriage. And then you have to take your time and find someone who shares all those goals and is also compatible with you on every level.

Beyond that people have to understand that relationships are hard work. They won't work if you're not willing to work on them and make keeping the relationship strong your top priority in life.

I've had to long term relationships (8 years and 6ish years) sandwiched between a bunchy of shorter ones. I'm super glad I never married either of those women (was engaged to the first) as they just weren't right for me and I wasn't in a place of being ready to settle down and make that kind of commitment.

I'm getting closer to being in that place, but I'm in no hurry to get married. I'm not at all jaded about marriage, must indifferent for the reasons above. And I'm still mainly focused on figuring out where I want my career to go, where I want to settle down location wise (probably not where I am now) etc. And I won't seriously entertain marriage (regardless of how well my current relationship continues to develop) until that stuff is figured out.
 
Geez, it took you that long to figure out the woman wasn't right for you? Hell, my parents only dated a few months before they married and they've been together for about 30 years. If it takes years to figure out someone isn't right for you,m how much time did you actually spend together? 8 years is just nuts to me.
 
Taking away marriage for everyone would make everyone unhappy, and a lot of people even unhappier with gay people. Why on Earth would you want to instigate something like that?
 
[quote name='Clak']Geez, it took you that long to figure out the woman wasn't right for you? Hell, my parents only dated a few months before they married and they've been together for about 30 years. If it takes years to figure out someone isn't right for you,m how much time did you actually spend together? 8 years is just nuts to me.[/QUOTE]

Everyone's different. With the 8 year relationship that was my highschool sweetheart. We started dating my sophomore year and dated all through college to the start of grad school. Lived together for over 3 years at the end etc. The main issue there was she just had lots of emotional issues, depression etc. that came and went. Things would be great for months, then shitty for a while. Just got sick of it after a while.

The six year one was really a case of being really good friends but just not right for each other as more than that. She was a grad school classmate. Just too much of a workaholic for me, not much interested in sex etc. But we were both so focused on school and then work that we didn't really care that the relationship was just good and not great and let it go on until she decided to move back to Taiwan. No way I was moving there for a relationship that was just ok.

Also given my age, life situation etc during the two long relationships there was a lot of change in both myself and the other person that affected the relationships.

Anyway, I've just never yet been super motivated to find "the one" and settle down and get married since I'm pretty self content, don't want kids etc. So I have a tendency to just stick in a relationships that are just alright for the convenience of regular sex, someone to hang out with etc. as I loathe the dating game.

That said, I'm digging the girl I've been dating for a couple months currently. We're a lot more on the same page on life goals, life styles etc. than anyone I've dated before. But I'm still in no hurry to rush things. I have no desire to marry someone unless I'm very confident we'll always be very happy together. I have no desire to be legally stuck in a "just ok" relationship or worse as I had too many friends and family who've been married for years to people they've long since lost any romantic spark for. I'd rather be single than stuck in that situation as at least then you can do whatever the hell you want.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, it's pretty hard to not be offended when my situation is being likened to ghetto trash. Common stereotype, although far from reality. I think homeownership in the number 2 school district in the region disproves that comparison, altough that is not the only thing that is non-ghetto. Multiple kids with multiple partners does not automatically equate to trash.

My point is, where I'm at now, the only benefit to "marriage" for us would be for taxes, insurance, etc. Our family structure and stability is phenomanal, and could rival those of married couples.

But getting way off point. There is just too much religious pull when it comes to government and marriage. The scenario I suggested would basically relabel marriage, but it would always be what is always has been. But as said, this will never happen, as the religious right would cry that their freedom is under attack, or something akin to that.

[quote name='Soodmeg']There are a lot of emotional and legal perks of getting married.

But I am not trying to say everyone should be married, everyone is free to do what they want.....I just think MOST people who get married do it the wrong way and then coming from a vindictive mindset claim that marriage is pointless...blah blah blah.

Again, I am not trying to knock Spooge but I grew up in the hoods of Detroit, "I married a girl...had a kid...she was crazy as hell so I divorced her, now I am with another girl and we have a kid but not getting married!?!?" Dude thats a ghetto soap opera that I have seen 10 season of. Your name might as well be pookey.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='sp00ge']Well, it's pretty hard to not be offended when my situation is being likened to ghetto trash. Common stereotype, although far from reality. I think homeownership in the number 2 school district in the region disproves that comparison, altough that is not the only thing that is non-ghetto. Multiple kids with multiple partners does not automatically equate to trash.

My point is, where I'm at now, the only benefit to "marriage" for us would be for taxes, insurance, etc. Our family structure and stability is phenomanal, and could rival those of married couples.

But getting way off point. There is just too much religious pull when it comes to government and marriage. The scenario I suggested would basically relabel marriage, but it would always be what is always has been. But as said, this will never happen, as the religious right would cry that their freedom is under attack, or something akin to that.[/QUOTE]

That'd still be taking away what most people perceive to be a right. And when you take one away, more are sure to follow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top