The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='perdition(troy']People don't like the Koch brothers support of Obama, boycott their companies. If I lived near this guy, I don't like his support of Obama, so I would boycott his pizza place. The only difference is their scale of support.[/QUOTE]

That's certainly your right to boycott his place but he's just a dude selling pizza. It's dopey to boycott a person just because they were a part of a photo op and they voted for the other guy.

Now - a corporation is not a person (I really don't give a fuck what the Supreme Court thinks - they are wrong). Boycotting a corporation is a whole different ball of wax.

[quote name='Strell']Except the guy is a Republican. So it's Republicans saying he's not Republican enough, and then going out and trying to destroy his small business, which Republicans claim to be a proponent of. Further, a hug isn't the same as companies actively funneling money into lobbyists to try and change policies so that those gross homos can't kiss in public.

So yes camoor, he doesn't see a difference, because both sides do it, and everything is equal, and peanut butter is the square root of ham.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I just don't see how troy could miss something so obvious.
 
How does the fact that many Chick-fil-a locations are franchises and that the franchise owners have little to nothing to do with corporate donation decisions factor into those who went onto Yelp and Yelp-like sites and posted negative, false reviews about the individual locations factor into this?

Guilt by association, I guess?
 
Except the guy is a Republican. So it's Republicans saying he's not Republican enough, and then going out and trying to destroy his small business, which Republicans claim to be a proponent of. Further, a hug isn't the same as companies actively funneling money into lobbyists to try and change policies so that those gross homos can't kiss in public.
Click to expand...
A republican that voted for Obama in two straight elections? I guess that makes me a democrat (I voted against him for the record, and Clinton in the primary).
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']A republican that voted for Obama in two straight elections? [/QUOTE]

Gawrsh, sure sounds like Obama's fault to me.
 
It's clearly a set up because the guy isn't a lock step true blue dumbfuck, no retreat no surrender Republican to the end.

Can we have fewer conspiracies and more grown up talk?
 
What's the conspiracy? Guy has a set up photo op with Obama, local republicans don't like it and vow to not eat at his pizza place (most of them probably don't eat there anyway, which completely negates the whole point of the boycott), guy says but I'm a republican too please don't take your money away from my business :'(, and people from other parts of the country try to make a big deal about it, like it really matters.

No conspiracy here that I can see.
 
I'm just saying, I never would have thought someone would be able to approach, grab and hoist the President of the United States off the ground, unexpected, in a public(-ish, I'm sure the place was on lock-down) sitting like this... even more so in this kind of political climate.

Maybe I've just watched too much TV where something like this would end with the individual under a pile of Secret Service agents...
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']What's the conspiracy? Guy has a set up photo op with Obama, local republicans don't like it and vow to not eat at his pizza place (most of them probably don't eat there anyway, which completely negates the whole point of the boycott), guy says but I'm a republican too please don't take your money away from my business :'(, and people from other parts of the country try to make a big deal about it, like it really matters.

No conspiracy here that I can see.[/QUOTE]

Troy, I'm guessing Myke is referring back to my earlier post:

[quote name='UncleBob']Someone gave the President a big bear hug and picked him up off the ground and the Secret Service didn't jump in?

Is it cynical of me to think this was all prearranged?[/QUOTE]

For the record, by "prearranged", I meant the hug and photo-op - not the blow-up/fallout from it.
 
I'd think all the secret service do in these cases is pre-screen who will be there, screen people for weapons at the site etc.

There's always a lot of close contact between the candidate and the people at these type of things. Sitting at the same tables, hugging etc. So no reason that something like that couldn't happen spontaneously.
 
My reference was to this:

[quote name='perdition(troy']No, just doesn't sound like a republican.[/QUOTE]

It's a "no true scotsman" frame of ill logic at play. He can't be a Republican because he voted for Obama? The implications here are that it's all a set up, or the guy is a liar (he's a lifelong Democrat) - that it's all too convenient - therefore, prearranged/scripted. Ergo, conspiratorial.

anyone else who thinks I'm referring to one of their posts hasn't been paying attention to the fact that I'm not responding to their posts at all, and have not been as of late.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My reference was to this:



It's a "no true scotsman" frame of ill logic at play. He can't be a Republican because he voted for Obama? The implications here are that it's all a set up, or the guy is a liar (he's a lifelong Democrat) - that it's all too convenient - therefore, prearranged/scripted. Ergo, conspiratorial.

anyone else who thinks I'm referring to one of their posts hasn't been paying attention to the fact that I'm not responding to their posts at all, and have not been as of late.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, it's more along the lines of "this is why we can't have things"

The right turns a goofy photo-op into a Republican hate-campaign against a small business.

It was a goofy photo-op people. A goofy photo op. We're starting the political equivalent of a knock-down drag-out street fight over a goofy photo op.

Squabbles like this belong on Jersey Shore, not the national stage.
 
I think it's made something fairly clear, their party line may be that they care about small businesses, but the average republican on the street doesn't give a shit.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']anyone else who thinks I'm referring to one of their posts hasn't been paying attention to the fact that I'm not responding to their posts at all, and have not been as of late.[/QUOTE]

Wait... is this a response to my post or not? I can't tell...
 
I think it's made something fairly clear, their party line may be that they care about small businesses, but the average republican on the street doesn't give a shit.
Click to expand...
Care to show us the article you were reading that brought you to this conclusion?
 
While I get the hypocrisy angle of boycotting a repubican owned small business because the owner bear hugged Obama while touting that Obama is trying to kill small businesses, I don't think it's a big deal.

I won't give my business to a company who supports political causes I oppose--regardless if it's a mega-corp like Chick-Fil-A or a mom and pop shop. Free speech goes both ways. I support their freedom to say, fund and support what they want. I have my freedom to call them idiots, not give them my business and encourage like-minded others to do the same.

Being tolerant doesn't mean being accepting. It means not trampling on the rights of others and respecting our freedoms. It doesn't mean you have to befriend people who's beliefs you abhor, much less keep giving their business your patronage.
 
dmaul's got it right.

The only bad behavior I see from right-wingers here are those spamming Yelp with false reviews. If you want to say you don't support this business because I disagree with their political views, that's fine and dandy. But there's no need to lie.

But, then again, some of the folks on here are the same ones that were arguing that a guy should have his medical license taken away because he expressed his political views in the workplace...
 
It's a big deal to me simply because it sheds light on the psyche of the party. They support not small business owners, but small business owners who aren't democrats and don't associate with them. If you are or do, well then fuck you basically. I've never really professed support for any size business one way or the other, so I don't give a damn. It isn't hypocrisy when you haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other, and democrats aren't campaigning on being the champions of small business.
 
Of course, but we already knew that. And I hate to sound like bob, but it goes both ways.

There's a bitter partisan divide in this country, and most people only support people who share their world view. I know I do. I support people right to hold their own views and express them, but I don't have much use for people who's views are vastly different than my own in my social circle, and certainly don't want to give them my money if I can avoid it.

Democrats are in many ways campaigning as champions of small business in the sense that Obama is constantly talking about how his tax plan will hit the wealthy and corporations and give relief to the middle class and small businesses.

And most democrats would boycott a shop who's owner was a die hard republican who's views they opposed. How many libs on here would still go to your favorite mom and pop restaurant if it came out that the owner strongly opposed gay marriage and supported all Romney's fiscal policies?
 
If I boycotted every republican owned business in this area I'd barely shop anywhere, this is the south ya know. Can't agree that it's equal, the democrat(no damn "ic") party has not campaigned as strognly on the idea that they're for the small business owner. It gets mentioned, but it isn't quite the talking point Romney has made it into.
 
[quote name='Clak']If I boycotted every republican owned business in this area I'd barely shop anywhere, this is the south ya know. Can't agree that it's equal, the democrat(no damn "ic") party has not campaigned as strognly on the idea that they're for the small business owner. It gets mentioned, but it isn't quite the talking point Romney has made it into.[/QUOTE]

Well one can only avoid shops where one is clearly aware of the owners beliefs, stances, donations etc. Thankfully most business owners are smart enough to keep that stuff private! But seriously, depsite being in the south, Atlanta is a fairly liberal city (pretty young population, large gay population etc.) still so I'd still have plenty of places to shop even if I knew everyone's views.

Small business and the middle class is always the talkign point of the two party as that's the biggest chunk of the electorate. Romney and Ryan are more directly mentioning it, but it's a big part of the democrat platform, tax policy etc. as well. Obama is just more focused on talking points attacking the elite class, more so than directly talking about small businesses and the middle class. But that's just semantics.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']While I get the hypocrisy angle of boycotting a repubican owned small business because the owner bear hugged Obama while touting that Obama is trying to kill small businesses, I don't think it's a big deal.

I won't give my business to a company who supports political causes I oppose--regardless if it's a mega-corp like Chick-Fil-A or a mom and pop shop. Free speech goes both ways. I support their freedom to say, fund and support what they want. I have my freedom to call them idiots, not give them my business and encourage like-minded others to do the same.

Being tolerant doesn't mean being accepting. It means not trampling on the rights of others and respecting our freedoms. It doesn't mean you have to befriend people who's beliefs you abhor, much less keep giving their business your patronage.[/QUOTE]

Sure but he gave Obama a hug, he didn't shave his head and start throwing heil salutes. I have plenty of friends who have been snapped shaking hands with Republicans, conservatives, and other political right-wingers. We're still friends, and I would do business with them.

People can respectfully disagree, this idea that inane shows of political support must be boycotted and/or stifled is ridiculous.

Except if you try to merge in front of me and you have a Romney bumper sticker. Cause in that case - fuck. you.
 
Oh, I do agree it's an absurd over-reaction. And not nearly on par with a company opposing gay marriage, giving money to hate groups etc. But hey, it's a free country and they can over-react and just not support any business who shows any support of Obama. I think it's dumb, but whatever.
 
I live outside Nashville and tend to avoid it because of traffic and parking. Some business owners here don't hide it, but most are smart enough and do. They all buy into the idea that Romney will be better to them, which is why I say it's not the same. Obama hasn't been trying to court the small business owners quite like Romney has.
 
I was being a little facetious. I wouldn't boycott a store just because the owner was republican, or supported Romney. Only for more egregious offenses of my values like donating money to hate groups, funding efforts to block gay marriage etc. Things where it's clear that shopping there means my money is going to causes I oppose.

The average person isn't donating money to shit, so it's often a non-issue what their political inclinations are. But when I find out they're funneling money to causes I oppose (or blocking things I support) are very actively campaigning against my beliefs, they aren't getting any more of my money.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was being a little facetious. I wouldn't boycott a store just because the owner was republican, or supported Romney. Only for more egregious offenses of my values like donating money to hate groups, funding efforts to block gay marriage etc. Things where it's clear that shopping there means my money is going to causes I oppose.[/quote]

bingo. that's why the chik-fil-a controversy had legitimacy, because the organization *acted* on their bigoted belief system, not that they simply held the belief system.

"boycotting" this business is (a) very easy if you live a bajillion miles from it, so hurrah for you - I won't be eating at the burger barn in Peoria, IL, but that's more a matter of proximity and circumstance than ideology. I'm not reviewing them on yelp, for the matter, either.

and (b) rather silly. An unwillingness to accept differences is really frightening. So the owner hugged Obama. That's enough for a call to arms? For a boycott? Are we that insane?

It's absurd. You have the choice to shop where you want to, but have some character behind why you choose not to shop somewhere. I don't go to this restaurant because the food stinks, or the employees are too-cool-for-you hipsters who can't be bothered to give you quality service. I do go to this place because the people are super nice, the food is amazing and as locally sourced as possible, and the owner is someone I can have great conversations about beer with - he always teaches me something new.

Maybe some of them are Republicans, but you know what? They're nice people. They're part of my community, and they're my neighbors. I like them and the services they provide. This idea that "someone likes something I don't like and this outrage can not stand!" is narcissistic knuckle-dragging at its best. If they support something you don't, at least allow them to (1) be in your face about it or (2) support acting on those beliefs before you call for a boycott.

Chik-fil-a acted on their beliefs. Joey Vento (Geno's steaks) acted in a way that offended entire ethnic groups. Maybe Tony Luke is a raging racist (he *is* from South Philly...), but since he keeps that to himself, I eat at his restaurant. Suppose I found out he donated to the Romney campaign? I'd still eat there. It's fucking America, man. We're allowed to be different. We should be different.

But you don't get to act on wanting to suppress others. That's not part of your freedom as an American.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But you don't get to act on wanting to suppress others. That's not part of your freedom as an American.[/QUOTE]
Some would say that suppressing freedom is and has been one of the most important and influential freedoms an American has.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But you don't get to act on wanting to suppress others. That's not part of your freedom as an American.[/QUOTE]
Some would say that suppressing freedom is and has been one of the most important and influential freedoms an American has.
 
I meant that as a joke/satire, man.:lol:

edit: As in I'm lampooning the position of the right to believe in the freedom to take freedom away from others.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was being a little facetious. I wouldn't boycott a store just because the owner was republican, or supported Romney. Only for more egregious offenses of my values like donating money to hate groups, funding efforts to block gay marriage etc. Things where it's clear that shopping there means my money is going to causes I oppose.

The average person isn't donating money to shit, so it's often a non-issue what their political inclinations are. But when I find out they're funneling money to causes I oppose (or blocking things I support) are very actively campaigning against my beliefs, they aren't getting any more of my money.[/QUOTE]
Well I will say that I regretted eating at a local restaurant after seeing their facebook page and the owner's rant about Obama. It's just disgusting some things that people say, and if it's someone who I think I wouldn't like personally, I just have no desire to give them my money.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']bingo. that's why the chik-fil-a controversy had legitimacy, because the organization *acted* on their bigoted belief system, not that they simply held the belief system.

Suppose I found out he donated to the Romney campaign? I'd still eat there. It's fucking America, man. We're allowed to be different. We should be different.

[/QUOTE]

Aren't those kinda the same thing?;) Giving money to a homophobic organization vs a homophobic candidate/party?
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I was being a little facetious. I wouldn't boycott a store just because the owner was republican, or supported Romney. Only for more egregious offenses of my values like donating money to hate groups, funding efforts to block gay marriage etc. Things where it's clear that shopping there means my money is going to causes I oppose.[/QUOTE]

Yeah I completely agree. I can't understand why Troy doesn't get this, the difference seems so obvious to me.
 
[quote name='Clak']Aren't those kinda the same thing?;) Giving money to a homophobic organization vs a homophobic candidate/party?[/QUOTE]

ehhhhhhhh, that's splitting hairs to too fine a degree. I see what you're getting at, but that line of thinking is more akin to voting for Obama = you're cool with drone strikes and NDAA. Which is a fallacy.

So if they give money to a candidate? Nah, unless it's like a white nationalist or somesuch. If they give money to a homosexual re-education camp, however, that's a whole other ball of wax.

(sorry for failing to see your jibe, dohdough, wasn't sure if you were going down the american history is the history of hegemonic forces subjugating others route or not.)
 
I guess it may be a hindsight thing that doesn't strike you until after the fact. Say that Romney wins and then a few years from now he and the rest of the too cool for school crew enacts a federal ban on gay marriage. Whoever donated money to his campaign helped make that happen. Maybe I'm just too damned uptight, but lately I just don't care anymore. I say it's time to play political hardball and make people accountable for their political beliefs. You want to be a racist fuckhead? Fine. Let it be known and we'll let society judge you. Although around these parts it might actually lead to an increase in business for some people...
 
[quote name='mykevermin'](sorry for failing to see your jibe, dohdough, wasn't sure if you were going down the american history is the history of hegemonic forces subjugating others route or not.)[/QUOTE]
No worries, man. It's a perfectly fine road to go down, but I'm trying to take it easy today.:lol:
 
[quote name='Clak']I say it's time to play political hardball and make people accountable for their political beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Seems like it'd make more sense to hold them accountable for their actions...
 
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."[/QUOTE]

Even when he tries to be critical of government, he can't take his lips off its cock.
 
Not to mention the 'pay no income tax' line is inaccurate. But Romney is by no means the only person who misuses the public's poor comprehension skills w/r/t that notion.
 
[quote name='Msut77']There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."[/QUOTE]

So the republican's don't have or want the poor vote, and per Santorum they also don't care about "smart people."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fbbf472-ff8b-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_blog.html

"We will never have the elite smart people on our side, because they believe they should have the power to tell you what to do,” said Santorum, adding, “So our colleges and universities, they’re not going to be on our side. The conservative movement will always be – and that’s why we founded Patriot Voices – the basic premise of America and American values will always be sustained through two institutions, the church and the family.”
Click to expand...

There you have it folks. The GOP--the party of rich idiots. :lol:
 
He is absolutely right, and that is why he is going to lose. If he's going to lose anyway, he might as well tell the truth for once in this campaign.
 
Romney is right about the "47 percent" or Santorum is right about "elite smart people"?

In either case, do you have a source to support that the quote is correct?
 
what i meant was, since spokker said he was "absolutely right," if he (spokker) could provide evidence that the statement (whichever it was) is correct.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']what i meant was, since spokker said he was "absolutely right," if he (spokker) could provide evidence that the statement (whichever it was) is correct.[/QUOTE]

Sorry :) I thought you were talking accuracy of the quote not the factual basis for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top