Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Satty

American Family Association ends McDonalds boycott

130 posts in this topic

linkypoo

McDonald's has told AFA they will remain neutral in the culture war regarding homosexual marriage. AFA is ending the boycott of McDonald's. As you know, AFA called for the boycott in May after McDonald's joined the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce (NGLCC).

McDonald's said McDonald's Vice President Richard Ellis has resigned his position on the board of NGLCC and that his seat on the board will not be replaced. McDonald's also said that the company has no plans to renew their membership in NGLCC when it expires in December.

I'll remain silent

Edited by Satty
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I wont, the AFA is a bunch of assholes. I dont eat at McDonalds because the food sucks, but now that they've given in to this religious bull$h!, I'm going to avoid that place at all costs.

Oh, and here is why they hate the "gay agenda"

Edited by Satty
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet Sarah Palin supports the AFA...seems like the kind of crowd she's follow..

Edited by moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, WASTE OF TIME.

I bet Sarah Palin supports the AFA...seems like the kind of crowd she's follow..

Now now... let's not go jumping to conclusions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... will Oldsmoboi lock this thread, too, like he did for the "toilet smiley" thread for the out-of-place political comment? Or will it be allowed to live because the comment is anti-Republican? We'll see.

Meantime, McDonald's is a bunch of weenies for giving in to these loons.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I added a political warning to the subtitle, since this thread could veer that way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans and Democrats alike are both cut from different cloths on social issues. One tenant to both parties however, is that democrats seek to improve quality of life through government run social programs while Republicans are fiscally conservative. What this means in plain english is that Republicans and Democrats clash on spending money. Everything else is based on what part of the country they are from, a democrat from the south will most likely have differing viewpoints from a dem. from the north. Same with east and west coast vs. mid america.

Back to this particular issue. Disclosing what you think, feel, or way of life in a public manner allows for open discussion. Censoring AFA is similar to censoring GLAD. Frankly, I wish the whole issue would go away with both sides agreeing not to talk about it in public.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been an opponent of the AFA for more than 20 years. They tried to impose their "lifestyle choice" on me and my friends back then. They were offended when they heard "the devil" mentioned in a song played in a public place and demanded that the radio be changed to a Christian or news station...or be turned off all together. Their response when someone said they wanted the ambient music was for everyone else to "bring a walkman" because three people were offended by a Great White song. There are other reasons to be offended by Great White, but the lyrics of "House of Broken Love" are not even close to the top of that list.

The AFA is a very hypocritical organization. They're offended by a woman referred to as "the devil" mentioned in a song, but isn't THE Devil a primary character in the book they quote all the time? They were offended by Saturday Night Live where a "nude beach" sketch in 1988 mentioned "penis" 21 times...and the AFA used the same word in an AFA Journal article (about the sketch) 18 times. They opposed magazines like Playboy and Penthouse and even concocted a bogus report linking magazines such as these to the abuse of children and women to back up their story.

The ONLY good thing about the AFA is that its founder Donald Wildmon is the reason behind George Carlin's "The Seven Words You Can Never Say on TV." The AFA and Donald Wildmon have given NOTHING positive to society beyond that. Oh, and perhaps to give me an antagonist to my life's story.

I don't eat at McDonald's because of the food. But I would never knowingly avoid a company that the AFA was boycotting for any reason beyond bad products or bad corporate citizenship. Treating homosexuals fairly...is GOOD corporate citizenship. The AFA's stance is AGAINST what the Bible teaches. I always thought the basic principle behind the Bible was "do unto others." In that case, I think we should patronize every business on the AFA's boycott list and boycott anyone who supports the AFA. Seems only fair.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

Well, the Republican party today is the party of intolerance, IMHO... it seems today that if you aren't a straight white evangelical Christian, you aren't welcome. The Republican party has alienated vast groups with in the US with it's anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-professional stances...I saw an article today in the NYT that's one of these best I've seen in a while about this cultural divide--- it's a worthwhile read.

NYT article

A few paragraphs from the article that ring true to me:

" Over the past 15 years, the same argument has been heard from a thousand politicians and a hundred television and talk-radio jocks. The nation is divided between the wholesome Joe Sixpacks in the heartland and the oversophisticated, overeducated, oversecularized denizens of the coasts.

What had been a disdain for liberal intellectuals slipped into a disdain for the educated class as a whole. The liberals had coastal condescension, so the conservatives developed their own anti-elitism, with mirror-image categories and mirror-image resentments, but with the same corrosive effect.

Republicans developed their own leadership style. If Democratic leaders prized deliberation and self-examination, then Republicans would govern from the gut.

George W. Bush restrained some of the populist excesses of his party — the anti-immigration fervor, the isolationism — but stylistically he fit right in. As Fred Barnes wrote in his book, “Rebel-in-Chief,” Bush “reflects the political views and cultural tastes of the vast majority of Americans who don’t live along the East or West Coast. He’s not a sophisticate and doesn’t spend his discretionary time with sophisticates. As First Lady Laura Bush once said, she and the president didn’t come to Washington to make new friends. And they haven’t.”

The political effects of this trend have been obvious. Republicans have alienated the highly educated regions — Silicon Valley, northern Virginia, the suburbs outside of New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Raleigh-Durham. The West Coast and the Northeast are mostly gone.

The Republicans have alienated whole professions. Lawyers now donate to the Democratic Party over the Republican Party at 4-to-1 rates. With doctors, it’s 2-to-1. With tech executives, it’s 5-to-1. With investment bankers, it’s 2-to-1. It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community.

This sums it up the best:

" And so, politically, the G.O.P. is squeezed at both ends. The party is losing the working class by sins of omission — because it has not developed policies to address economic anxiety. It has lost the educated class by sins of commission — by telling members of that class to go away."

Edited by moltar
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm... will Oldsmoboi lock this thread, too, like he did for the "toilet smiley" thread for the out-of-place political comment? Or will it be allowed to live because the comment is anti-Republican? We'll see.

Meantime, McDonald's is a bunch of weenies for giving in to these loons.

No. This thread is labeled "Political", that's why the thread will live. The thread you are referencing was in regards to a board function and a few members decided to turn it political. If you've got a problem with that take it up with an admin... any admin, in PM.

I won't eat at McDonald's regardless... so....

edit: I didn't even see this thread till after the "political" label was added, otherwise I would have warned and closed it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans and Democrats alike are both cut from different cloths on social issues. One tenant to both parties however, is that democrats seek to improve quality of life through government run social programs while Republicans are fiscally conservative. What this means in plain english is that Republicans and Democrats clash on spending money. Everything else is based on what part of the country they are from, a democrat from the south will most likely have differing viewpoints from a dem. from the north. Same with east and west coast vs. mid america.

Back to this particular issue. Disclosing what you think, feel, or way of life in a public manner allows for open discussion. Censoring AFA is similar to censoring GLAD. Frankly, I wish the whole issue would go away with both sides agreeing not to talk about it in public.

Republican's haven't been fiscally conservative for at least 8 years.

Not talking about it in public isn't an option... and doesn't get anywhere.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It took talent for Republicans to lose the banking community[/b]. [/i]

That little tidbit warms the cockles of my heart.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights

Yes, she is.

...while Republicans are fiscally conservative.

At one time that was true, but they gave that up with the near doubling of the national debt is less than eight years. Today's politicians love to invoke the founding fathers for their brilliance in setting up our system of government while they routinely ignore their warings.

"I place economy among the first and most important republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt."

Thomas Jefferson, third US president, architect and author (1743-1826)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but Ocn, isn't being anti-gay rights a real traditional Republican viewpoint?

I realize Sarah Palin is not anti-gay rights (not sure about McCain) but aren't Republicans traditionally the "one man, one woman" crowd?

I'm not trying to stir up crap here, remember I am Canadian and while I understand American politics I don't see it first hand all the time like all you Americans, so pardon me if this question is stupid.

traditional.... if you mean since bush 1, probably, if you mean goldwater, no, but there is a large dichotomy of ideas in the "republican party"...there are prolly some "anti gay rights" people that call themselves democrats.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now when I am enjoying a grilled Chicken salad while my niece and nephew play in the play area, my family will be exposed to religious bigots?!?! This sucks. I wish the AFA would continue to boycott. I don't want to be anywhere that they are!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suppose mcD's thinks they need to do this to protect the market share of Happy Meals.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republican's haven't been fiscally conservative for at least 8 years.

Not talking about it in public isn't an option... and doesn't get anywhere.

Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it. Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate. After that is accomplished every single department within the US government should be responsible for writing a budge that prioritzes spending. From there, the Office of Budget should then organize priorities for the entirety. Put income tax (taken as 17% of all income no matter brackets) at the top and go down the list until you run out of money. Programs below the black number lose. Do it every year. Forever.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

The government gives tax incentives to married couples but not to committed gay couples, which is wrong. The government should stay out of "marriage" which is a religious thing...and every committed couple, gay or straight, should be granted a "civil union" by the government for all of the legal reasons (health care, inheritence, etc) and "marriage" should remain in the church. There should be NO special treatment of homosexuals...or heterosexuals. Treat them all the same.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

Should there be a cure for being black? Or tall? Or female? Cause I'm pretty sure those people are born with those conditions as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it.

We've had a Democratically controlled Congress for two years and a George W. Bush administration for just shy of eight years. I don't know about your math, but TWO is not "almost" EIGHT.

And that "Democratically-controlled Congress" doesn't mean they can pass whatever they want. There are 49 Democrats in Congress and 49 Republicans. Democrats don't even have a simple majority, let alone a filabuster-proof 60%.

Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate.

That's the first thing you've said that has made any sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

Well I learn something new every day...here I thought eugenics subscribers had pretty much died out after Hitler.

Edited by Croc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where do we need to get exactly? I will never be in favor of gay and lesbian couples. Period. However, I will never pursue legislation that allows or disallows it. It simply is not the job of the government. So, I will again iterate... if it is brought up in public it is open for public discussion.

PS "IF" you are indeed born gay or lesbian why hasn't anybody sought government funding for finding a cure?

It's tied up in legislation to cure left handedness.

Who says there needs to be a cure? No credible medical professional/scientist considers it a disease or disorder. Most of us don't want to be "cured".

This is a completely different thread though and if you wish to discuss it more, I suggest you make a new thread.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the spending note, we have had Democratically controlled congress for almost as long as we have had Bush. The President himself is not responsible for writting law or for that matter lately, approving it. Regardless of party we need term limits in both the House and Senate. After that is accomplished every single department within the US government should be responsible for writing a budge that prioritzes spending. From there, the Office of Budget should then organize priorities for the entirety. Put income tax (taken as 17% of all income no matter brackets) at the top and go down the list until you run out of money. Programs below the black number lose. Do it every year. Forever.

If by "most of" you mean "2 out of 8 years".... then yes. I imagine by that standard, McCain will get "most of" the popular and electoral votes as well.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0