[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
First off, I just wanted to lay it out on the table that I'm in favor of marriage equality. I understand that there are some people who may not be, and that's fine. I'm all for civil debate and discussion about the issue.

Lately there's been a lot of news about Chik-Fil-A and comments made by the company's CEO Dan Cathy during an interview with the Baptist Press. Here's what he said that's causing such a firestorm:

Some have opposed the company's support of the traditional family. "Well, guilty as charged," said Cathy when asked about the company's position.

"We are very much supportive of the family -- the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.

"We operate as a family business ... our restaurants are typically led by families; some are single. We want to do anything we possibly can to strengthen families. We are very much committed to that," Cathy emphasized.

"We intend to stay the course," he said. "We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."
Not one sentence in the entire article bears any ill will or hatred toward the LGBT community, and yet Dan Cathy and Chik-Fil-A have become targets of a witch-hunt and a lot of righteous indignation from the media, celebrities, government leaders, and the LGBT community in general.

Chik-Fil-A: The Right to Be Stupid and Offensive (Huffington Post)
Chik-Fil-A Gay Flap A "Wakeup Call" For Companies (NPR)
Gray opposes Chik-Fil-A expansion; calls it 'hate chicken' (Washington Post)

Mayors of three major U.S. cities - Boston (Mayor Thomas Menino), Chicago (Mayor Rahm Immanuel - also a former Obama administration official) and Washington, D.C. (Vincent C. Gray)have all spoken in opposition to the chain with Menino and Immanuel going so far as to threaten to ban Chik-Fil-A from their cities (Menino has since backed off, no doubt because he realizes it would be an infringement on Cathy's first amendment rights and those of his company due to the SCOTUS Citizens United decision). But there are some sane minds in the fight. Mike "Nanny" Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC who recently proposed a ban on 16 oz. sodas to combat obesity, went on record that he disagrees with people like Menino who would attempt to ban a business from setting up shop. Even the ACLU is backing Chik-Fil-A, stating that attempts by city officials to ban businesses for religious beliefs is a clear-cut case of discrimination.

As for the boycott? It doesn't seem to be working. Twitter users are reporting lines out the door and drive thru lines wrapping around the building at their local Chik-Fil-A establishments. Many even posted pictures to prove the boom in business.

My whole opinion on this issue is that a chicken sandwich isn't a political statement -- it's food. If someone is eating at Chik-Fil-A, 10 to 1 says it was because they were hungry and just wanted something to eat, not because they're looking to stick it to anyone by purchasing some waffle fries. But since we're putting it all on the table here, how about those protesting against Chik-Fil-A have a little consistency?



(Mods: Any way we can get a tag for "free speech" and "marriage", please? Thank you!)
[identity profile] dreadfulpenny00.livejournal.com
There's really not much editorializing I can do here. Bristol Palin wrote an entry on her blog and she makes some really great points, and I just wanted to highlight them for those that haven't seen it yet.

Mr. President, When Should I Expect Your Call? )

I think if Obama had an ounce of integrity, he would have issued a public apology calling out those who degrade all women whether he chooses to return Bill Maher's dirty money or not.
[identity profile] acadecalli.livejournal.com
As an officer at my university's College Republicans chapter, this type of story almost makes me nauseous. A professor at the University of Iowa responded to a mass email sent out by the CRs with an email that simply said "F*%$ you, Republicans." This is someone who is paid by the tax payers of Iowa and probably has had conservative students at one time or another.

Here is the full story:
http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2011/04/20/university-of-iowa-professor-tells-college-republicans-to-%E2%80%9Cf%E2%80%9D-off/

I find her "apologies" even MORE insulting than her initial statement. Thoughts?
[identity profile] nerca-beyul.livejournal.com
First post here. Been lurking around some, not to sure about posting. But today, I got so pissed off and have been fuming ALL DAY to anyone who will listen.

So, recently we've been talking in this comm about the pains of being a conservative college student. I got a really acute example of that today.

One, I'm a journalism student. It's super tough every day because as you guys well know, journalism is one of the most leftward-leaning professions out there. I get to hear my viewpoints mocked almost all the time at work and in classes.

Last semester I had one professor that I thought was exceptional in keeping politics out of class. Then I have an ethics class with him this semester. He's started making here-and-there liberal comments.

Today, I got walloped in the face.

We were discussing whether or not we would publish the name of an illegal immigrant mother if she gave birth to the first baby of the new year.

Somehow, he effectively went into a 15-minute rant in which he said:
-"You may not believe it, but what do most people believe about immigrants? That they're taking jobs away from Americans and that they're all criminals, especially Mexicans, which seems to be synonymous with drug-runners." (Nevermind the fact that, by definition, being an ILLEGAL immigrant DOES mean you're a criminal.)
-anyone who supports strict immigration laws is racist against Hispanics and abhors Mexicans and is thus completely backward
-the Arizona law is the epitome of racism because it means cops can ask any random person of brown skin for papers and deport them if they don't have them; and that "some crazy lawmakers" want to make the same thing happen in Florida
-"People who support immigration laws are making it very difficult to be a brown person. It's a sad reality, but it's a tough time to be brown in America right now." (what the hell does he think about Marco Rubio, I wonder?)
-everyone "outside the liberal multicultural haven of a university" (i.e. conservatives) thinks all Muslims are terrorists



This greatly offended me because I am a die-hard conservative and believe very strongly in strict immigration laws, but I: am obsessed Hispanic cultures and especially Mexicans, the first guy I dated (also a friend) is a legal resident alien from Mexico, had a roommate and close friend who is Cuban refugee turned naturalized citizen, and have an aunt who's adopting two young Guatemalan girls whose birth mother is being deported. Additionally, I'm very much a conservative Christian but my favorite actor is a Muslim.

Clearly I am the COMPLETE opposite of what he said! How DARE he stand up there and preach to me about how wrong "my" stereotypes are when he's obviously stereotyping me?!

So now my dilemma is whether I go to his office and TELL HIM that he offended me, or sit down and take it because as much as I'd like to believe he's above messing with my grades, I also believed he was above using politics in the classroom.

Because I don't want to blow this out of proportion, but at the same time I'm entirely sick of sitting down and taking insults right to my face.

EDIT:

The following is an e-mail I sent to my professor:
Hi professor L,

(some questions about our upcoming midterm)

Also, I wanted to let you know that some of your comments in lecture yesterday about immigration offended me. As someone who has family who work for Border Patrol and someone who supports immigration laws (including Arizona’s), I resent the implication that my beliefs are “making it hard to be a brown person in America right now.” Just because I believe in immigration laws and deporting illegal immigrants does not mean I dislike Hispanics or Mexicans. I have many Hispanic friends that I love dearly, including a friend who is a legal resident alien from Mexico and a roommate and close friend who is a naturalized citizen originally from Cuba.

Additionally, as someone who considers herself outside of the “liberal multicultural setting of the university,” I resent the assumption that I am a member of that community and the implication that “most of America” outside of that community is prejudiced against Hispanics and Muslims.

I don’t understand how an argument in favor of writing stories that break stereotypes can be based on a generalization about the beliefs of “most of America” or most of America “outside of the liberal multicultural setting of the university.” Forgive me if I’m wrong, but that seems fairly stereotypical to me.

EDIT TWO:

For all of that, this was his response:
"Caitlin,

Thanks for the comments. I apologize."
[identity profile] dark-weezing.livejournal.com
The Subject line says it all, and Allahpundit will guide you in. I'm just not up for the rest, at the moment. Per the memorial service that's currently running, I'll just wait for the talking heads to opine. (If anyone wishes to use the entry to discuss on such, fine by me.)

Link: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/12/palin-aide-shes-getting-death-threats-at-unprecedented-levels/

Exit quotation: "Now, let’s see tomorrow how the media and the left react to this story. There’ll be three responses, I assume. One: “Hey, maybe we should tone down the rhetoric on Palin before she gets shot.” If so much as one person offers that, consider it a victory. Two: “I condemn the threats, but we can’t be held responsible for the actions of crazies.” That’s actually the right answer, I think, or at least it would be if they’d been criticizing her for something she’d actually done. Having invented the Loughner connection out of thin air, though? Nope. Three: “She’s lying, either to turn down the heat on herself and earn sympathy or because she enjoys the media spotlight.” Mind you, there’s actual documentary evidence of some of the threats, but this will be the default explanation anyway thanks to the magical civility gene that makes liberals who are mentally ill somehow utterly immune to the worst rhetorical excesses. Demonize Palin all you want — have Paul Krugman and Frank Rich scream in the face of an untreated schizophrenic that she’s the prophesied antichrist — and it won’t motivate him a bit, because even deranged liberals are ultimately too smart and civilized to do anything wingnutty like take a shot at someone. That, as best as I understand it, is the going theory for why the left’s endless casual assertions about the basic malevolence of the right — racist, sexist, fascist, plutocratic, 50 times a day in assertions great and small — can be shrugged off as harmless to even the most diseased sympathetic mind. “Only fruitcakes” would act on stuff like that. Right, Jared?"
[identity profile] writerspleasure.livejournal.com
we know what your reaction would have been if sarah palin had said this about giffords:

"Instead of running [to represent Arizona] they ought to have her and shoot her. Put her against the wall and shoot her."

and you would have been right. and i know that a number of people here, i among them, would have been with you. shooting innocent persons is a violation of their individual rights, their liberty, and individual liberty is precious to us.

okay, so: to use your favorite locution: where were you when this was said -

"Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have [Rick Scott] and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."

who said that? the terrifying teabagger paul kanjorski. y'know, the guy who airily opined in the new york times op-ed page yesterday: "it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." "Paul E. Kanjorski (born April 2, 1937) is the former U.S. Representative for Pennsylvania's 11th congressional district, serving from 1985 until 2011. He is a member of the Democratic Party. The district includes the cities of Scranton, Wilkes-Barre, and Hazleton, as well as most of the Poconos." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Kanjorski

where were you there? no targeting marks. no "hidden threat of violence beneath the surface" (the best kind of violence - the kind that doesn't manifest yet can be used against your political opponent). an open call to assassinate a political opponent.

now listen to kanjorski's excuse. it is priceless: Reached by phone Tuesday, Kanjorski said "only fruitcakes" would take his statement about Scott literally. The 73-year-old Democrat from Nanticoke, who this fall lost in his bid for a 14th term representing the 11th Congressional District, admitted he's well known for using "colorful language." "I probably would never have made the statement if I anticipated anything like this happening," Kanjorski said. "It was obviously not in humor, but not literally."

- http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/kanjorski-only-fruitcakes-would-take-my-call-shoot-governor-liter

don't like the washington examiner? let's use the notorious tea party rag, the wall street journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704803604576077892006683586.html

so when a democrat openly calls for assassination, it's just "colorful language" that "only a fruitcake" (!!!) would be influenced by - and that makes it okay. but targeting marks of the same order used by dems - by the way, surveyors shoot a line - those have magical demon powers when used by sarah palin.

okay, leftists. so where were you? how many crazies is kanjorski's call for assassination influencing right now, and how will it come out? how many crazies are being influenced by your frothing about bushitler, end of the world, global uninhabitability, etc.? and what are you going to do about - by your own premises - your own responsibility for violence.

answer. now. rationalize away kanjorski's call for assassination and your own utter lack of response. explain to us the subtle ways in which a democrat's call for murder is A-OK.
[identity profile] dark-weezing.livejournal.com
Georgetown University's Michael Eric Dyson has apparently observed the double standard between Harry Reid's "Negro dialect" comments vs. your standard White Republican saying such things. Whenever a black leftist like Dyson speaks such truth, you have to take note. Good for Dyson. I wish more could take from this example, here.

Link: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/01/11/black-professor-obama-runs-race-black-man-runs-cop

Profile

therightfangirl: (Default)
The Right Fangirl

May 2017

S M T W T F S
 12345 6
789 10 111213
14 15 1617181920
2122 2324252627
28293031   

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 06:49 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios