A little Chick Fil A dittie... A little Chick Fil A dittie...
Bass Fishing Home PageTM    Other Topics  


Boating Equip.
Tackle Shops
Fishing Acc.


Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Boat Ramp Stories
Other Topics
Other Fishing Topics
Swap/Sell (no boats)
Props 4 Sale

Boats 4 Sale
Saltwater Fishing
Striped Bass
Lure Making
OBX Wildlife Photos
More Politics

Other Topics

    A little Chick Fil A dittie...
from Joe J #10528 #10528  
8/4/2012 1:08:18 PM


 Came up with this Wednesday nite after the support day. I'd like to send this out as a long distance dedication to the mayors of Washington DC, Boston, and Obama's old buddy, Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago...all of whom vowed to exclude Chick Fil A from their city because CFA was...excluding people. Really?

Sing this to the tune of "Yesterday" ( apologies to Paul McCartney)...

Chick Fil A, thousands came and ate with you today
They must have had something to say
That they agree, with Chick Fil A

Suddenly, a chicken isnt what it used to be
It's now a symbol of what you can say
And you can thank
Chick Fil A

Why'd we have to go
Down this road on that Wednesday
Dan said something "wrong"
as the boss of Chick Fil A - ay - ay -ay

Chick Fil A, dont they know your closed on all Sundays?
Those mayors hate you for your different ways
Wish they could taste
Your fried fillets
then they'd stop hating Chick Fil A

( humming)mmm mmm mmm mmm, mmm mmm-mmm

Rate this message:
1 Star

2 Star

3 Star

4 Star

5 Star

   Nice Joe! Love it!. from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/4/2012 3:31:26 PM
Don't apologize to Paul, PETA's poster boy. He should eat more chicken. Especially in light of Linda's healthy vegan lifestyle that kept her on the topsoil right up until the ripe old age of 56. Took a dirt-nap and inspired PETA's Linda McCartney memorial award. Eat weeds and die young. Nice. My granny ate meat all her life and lived spunky till she was 90.

Joe, thought of you and your musical talents the other night. I performed at the Roxy, where Elvis actually performed years and years ago. They had an Elvis impersonator there. He was pretty good. Really great place. You need to come do that one. Lol.

   Question for Joe J from Brad  8/4/2012 5:14:22 PM
As you well know, the more monogamous a society is the healthier it is, in many ways..

So why does that significant aspect of ss marriage hold so little weight? If the objections were reality based rather than ideologically driven, that would seem to be a great argument for?

Personally, i prefer to live in a world that promotes monogamy as a virtue, the more the better..

   Question for Brad. from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/4/2012 5:36:11 PM
Where do you get that monogamy is a significant aspect of ss marriage? They catch "partners" of ss couples in the city park out there freelancing (free lancing, think about that) all the time! Fags have always had their own "ceremonies" considering themselves married outside of the law, but that never stopped them from sleeping around. Just because you don't cheat on your partner don't mean it isn't going on big time.

Cripes, when I played music for a living I knew (still know) many many lesbians. Many of them considered themselves "couples" and lived together. A lot of them are "lipstick lesbos" (by their own description) - hot college girls whom you'd never guess just by looking. But they swap each other all the time. I never knew who was going to wake up with who. And they all have big dogs. How is that healthy?


Edited 8/4/2012 5:45:12 PM

   There you go again Troy from JohnM  8/4/2012 5:59:15 PM
Putting FACTS out there. Brad doesn't deal well with FACTS.

I bet his little world is slap full of blue flags.


   The actual stats for a "Committed homosexual" from Hutch #10968 #10968  8/4/2012 6:54:07 PM
Couple is 9 to 60 MONTHS......that's right..... MONTHS..... and as TJ says they consider themselves a "couple" if they go out publically and spend more time with one partner than they do the other partners they have., It is all BS and HIV/Aids is on the rise again..... because of "freestyling" younger homosexuals.... Brad, did you know that homosexuals have more sex partners and more unknown sex partners than ANY OTHER DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP IN THE WORLD???? No... you wouldn't know that....... would you motor mouth....?? Hutch

Edited 8/4/2012 6:56:11 PM

Edited 8/4/2012 7:33:58 PM

Edited 8/4/2012 7:35:19 PM

Edited 8/4/2012 7:36:24 PM

   They are reality based from Skipper  8/4/2012 7:07:08 PM
First of all the bible says homosexuality is against gods plan. That trumps the other reasons but there are others

Our financial system is not set up for it at this time. It affects retirement benefits social security benefits survivor benefits and a lot of other dollar based things that are not currently set up for the kind of shock this brings.

Our legal system as it pertains to contract law relationships between people and who is and who isn't considered 1 unit is not ready for this. The confusion as it is now is massive and getting worse. If you want to make it leagal then 99% of our laws would have to be rewritten

It goes against what is acceptable by the vast majority of people. I don't want your perversion shoved down my throat.

Lastly 2 bulls can not produce a calf. Biologically it doesn't work.

   Neither can two cows Skipper... from ButchT  8/4/2012 8:44:59 PM
Just sayin'.... :)

Edited 8/4/2012 8:45:29 PM

   hey Brad, agree with the above... from Joe J #10528 #10528  8/5/2012 2:13:03 PM
The CFA thing really wasnt just about support of God's design for marriage...all those people would not have shown up if the mayors and the cultural elite and "progressives" hadnt started foaming at the mouth and saying they were going to exclude CFA because they were supposedly excluding. Many showed up to support the freedom to run your business they way one sees fit, and against yet more attempted government dictatorship.

Any fight or pushback the liberals/homosexuals feel is entirely of their own making. They started this fight by somehow deciding they know more now in the last 20 years, compared to all of recorded human history.Then when you stand up for what YOU believe in ( as they are doing)or oppose them, they start squealing like little kids on a playground _ " oh, they are being mean to me....haters!"

Gee, can you think of anything that Jews, Muslims and Christians agree on? How about that homosexual behavior is wrong and marriage best is one man and one woman.

   Then why on earth? from Brad  8/5/2012 7:19:23 PM
do jews, muslims and christians have any business telling my government who they can sell a marriage liscense to or not!?

Those people pay property taxes but they can't buy a marriage license and somehow you folks don't see any 'tryanny' or 'loss of rights' that you love to accuse this president of--somehow all the loss of liberty is happening to YOU folks, RIGHT?

Religious freedom does not mean using your religious beliefs to deny other people the same rights that you enjoy simply because you object to how they have an orgasm forcryingoutloud!

the coe revealed his bigoted nature by donating to hate groups and he is experiencing the social backlash-- Personally, i don't put that crap in my body, but if people want to support his bigotry by eating that garbage--more power to them!

i think giving such a damn about someone ELSES sexuality is deviant and unnatural. Then again, you people seem to know one hell of a lot more on the subject than i ever will..

Jesus never said a thing about gays..


   Well Brad. from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/5/2012 9:02:55 PM
Jesus' Father had plenty to say about it. In fact directly addressed the issue. But you've pointed out that you know more than God so, yeah, never mind.

Legal gay marriage would greatly (greatly) increase the number of "legal" marriages in this country. If they can marry legally then they will be divorcing legally and subsequently adding to the divorce overload we already have. Most likely (according to stats) their legal divorce rate would exceed that of heterosexual marriages.

Have you ever read the studies on the cost divorce has to taxpayers? I'll let you Google the studies. Legal divorce issues and "single parenting" complications over gays with children and gays who adopt children would no doubt explode. Why should the taxpayer have to foot those bills? Oh yeah, I forgot, the taxpayer should pay for everything!

Gays have the right to live together, do whatever they want, etc. What's the motive for them to marry legally? The only "rights" legal marriage will give them will be Government funded rights, like child support enforcement, marriage counseling, poverty support, insurance, etc.. Why should people who don't believe it's right for gays to marry be forced to pay for more of that mess?

Marriage must be defined by government for obvious legal reasons. It should not be done because of religious reasons, it should be done based upon a free societies responsible welfare. Sometimes a line has to be drawn. The only reason I can see that gays want the "right" to marry is so that THEY can SUCK more off of the GOVERNMENT welfare TITTY! I think that's the reality. They want benefits alright... at the expense of YOUR wallet! You good with that, Brad? Let me guess... :)

   Where do you draw your line Brad... from Gridleak  8/5/2012 9:16:01 PM

If not at homosexuality then how big a leap is it to say pedophilia or maybe incest?

After all, in your words, it's their choice... and none of our business... right?

While I am not a proponent of "death to homosexuals", and let's face it... one generation will put an end to that line of the gene pool, do not expect me to stand up and support the right to be homosexual and applaud the behavior. I do not see homosexuality as a natural and wholesome sexual activity. I see it as a deviant behavior and not that great a leap to pedophilia and/or incest. If one takes it that far... I'd be willin' to kill you my self.


   I would like to hear one constitutionally based argument against.. from Brad  8/5/2012 10:41:51 PM
about 2,200,000 couples married in 2010 compared to 131K SS marriages which is about 5.9% of all marriges--

statistically insignificant to the overall 'cost' of marriage to the tax payer--not that cost was ever your concern...

Please give us an argument against SS marriage based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment--that's exactly where the question is headed...

And when you can't do that, all we are left with is your very own christian sharia right here in good ol' freedom-loving America!

W. Bradford Wilcox, the director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia, said that marriage had been “in retreat” in the last 40 years and that the decline had accelerated since the recession started in 2008.

“Marriage is less likely to anchor the adult life course,” he told ABC News today. “It’s less likely to ground children’s experience with family life. It plays a less central role as an institution in American life.”

In 1960, 72 percent of U.S. adults age 18 and older were married compared with 51 percent today. The median age when adults decide to finally take that big step is also the highest its ever been for both men and women — 26.5 and 28.7 respectively.

The most dramatic decline in marriage occurred among those 18-29. Just 20 percent of them are now married; 59 percent were married in 1960.

   One more time Dumbazz from Hutch #10968 #10968  8/5/2012 11:09:01 PM

There are about 9 states (and some of them don't know for sure where they stand because states like California had Their state Supreme Court or Federal DISTRICT Courts override the vote of the people) who sanction Gay Marriages or Gay Civil unions....... The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe in Gay Marriages....... SS Marriages are NOT recognized by the United States Government.... and are totally outlawed in most states...... so how in the hell can you even assume that anyone has to explain to you on constitutional grounds ANyTHING.......?? HOMOOSEXUAL MARRIAGE IS AGAINST FEDERAL LAW AND IS AGAINSt THE LAW IN MOST STATES........AND IS A DISGUSTING AND FILTHY LIFESTYLE... WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU REQUIRE AIR HEAD??? Do you not have any idea how stupid you sound when you make statements like the above........>>> ?? Please move to Kooba..... Hutch

   that wasn't quite an argument... from Brad  8/5/2012 11:40:08 PM
remember, this issue has not yet reached the supreme court where it will dissappoint you very much.

You failed to give us ONE argument that was based on the constitution (14th amendment)-- Therefore all you have is an ideology that is nothing but your personal version christian sharia.

If you don't like that characterization, simply give us a legitimate argument against, based on the constitution--

And when you CAN'T do that, you (and others) will resort to childish criticism.

Instead of your usual flannel mouthing, i suggest that you freeking MAN UP and give creedence to your own statements and opinions!

Even as i press you STRAIGHT UP for one lousy constitutional argument against, you won't be able to give us one!

Don't you find that interesting?

i sure do--

another example of what looms huge in the little mind, remains entirely unexplainable in word...

   Tell ya what Bwadley... from Funky  8/6/2012 1:52:12 AM
Why don't you make a constitutionally based argument against pedophilia! And since I know you can't, does that mean it's OK?

It is very easy though to make a case against denying Chick-fil-A the right to do business because someone doesn't like the CEO's religious beliefs. Do the government have the right to close up all the Kabob restaurants and rug stores?

   Two questions for Brad. from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/6/2012 3:50:24 AM
Brad, here is your argument. Where do you see marriage as a fundamental right in the constitution? Where do you find marriage mentioned at all in the US constitution? You assume it's a right. Here's your sign, you have to be licensed to drive, why? Because it's a privilege granted by law, not a right granted by the US constitution. Marriage is not a US constitutional granted right. Right?

Yep, no doubt the issue will wind up in the big court at some point, which brings up question 2. Marriage will ultimately have to be defined in order to legislate it's privilege. In a democracy, does the government (even by the court) have the right to overstep the will of the majority of the people? Since the vast majority of states have voted to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, then action by the court otherwise is out of context with government by the people. Period!

But, as we know, the left is o.k. with that so long as it suits their own agenda. :)

So, here is your constitutional answer. The US constitution DOES grant the right for the PEOPLE to make the law! If the people say marriage is a union between a man and a woman, then that's what it is and the court should NOT be able to overturn it.

If marriage is a right, then I should have the RIGHT to be married to as many women as I want to. ?? Wait, that brings up question 3. Sorry to throw that in on you but you can handle it. Should first cousins have the right to marry? What about brothers and sisters?

There's probably some poor schmuck out there who thinks he has the constitutional right to marry both his boyfriends, all three of his sisters, one of his cousins and his two hot chick neighbors all at the same time. And even his dog. His civil rights are being violated only because he's an animalistic incestuous swinger. Probably works at Disney. :( Don't cry, Brad. (Sniff sniff). Maybe someday your court will grant him that constitutional right he so deserves. :( :(

Edited 8/6/2012 3:58:00 AM

   The purpose of the constitution from Brad  8/6/2012 11:50:00 AM
is to PROTECT the minority from the tyranny of the majority!

No, marriage is not specifically a constitutional right, but its validity will be measured through the prysm of the constitution itself.

There have been hundreds of attempts at amendments--very few have passed. If the american christians are successful in their anti-marriage sharia, it will be the FIRST time in our allustrious history of FREEDOM that the constitution has been used to DENY someone an equal right..

Congratulations freedom-lovers!

Under the equal rights clause, there is no way you can deny any consenting adults the right to marry.

What would you argue?? ******We don't like gays so we don't want them to get married???****** Gay marriage is destroying hetrosexual marriage??? ****** I have this mental construct whereby i believe that the only legitimate bond between two humans is btwn a man and a woman???

What argument will stand up to the test???

here is another relevant aspect of the 'freedom' discussion--i hear time after time that Obama is taking away your rights and liberties--then when i ask someone what freedom or liberty they lost, they get all ticked because they can't come with one!!!

Those are the same people who are actively trying to supress the freedoms of their fellow Americans!!!

Don't you find that to be ultimately ironic, hypocritical???

i sure do~

Why don't we all just concern ourselves with our own lives and BUTT THE HELL OUT OF OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES?!

   was the use of the word butt a pun? from MikeF  8/6/2012 12:14:12 PM
They have the freedom to do what they want. There is no constitution requirement for anyone to recognize or approve of their behavior. DUH

   A ? and an answer for you Brad from DaveT  8/6/2012 8:14:10 PM
Above you asked just what Freedoms has Obummer taken away. Here is just one of many. Under Obummer-care you have to buy health insurance or be taxed. We just lost the Freedom of NOT HAVING to buy health insurance. And Brad can you show me any where in our Constitution where it says you can KILL your baby if you don't want it?

   Lol Brad from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/6/2012 9:43:50 PM
I think you're wrong dude. The purpose of the constitution is to LIMIT government while protecting basic rights. In other words, to protect the people (majority) from the government!

How does a democracy decide what rights and privileges are to be legislated? By putting them on a ballot for a vote! The argument is irrelevant. They did that with most states regarding marriage. Gays lost! But that's not good enough, so gays opt for a dictatorship?

And, you're saying gays and polygamists (consenting adults) should have the right to legally marry who they want? I mean that's what I'm reading through the prism of your post itself.

   Where do you get that $hit? from Funky  8/6/2012 11:17:10 PM
"The purpose of the constitution is to PROTECT the minority from the tyranny of the majority!" IT IS NO SUCH THING! It is to protect ALL citizens... yes, ALL citizens, even CEO's... from not the majority, but the government itself! And you really don't mean majority, now do you? For if you did, that would be the party currently in the White House. You really mean those nasty, ubber-rich, religious fanatical, racist, bigoted, union hating, killers of nature, uncaring Republicans, don't ya?

You really ought to read it bwad... it's mostly about what the government can and cannot do. The word "minority" appears nowhere in the constitution! It's not your liberal Scrabble set to rearrange as suits you!

   Funkytetrahedron- from Brad  8/7/2012 12:30:38 AM
Admittedly, the expression is a little dated, but it has come around in modern times to describe very well the movement against ss marriage--

Minus ANY coherent argument, this issue perfectly illustrates the need to protect the minority--

Its either 'freedom for all' or its not.

Your call:

Troy, you make wild extrapolations that can never exist in reality...

I once heard pure democracy described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for lunch..

   Wild extrapolations, Brad? from TroyJ/Angling Alabama   8/7/2012 1:24:36 PM
Then unextrapolate me by growing some nads and answering the question. If you can't find an argument against gay marriage, then you can't find an argument against legal marriage for polygamists, or any other consenting adults be they brother and brother or whatever. How am I misreading your position? I'd call it a valid extrapolation.

Nobody wants "no government". The constitution was meant to provide limited government. A nation MUST have a defined moral standard in order to remain strong. That standard has been stripped from our country by those who twist the meaning of the word, liberty. Marriage must be defined, and the PEOPLE must define it. And they HAVE! (But you don't get it...) Those who don't accept it can move to another country that does. Simple.

The mayor of Chicago is treasonous. To try to use his power to limit the business of a citizen who did nothing but express his AMERICAN CHRISTIAN FAMILY values is beyond criminal and against the very fundamental foundation of this country. The idiot mayor of Chicago should be impeached.

   Gods Word... from Joe J #10528 #10528  8/7/2012 2:23:45 PM
...is why its wrong. He created humans, and sex, and knows what can happen anytime we step outside His design and plan. You can believe that. Or disbelieve it, at your own risk, and the human wreckage that has resulted over all of recorded human history caused by people NOT sticking to God's design, is overwhelming. How many people have died by keeping sex within God's design parameters? Probably none. How many have died because they did NOT follow His plan? Millions. STD/AIDS. Abortion. Rape. teenage pregnancy. All solely because we live in a sexually broken world.

The proof is in the pudding...lots of huge problems go away or are minimized if the created ( us) simply follow the Creator's design. but we dont. We want OURSELVES on the throne of our lives, not the King of Kings.

And when was the last time you heard, "They divorced because he was faithful to her and didn't cheat on her...". Quick answer - never. Work the plan. It works.

   Allow me to translate... from Funky  8/7/2012 2:59:24 PM
"Admittedly, the expression is a little dated, but it has come around in modern times.." = I made it up, but we liberals do that all the time anymore!

   Excellent arguments, especially Troy from GITTHENET  8/7/2012 6:25:07 PM
and I bet you don't get an answer from Bradiot. For once you've scored, he actually knows it, and he'll just go silent and off to another posting like a fly on c-r-a-p.

He has no counter arguement, Troy, his arguments are purely emotional and lack rational or factual basis. Spending this into a rights issue is ridiculous, and even the civil rights leaders understand and appreciate it.... Great defense...

Edited 8/7/2012 6:30:38 PM

   You'll notice that in regard to my question... from Gridleak  8/7/2012 7:36:11 PM

he didn't draw any line.

Apparently his next agenda is the right to pedophillia and incest.


Edited 8/7/2012 7:37:00 PM



Can't remember your password? Click here!
Email Address:

Users with subscriptions can attach pictures to their comments by using the form at http://www.wmi.org/newboard/upload_pictures/"




Advertising/Sponsor Information

Register to post messages and reports


Subscribers don't receive these ads

Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Upcoming Events
Rally Page
BFHP Surveys
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Other Topics
Product Evaluations

Boat Ramp Stories
Trailers & Towing
Boats For Sale
Tournament Tactics
Striped Bass

Fly Fishing
Saltwater Fishing
Non-Fishing 2
Political Hook
Tall Tales, Fiction & Legend
Complete Listing of Boards
Copyright © WMI, Inc. 1995-2017. All rights reserved.
This message board created and maintained by: WebMasters International, Inc. (WMI) address mail to wmi@wmi.org

WMI disclaimer
Privacy Statement