Chick-Fil-A Make A Chick-Fil-A Chicken Sandwich At Home

Sure, I'm not saying all US conservative positions come from Christianity. But from an outsider's perspective, it seems there would be very few US conservatives who don't identify as Christians or religious in some form, and that those people would generally describe their politics and their religion as closely linked.

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to really comment fairly, but I don't imagine his libertarianism is anything approaching a mainstream position. Conservatives like to make a lot of noise about libertarian values, but the mainstream will always go for someone like Romney.

As to whether he's a conservative or not - depends on how you define it, but he's definitely rabidly right-wing. Right-libertarians are generally frothing shitheads.

Yeah, it's mostly a Christian view. Most Christians seem to think that it's wrong for the government to take people's hard earned money, but it's really astounding how non-Biblical (actually anti-Biblical) these ideas are. One because in Christianity God owns everything, two because there is no "self-made man" because God created everything and thus we don't deserve what we have, and three because Jesus specifically tells people to pay their taxes. I'd understand it if it was because they thought that it would improve the economy and make life better, but I think their reasons are a little more greedy than that.

The ironic thing is most of these "Christian Conservatives" (aka Republicans) are usually the ones that get caught with children, turn out to be secretly gay and are caught soliciting sex in airport bathrooms, or turn out to be the worst kind of deviants that publicly they denounce and pledge to protect us from...

omg joyrex are you categorising gay people with paedophiles and 'the worst kind of deviants'?

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:28 PM, Joyrex said:

The ironic thing is most of these "Christian Conservatives" (aka Republicans) are usually the ones that get caught with children, turn out to be secretly gay and are caught soliciting sex in airport bathrooms, or turn out to be the worst kind of deviants that publicly they denounce and pledge to protect us from...

Yeah but they can ask God for forgiveness and pray away the sin afterwards. They can then say in a liberal, secular humanist society they'd be encouraged to be deviants. It's such a convenient belief system, quite brilliant and evil really. As Hoodie pointed out:

  On 8/3/2012 at 1:35 AM, Hoodie said:

christianity in the united states has a long history of trying to make people feel shame and self-hatred using sexuality. it serves them to make homosexuality "forbidden" because it makes a convenient outgroup that they can demonize and allows manipulation of parishioners through promises of redemption for the filthy sin of having you privates tingle when you look at someone of the same sex. tsk tsk.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:33 PM, keltoi said:

omg joyrex are you categorising gay people with paedophiles and 'the worst kind of deviants'?

No, of course not - I'm just saying these supposedly 'pure' idiots turn out to be the very things they rail against and denounce. Not putting them in the same group at all. Sorry if that came across wrong.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:28 PM, gmanyo said:

Yeah, it's mostly a Christian view. Most Christians seem to think that it's wrong for the government to take people's hard earned money, but it's really astounding how non-Biblical (actually anti-Biblical) these ideas are. One because in Christianity God owns everything, two because there is no "self-made man" because God created everything and thus we don't deserve what we have, and three because Jesus specifically tells people to pay their taxes. I'd understand it if it was because they thought that it would improve the economy and make life better, but I think their reasons are a little more greedy than that.

Left-wing Christianity, Christian communism and Christian anarchism are really interesting to me. It certainly seems more scriptural than Christian conservatism a la Chick-fil-A, but while most of the practitioners are well-meaning I still think they're ultimately deluded. It's an inherently authoritarian religion.

I read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy not too long ago which was a proposal for a kind Christian anarcho-pacifism - a big influence on Gandhi apparently. Real anarchists (I don't count myself as one btw) hate it though.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:03 PM, Iain C said:

Sure, I'm not saying all US conservative positions come from Christianity. But from an outsider's perspective, it seems there would be very few US conservatives who don't identify as Christians or religious in some form, and that those people would generally describe their politics and their religion as closely linked.

 

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to really comment fairly, but I don't imagine his libertarianism is anything approaching a mainstream position. Conservatives like to make a lot of noise about libertarian values, but the mainstream will always go for someone like Romney.

 

As to whether he's a conservative or not - depends on how you define it, but he's definitely rabidly right-wing. Right-libertarians are generally frothing shitheads.

Ron Paul is a laid back, moderate paleoconservative. He's more libertarian than the GOP (on foreign policy and drugs especially), less bigoted and mean-spirited than people like Pat Buchanan, less conspiracy oriented than Alex Jones, more fringe economically than most legislators but also more educated on the economy than most corrupt Republicans. He appeals to a lot of decent people who are more libertarian or sincerely anti-government, but his rhetoric inspired much of the now raging populist far-right movement, co-opted by the GOP, that is the Tea Party. I've liked him because he's very hands off, even though is a bit of a social conservative in his personal life he has never proposed or voted for social conservative legislation. He rarely votes for any legislation. I don't agree with him as anywhere near much as many of his rapid fans, but he's consistent and sincere, and that's rare in American politics. The fact that he openly changed his mind on "don't ask, don't tell" and continues to oppose any military spending and overseas military operations pisses a lot of the GOP off. It'll be a letdown not having him in office anymore for that reason. I'd want a moderate pragmatist to take his seat, but it'll likely be another do-nothing anti-Obama Tea Party Republican. I hope I'm wrong.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:28 PM, gmanyo said:

Yeah, it's mostly a Christian view. Most Christians seem to think that it's wrong for the government to take people's hard earned money, but it's really astounding how non-Biblical (actually anti-Biblical) these ideas are. One because in Christianity God owns everything, two because there is no "self-made man" because God created everything and thus we don't deserve what we have, and three because Jesus specifically tells people to pay their taxes. I'd understand it if it was because they thought that it would improve the economy and make life better, but I think their reasons are a little more greedy than that.

I know for one that maintaining debt is considered a big sin as well, which is why suddenly the US national debt is suddenly a huge deal to right-wing Christian conservatives. See, it was excusable when W was fighting Muslim terrorists, but as soon as a black, possibly not even devoutly religious, liberal president was elected the National debt morphed into some kind of tangible evil threat to our "freedom."

i have a q about ron paul etc. it seems hes all "states rights" so does that mean that if you happen to live in a state that wants to execute gays etc its tough tittys for you?

isn't he a drag queen?

lol

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:53 PM, joshuatx said:

I've liked him because he's very hands off, even though is a bit of a social conservative in his personal life he has never proposed or voted for social conservative legislation.

Is that true? It's just that I'm reading otherwise: http://dneiwert.blog...n-congress.html

Anyway, I can see why he appeals to people on the left. There's basically no-one else challenging the pro-war, pro-drug war consensus et al. But that's no reason to jump into bed with him, at the end of the day he's still a free market conservative whose primary concern is man's right to make a profit out of man.

Libertarians want to do away with the 'tyranny' of the state but don't seem to realise the real tyranny comes from what the state's sole purpose is to support: ie, capitalism. Captialism doesn't become friendly and fair when you remove the state from the equation.

Sorry for the derail btw. We can get back to gay chickens now.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:57 PM, RichieBees said:

i have a q about ron paul etc. it seems hes all "states rights" so does that mean that if you happen to live in a state that wants to execute gays etc its tough tittys for you?

It's a cop-out. I honestly feel it's his worst trait. He's not someone who would support that obviously, or say, vote for discriminatory laws, but he's so strictly Constitutionalist that he doesn't want to tackle a lot of those issues, at least not publicly.

  On 8/3/2012 at 5:06 PM, Iain C said:

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:53 PM, joshuatx said:

I've liked him because he's very hands off, even though is a bit of a social conservative in his personal life he has never proposed or voted for social conservative legislation.

 

Is that true? It's just that I'm reading otherwise: http://dneiwert.blog...n-congress.html

 

Anyway, I can see why he appeals to people on the left. There's basically no-one else challenging the pro-war, pro-drug war consensus et al. But that's no reason to jump into bed with him, at the end of the day he's still a free market conservative whose primary concern is man's right to make a profit out of man.

 

Libertarians want to do away with the 'tyranny' of the state but don't seem to realise the real tyranny comes from what the state's sole purpose is to support: ie, capitalism. Captialism doesn't become friendly and fair when you remove the state from the equation.

 

Sorry for the derail btw. We can get back to gay chickens now.

Yeah, all of those bills are basically blanket attacks on Federalism. They're symbolic mostly, and absurd legally. He's also very pro-life, as that post highlights, which is another reason I can't support him fully.

Libertarianism is logical only in very hypothetical discussions. I'm too pragmatic to subscribe to it, even though at my core I appreciate it's utmost focus on individual liberty. It's not grounded in reality. Tea Party ideology, even you can even try to describe it as an ideology, is even more detached and contradictory. I've never seen so many people duped into supporting corporate-government hegemony, anti-liberty legislation, and outright corruption - it's like a really eerie Simpsons plot.

I'll say this, Paul is still a generally nicer person than the scumbags he ran against in the primary. The pure vitriol that the GOP is fueling itself with is disturbing. Incumbent Republicans are actually losing seats because they've simply signed bi-partisan legislation. In Texas, the Republican speaker of the state congress had opponents who questioned his "leadership" because he was Jewish. There's a lot of true hatred simmering below the surface. I think it's highlighted here:

Sorry, ok NOW back to chicken sandwich bullshit.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:38 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:33 PM, keltoi said:

omg joyrex are you categorising gay people with paedophiles and 'the worst kind of deviants'?

 

No, of course not - I'm just saying these supposedly 'pure' idiots turn out to be the very things they rail against and denounce. Not putting them in the same group at all. Sorry if that came across wrong.

i know. jus' messin'.

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:41 PM, Iain C said:

  On 8/3/2012 at 4:28 PM, gmanyo said:

Yeah, it's mostly a Christian view. Most Christians seem to think that it's wrong for the government to take people's hard earned money, but it's really astounding how non-Biblical (actually anti-Biblical) these ideas are. One because in Christianity God owns everything, two because there is no "self-made man" because God created everything and thus we don't deserve what we have, and three because Jesus specifically tells people to pay their taxes. I'd understand it if it was because they thought that it would improve the economy and make life better, but I think their reasons are a little more greedy than that.

 

Left-wing Christianity, Christian communism and Christian anarchism are really interesting to me. It certainly seems more scriptural than Christian conservatism a la Chick-fil-A, but while most of the practitioners are well-meaning I still think they're ultimately deluded. It's an inherently authoritarian religion.

 

I read "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy not too long ago which was a proposal for a kind Christian anarcho-pacifism - a big influence on Gandhi apparently. Real anarchists (I don't count myself as one btw) hate it though.

It amazes me that people hold the opinion that the Bible is of a unified stance on all things.

The Bible, the cornerstone of Christianity, is most decidedly not humanist nor pacifist.

I bring you: Leviticus! Where women, witches, and psychics are to be burnt at the stake, stoned to death, and all men can never trim their facial hair.

I know Christians are quick to respond to this with: "Oh but Jesus came to overturn all of these laws." If that is the case, the Bible is inherently contradictory, and if your premise of belief is founded in an infallible God, you prove yourself wrong simply by believing it.

The Bible is crazy. That is why crazy people use it in political debate.

You will need:

2-slabs of bread

1-package of panko crumbs

1-bottle of mayonnaise-based chipotle sauce

1-small package of romaine lettuce

1-hot house tomato

1-bible

(vegetables may be substituted for piety, hypocrisy, and a general "holier-than-anything" attitude)

Hey 1-36 how's things working out for you? You amicable with yr wife now?

(Drunk and asking personal questions)

she's at chick-fil-a with her new bf

I was thinking i'd maybe got too personal but tauboo made me look tame. Ta Tauboo and don't you dare edit!

http://youtu.be/FSTMedpnZEE

The irony:

This is the best thing that could have happen to Chick-Fil-A, people protesting and boycotting the restaurant was the best free publicity a restaurant owner could have hoped for, i bet they never sold this many chicken.

And all the money they made these last couple of weeks (thanks to the free advertisement) will be used to support anti-gay groups.

lol?

  On 8/4/2012 at 3:12 AM, YO303 said:

lol?

  On 8/4/2012 at 3:12 AM, YO303 said:

The irony:

 

This is the best thing that could have happen to Chick-Fil-A, people protesting and boycotting the restaurant was the best free publicity a restaurant owner could have hoped for, i bet they never sold this many chicken.

And all the money they made these last couple of weeks (thanks to the free advertisement) will be used to support anti-gay groups.

 

lol?

the increase in business will be temporary, whereas the customers leaving over this debacle will most likely stay away for good.

Still free advertising. I've never wanted to eat at Chick-fil-A until all this happened and I saw that recipe thing.

im confused, you saw the recipe to make Chik Fila in your home, so you are now going out to buy Chik-Fil-A at the restaurant?