48
   

Do you boycott certain businesses?

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:35 am
@OmSigDAVID,
jack was speaking of a franchise store owner, as the company is mostly owned by Bain Capital, and they only care about making money.

Rest easy and enjoy their very nasty pizza if you want to and/or can.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:36 am
When Obama wins and Scalia bursts a blood vessel in mid-rant, those who favor original intent will have the chance to reconsider the defective Heller and restore the 2nd Amendment to its true original intent, which was clearly talking solely about arms in relation to militias, not any neo-revisionist individual right. You, sir, are engaging in revisionist activism of the worst sort.
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:37 am
Not a franchise owner, the original owner who built the chain into something of a juggernaut before Bain bought it. He sold it because he wanted to get into setting up another right-wing Christian university, I believe.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:38 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

jack was speaking of a franchise store owner,
as the company is mostly owned by Bain Capital, and they only care about making money.
Sounds good to me: AMERICAN!

hawkeye10 wrote:
Rest easy and enjoy their vary nasty pizza if you want to and/or can.
I 'll give it a shot.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 01:06 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
When Obama wins and Scalia bursts a blood vessel in mid-rant, those who favor original intent will have the chance to reconsider the defective Heller and restore the 2nd Amendment to its true original intent, which was clearly talking solely about arms in relation to militias, not any neo-revisionist individual right. You, sir, are engaging in revisionist activism of the worst sort.
That is really foolish.
I don't wanna get involved in the stupidity of ad hominem rancor with u,
but your post grossly distorts history.
In the HELLER case, the USSC sets forth the evolutionary history of the 2nd Amendment.
We know what the filosofy of the Founders was. Thay were not shy nor bashful
about telling us. Their freedom-loving writings survive in abundance.
( I cud easily re-produce them here n now, if I were less lazy.)
Thay dreaded and opposed what we now call "police forces"
(which did not exist in the USA at the time, nor in colonial times),
preferring that everyone defend himself, individually, as thay had been doing.

For defense from bears, cougars, street criminals, packs of dogs and Indians, each citizen was left to his gun,
the same as his clothes protect him from the cold of winter. James Butler Hickok began to hunt at age 9.
Annie Oakley 's mother sent her out to hunt at age 8.
She became an expert shot. Yes ?

Your posted ideas r Looney Tune fantasy.
James Madison ran many marksmanship competitions, giving prizes.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to his 12 year old nephew cautioning him
to always take his gun with him, when he goes out for a walk; nothing about licensure.
1OO% FREEDOM, not licensure; "equal protection of the laws"
as it was expressed later, in the Constitution. Gunnery licensure was unheard of.

On the Aristotelian square of logical opposition, the 2nd Amendment
is an E proposition: a UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE proposition.
"A well regulated militia [i.e., a private militia] being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." NO exceptions; no apologies
[All emfasis has been added by David.]

If a man were too dangerous, take care of the man.
Forget his tools.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 01:20 am
No, sorry, you're the reinterpretationist. Pre-US English Common Law, which is the law we were under, and formed the foundation for US law, is rife with examples of gun control law, as is post-Constitution 18th and 19th century America, since the 2nd Amend. ONLY applied to militia. The 2nd Amendment, AS IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, is about the militia, which was NOT private but was always under the authority of the civil government, both Colonial and Republic. It was the enforcement arm of civil authority and was directed by that authority. It's function was in lieu of a standing army, and as such had organizational and euqipment needs, and a need to avoid cooptation by any faction, which had happened in England, and which the 2A was designed to prevent. It had NO relationto individual rights. It's only the NRA and similar revisionists in the 20th century who redefined it to fit their own agenda. And you.

And, I might add, we do NOW have police, and they are constitutional, and they are the legal arm of enforcement. You are a proponent of chaos, not domestic tranquility.

OmSigDAVID
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 08:30 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
No, sorry, you're the reinterpretationist.
No. That is false.
The Founders were freedom-loving Individualists like ME,
not collectivistic repressionists like U.
Thay 'd have deemed the NRA to be a wimpy sell-out organization.

I notice that u simply IGNORE
the points that I raised in my last post (Post: # 5,050,185)
because thay disprove your anti-freedom thesis.



MontereyJack wrote:
Pre-US English Common Law, which is the law we were under,
and formed the foundation for US law, is rife with examples of gun control law,
Will u cite to the common law cases u have in mind ?
In any case, anything inconsistent with the Bill of Rights
was voided n nullified when the 2nd Amendment became the Supreme Law of the Land
on December 15th, 1791.





MontereyJack wrote:
as is post-Constitution 18th and 19th century America, since the 2nd Amend. ONLY applied to militia.
That is simply false (tho, I suspect that u r sincere in your error).
As the experts of grammar pointed out,
and the USSC repeatedly accepted, repeatedly citing to them in HELLER, the right of the people (NOT of the militiamen)
to keep and bear arms was free and independent of any service in any militia.
That 's the way it IS.

Back in 1990, in the case of US v. VERDUGO
11O S.Ct. 1O56 (at P. 1O61)
the United States Supreme Court declares that:

"The Second Amendment protects
'the right of the people to keep
and bear arms'".

THE SUPREME COURT THEN PROCEEDS TO DEFINE "THE PEOPLE" AS BEING THE
SAME PEOPLE WHO CAN VOTE TO ELECT THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
EVERY SECOND YEAR. (Notably, one need not join the National Guard
in order to vote for his congressman.) The Court further defined "the people"
to mean those people who have a right peaceably to assemble [1st Amendment]
and those who have the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures [4th Amendment]
in their persons houses, papers and effects (personal rights, not rights of states,
as the authoritarian-collectivists allege of the 2nd Amendment).
THE COURT HELD THAT THE TERM "THE PEOPLE" MEANS THE SAME THING
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1787, AND
EVERYWHERE THAT IT IS FOUND IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

In VERDUGO (supra), the Court indicated that the same people are protected
by the First, SECOND, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments;
i.e. THE PEOPLE who can speak & worship freely can keep and bear arms.
Note that: the Court RELIED upon its definition of "the people".
Its decision in the VERDUGO case is founded upon that definition, so
that stare decisis attaches, thus creating binding judicial precedent,
explaining WHO THE PEOPLE ARE who have the said rights.
VERDUGO was re-affirmed by the USSC in HELLER.



MontereyJack wrote:
The 2nd Amendment, AS IT SAYS SPECIFICALLY, is about the militia, which was NOT private
but was always under the authority of the civil government, both Colonial and Republic.
That is historically false.
There existed some government sponsored militia (called "selected militia")
as those indicated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution
and there were private, volunteer militia as contemplated by the 2nd Amendment,
like volunteer fire dept.s or volunteer libraries. Remember: there were NO POLICE back then.

(Its funny. Around 1845, when police dept.s came into being
in NY City, 2 of them were created and thay went to war with each other.)




MontereyJack wrote:
It was the enforcement arm of civil authority and was directed by that authority. It's function was in lieu of a standing army, and as such had organizational and euqipment needs, and a need to avoid cooptation by any faction, which had happened in England, and which the 2A was designed to prevent. It had NO relationto individual rights. It's only the NRA and similar revisionists in the 20th century who redefined it to fit their own agenda. And you.
See my refutations above.

MontereyJack wrote:
And, I might add, we do NOW have police, and they are constitutional, and they are the legal arm of enforcement.
The advent of police has no effect on anyone's Constitutional rights.
Thay remain intact.



MontereyJack wrote:
You are a proponent of chaos, not domestic tranquility.
I strive to subject government to the might
of its creator, the Individual citizen.

If u check FBI annual crime statistics,
u 'll find that the State of Vermont has always
had very, very low violent crime. Vermont has never adopted any
anti-gun laws, yet it has no "chaos", as u chose to put it.

Let America be the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.





David
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 08:41 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

I refused for years to get a pizza from Domino's because their owner was a far-right uber-Christian anti-abortion zealot. Guess my chicken is never gonna be Chick-Fil-A. Seems to me once the Burlington Mall CFA had some sort of promo deal on and I ate there once or twice, and it wasn't bad. Never again now, tho.

Domino's is on my list, along with Cracker Barrel restaurants (discriminate against gay employees), Brawny towels and other products made by Georgia Pacific (owned by the Koch brothers), and several others. Don't have any chance to boycott Chick-Fil-A, since they're not in the Chicago area.
Green Witch
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 09:14 am
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:

I refused for years to get a pizza from Domino's because their owner was a far-right uber-Christian anti-abortion zealot. Guess my chicken is never gonna be Chick-Fil-A. Seems to me once the Burlington Mall CFA had some sort of promo deal on and I ate there once or twice, and it wasn't bad. Never again now, tho.

Domino's is on my list, along with Cracker Barrel restaurants (discriminate against gay employees), Brawny towels and other products made by Georgia Pacific (owned by the Koch brothers), and several others. Don't have any chance to boycott Chick-Fil-A, since they're not in the Chicago area.


Domino's is on my list and they make it easy because their products are disgusting. Same for Grease Barrel. I stopped donating anything to the Boy Scouts the first time they went homophobic and I will continue to ignore their pleas for things our business normally donates to such groups. Sometimes the problem I have is I already do not buy the types of products these companies offer and I will have no impact on their bottom line no matter what my feelings are about their prejudices and politics.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 09:43 am
Well, there's Wal-Mart, of course. McDonalds and Taco Bell. A handful of others that I can't think of off the top of my head. I mostly base my boycott decisions on whether or not the company even attempts to pay it's workers or supply chain a fair wage.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 10:27 am
I would not boycott Chick-Fil-A over this, after all I dont support the idea that Gays can be Married either, but it might not be a bad business move. The only part of their business which has risk here is their contracts with Universities and their participation in Football. Most of the stores though are in the Bible belt, and I am pretty sure that most people who live there are tolerant of Christians and of Christian views, even when they come from fast food owners. The Gays who live in the Gay Mecca known as as ST Pete can all stay away and nobody would care.

BTW: I am also very sick and tired of this impulse to punish people for exercising their free will and free speech rights. I can work and live with almost anybody, and I would like to see more people making more of an effort to be tolerant and in good humor.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 10:40 am
There are Chick-Fil-As in Burlington and Peabody, within twenty miles of me in the Boston area, and Boston mayor Tom Menino has vowed to keep a Chick-Fil-A store out of the city. The Bible Belt can go stuff itself, the company is gonna be screwed in the rest of the country. Deservedly so.

hawkeye say:
Quote:
BTW: I am also very sick and tired of this impulse to punish people for exercising their free will and free speech rights. I can work and live with almost anybody, and I would like to see more people making more of an effort to be tolerant and in good humor.


I suggest you tell the owner of Chick-Fil-A about being tolerant. He doesn't seem to understand the principle.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 11:12 am
@MontereyJack,
well if they had one near fenway park, the players may keep them in business...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 11:43 am
@Cycloptichorn,
That's why I won't set foot in Starbucks. They've got a miserable record re treatment of employees.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:06 pm
@MontereyJack,
Being opposed to redefining marriage is not an example of intolorance....being opposed to gays or to gay unions would be an example of intolorance. As I said a couple of year ago my belief is that the collective has the right to discourage homosexuality and it is not clear that we should stop discouraging it, so intolorance of homosexuality even where it really exists might be right.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Being opposed to redefining marriage is not an example of intolorance


Sure is a sign of intolerance. Not surprised that you disagree, tho.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:09 pm
I've inadvertently boycotted chik fil a. But that was because their sammiches suck and they charge more than it's worth to me. Mrs45 likes it though. Good to have some ammo in my back pocket now.

Btw, from the way you guys describe it, I believe I want to move to St Pete.
0 Replies
 
Atom Blitzer
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:13 pm
@jcboy,
Yup, strip clubs, cause I'm underage.
0 Replies
 
JeffreyEqualityNewma
 
  3  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 12:58 pm
@hawkeye10,
When the gay community boycotts a company isn’t just the gays in a certain city, we have watch groups that notify our community of anti-gay establishments. What city is your restaurant in so we can add it to the list?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jul, 2012 02:25 pm
@JeffreyEqualityNewma,
JeffreyEqualityNewma wrote:

When the gay community boycotts a company isn’t just the gays in a certain city, we have watch groups that notify our community of anti-gay establishments. What city is your restaurant in so we can add it to the list?


You seem to be very confused....not only am I not hostile to gays personally but I tend to hire gays as I want an edgy vibe in my place and also arty people have been my best employees for some reason. On my last job my second was a very open and fairly militant gay prider lesbian, and we had a fantastic working relationship...I knew where she stood and she knew where I stood and we both knew that we were at a business to get business done and furthermore we liked and respected each other. There was no problem as we are both tolerant people. Politics are only a relationship killer if people allow this to happen.

BTW, my business takes no position on gay marriage.

So please explain to me why gays or pro gay marriage people should consider boycotting my business.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/05/2020 at 04:54:20