(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.

For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.

For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

(05-01-2019 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

I've read them. I'm trying to figure out what in them gives rise to such a big fuss. On their face, they do not strike me as justifying such.

(05-01-2019 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

I've read them. I'm trying to figure out what in them gives rise to such a big fuss. On their face, they do not strike me as justifying such.

If you read them, then I think you'll find that we're all in agreement that there shouldn't be a big fuss. So I'm not sure why you're asking us what the fuss is about, when we don't think there should be one.

(05-01-2019 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

I've read them. I'm trying to figure out what in them gives rise to such a big fuss. On their face, they do not strike me as justifying such.

If you read them, then I think you'll find that we're all in agreement that there shouldn't be a big fuss. So I'm not sure why you're asking us what the fuss is about, when we don't think there should be one.

Well, I don't think a thread with 84 responses constitutes "not a fuss." That's all.

(05-01-2019 01:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 01:14 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 01:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 12:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

Reread the posts referenced.

I've read them. I'm trying to figure out what in them gives rise to such a big fuss. On their face, they do not strike me as justifying such.

If you read them, then I think you'll find that we're all in agreement that there shouldn't be a big fuss. So I'm not sure why you're asking us what the fuss is about, when we don't think there should be one.

Well, I don't think a thread with 84 responses constitutes "not a fuss." That's all.

Well, about 10 or 15 of those posts are about this very inane topic.

Some were about discrimination in service in general, including my questions to Tanq about the difference in those providing services and those procuring them.

A number of posts were about The Hoot itself, and how it is structured, and whether it is representative of Rice.

You’ll actually find very little fuss about what CFA did and the majority about what The Hoot did, and whether it was right, wrong, allowable, not allowable, etc.

Maybe you should go back through the thread to understand what those 84 posts actually discuss, as opposed to trying to bait people into responding to a stance they haven’t advocated?

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.

For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

What if your market research told you that your customers -- 18 to 21-year-old college students at an elite private university -- were, collectively, decidedly to the left of left, fashionably woke, and prone to being intolerant of others with opposing or even neutral ("silence is complicity!") views? What if it told you that merely offering CFA as just one option among many was nevertheless enough to cause some of these potential customers not to patronize you at all?

If you had the contract to run the PX at Fort Hood, would you still carry Mother Jones and the Daily Worker in your magazine rack?

(05-01-2019 02:01 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.

For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

What if your market research told you that your customers -- 18 to 21-year-old college students at an elite private university -- were, collectively, decidedly to the left of left, fashionably woke, and prone to being intolerant of others with opposing or even neutral ("silence is complicity!") views? What if it told you that merely offering CFA as just one option among many was nevertheless enough to cause some of these potential customers not to patronize you at all?

If you had the contract to run the PX at Fort Hood, would you still carry Mother Jones and the Daily Worker in your magazine rack?

We also have no idea how well the sandwiches were selling.

Maybe they were a net loser somehow, and The Hoot is using this as a way to get more support while dumping a losing late-night food option?

I will say, CFA doesn't exactly hold up well - those sandwiches at the football game are always a little off since they don't keep their crunch.

(05-01-2019 02:01 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

What if your market research told you that your customers -- 18 to 21-year-old college students at an elite private university -- were, collectively, decidedly to the left of left, fashionably woke, and prone to being intolerant of others with opposing or even neutral ("silence is complicity!") views? What if it told you that merely offering CFA as just one option among many was nevertheless enough to cause some of these potential customers not to patronize you at all?
If you had the contract to run the PX at Fort Hood, would you still carry Mother Jones and the Daily Worker in your magazine rack?

I don't know what their market research told them. Knowing that it involved Rice students, I wouldn't doubt that they had information similar to what you suggest. If you had that information, then it's certainly a reasonable decision.

As I said, it's a business decision, just like other business decisions. From CFA's point of view, if that's the market research, I don't know why they would want to come on campus. They can sell plenty of chicken elsewhere.

(05-01-2019 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:01 PM)illiniowl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:41 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:29 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 11:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, once again, what is the problem with CFA? Anybody, since Lad is dodging the question.

Dodging the question? Come on. Read his most recent response.
The issue was with their historical backing of entities that could be read as homophobic and/or against same-sex marriage.
The recent article references three entities that CFA has recently supported that some segment of the population still sees as problematic. This is likely a very tiny fraction of the population and all "leftists" on this board to date don't seem to have a problem with these entities.

So, to repeat OO's question, what is the problem with CFA? If it is true that only a tiny fraction of the population sees certain entities that they support as problematic, and nobody on this board has a problem with those agencies, as you allege, then who does have a sufficient problem to justify such action? I agree that Hoot has every right not to do business with CFA, but I think the whole issue is stupid. Let them in, and let the market decide, would be my approach.
For my part, I plan to find the closest CFA to the Rice campus, and if I'm at any event campus during meal time, I will show up with my CFA take-away bag of food.

What if your market research told you that your customers -- 18 to 21-year-old college students at an elite private university -- were, collectively, decidedly to the left of left, fashionably woke, and prone to being intolerant of others with opposing or even neutral ("silence is complicity!") views? What if it told you that merely offering CFA as just one option among many was nevertheless enough to cause some of these potential customers not to patronize you at all?
If you had the contract to run the PX at Fort Hood, would you still carry Mother Jones and the Daily Worker in your magazine rack?

I don't know what their market research told them. Knowing that it involved Rice students, I wouldn't doubt that they had information similar to what you suggest. If you had that information, then it's certainly a reasonable decision.

As I said, it's a business decision, just like other business decisions. From CFA's point of view, if that's the market research, I don't know why they would want to come on campus. They can sell plenty of chicken elsewhere.

It would be helpful to know how The Hoot runs and what its mission is. The Hoot is a Student Run Business that resells food from vendors in the area to students in the evening, after the serveries close and there are no other options on campus besides CoffeeHouse and Pub (unless something has been added since I've been on campus). It doesn't open until 8 PM and stays open until 1 AM Sun to Wednesdays, and a little later on Thursday. They occupy a space in the RMC (they used to set up in the Duncan/McMurtury servery). They currently sell Domino's Cane's, Whataburger, and Les Givrals.

When it was started, The Hoot would pre-purchase all food from its vendors, so any waste at the end of the night was a direct hit to their bottom line. I'm not sure if they worked out a deal with their vendors since then, but my guess is it hasn't been altered significantly.

So when you ask you're not sure why CFA would be on campus, it's because selling to the Hoot is literally CFA getting a guaranteed order of X items each day, regardless of how many are sold to students. Why would CFA care about how many were ultimately resold?

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Let them find out what the real world consequences are and whether the market they serve reacts positively or negatively to this social stance.

You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 07:51 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  You sound more and more conservative all the time.

Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  :coffee3:

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:29 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Being liberal does not mean that you don't appreciate and value the free market. I recognize that there are times and place where the invisible hand is the best solution. I also recognize that there are times and places where it is not the best solution, and it needs some guidance.

The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?

I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

(05-01-2019 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 09:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The problem is those on the left who believe that the times that "it needs some guidance" are all the time, on everything.

Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?

I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

Cool. Good to hear your thoughts on liberals and Chick-Fil-A.

I understand why people of any background would personally boycott or not procure/patronize businesses that make decisions they find objectionable or questionable. You seem to be against that idea or not understand it.

(05-01-2019 05:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.

Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?

I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

Cool. Good to hear your thoughts on liberals and Chick-Fil-A.

I understand why people of any background would personally boycott or not procure/patronize businesses that make decisions they find objectionable or questionable. You seem to be against that idea or not understand it.

Very condescending of you. Another trait many liberals seem to share.

Your total lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) of other’s viewpoints would be another.

I don’t like many of John Kerry’s positions, but I will still use Heinz catchup on my fries - even the ones from CFA.

(05-01-2019 05:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(04-26-2019 10:20 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Same as how there are those on the right who believe that the time is never.
Unfortunately, these polarized views often drive the narrative that both sides react to, and instead of actually being able to find middle ground, you get comments like OO's.

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.
I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.
But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?
I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

Cool. Good to hear your thoughts on liberals and Chick-Fil-A.
I understand why people of any background would personally boycott or not procure/patronize businesses that make decisions they find objectionable or questionable. You seem to be against that idea or not understand it.

I am totally fine with it. In fact I think it is well past high time for conservatives to start employing some liberal tactics. XYZ sponsors a left-leaning newscast? Boycott them. Some transexual sues your school board so boys transitioning to girls can us the same bathroom as your daughter? Sue the board for placing your daughter in danger and causing her traumatic stress. Lefties want to boycott CFA? Fine, you boycott Ben and Jerrys and Starbucks. Find out where the consumer power lies.

(05-01-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.
I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.
But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?
I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

Cool. Good to hear your thoughts on liberals and Chick-Fil-A.
I understand why people of any background would personally boycott or not procure/patronize businesses that make decisions they find objectionable or questionable. You seem to be against that idea or not understand it.

I am totally fine with it. In fact I think it is well past high time for conservatives to start employing some liberal tactics. XYZ sponsors a left-leaning newscast? Boycott them. Some transexual sues your school board so boys transitioning to girls can us the same bathroom as your daughter? Sue the board for placing your daughter in danger and causing her traumatic stress. Lefties want to boycott CFA? Fine, you boycott Ben and Jerrys and Starbucks. Find out where the consumer power lies.

But....but....but, only bad people should have their products boycotted. Only conservatives are bad people.

I've known many conservatives who boycott particular business for political reasons -- but not a single one who makes a big show of it.

(05-01-2019 09:31 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 05:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 03:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-01-2019 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

Interesting you lump me in the great mass of polarized views.

I remind you, I have been pro same sex marriage since you were in diapers. In fact I have gone on record as pro- plural marriage, a step farther than you libs have gone yet. If three men, two women and a tree all want to be married, fine with me and always has been. No slin off my nose what they do. My personal choice is no marriage at all.

But I do not hold those with differing viewpoints on religion to be wrong or evil. I find FCA and SA to be good organizations in spite my lack of full agreement with eberything they say, just like the ACLU. I guess that makes me more tolerant than the average lib.

You can try and guess what the average liberal thinks, but no one on this board has expressed any issue with the current donations by CFA, and have all expressed that The Hoot deciding to drop CFA because of those donations is stupid.

Pretty much ONLY liberals think CFA should be shut out because of politics. Average has nothing todo with it. How do you average stupidity and pie in the sky idealisism, anyway? Assign an index number based on unworkability?

I still watch movies with liberals in the main roles. I can separate the product from the politics of the creators.

Cool. Good to hear your thoughts on liberals and Chick-Fil-A.

I understand why people of any background would personally boycott or not procure/patronize businesses that make decisions they find objectionable or questionable. You seem to be against that idea or not understand it.

Very condescending of you. Another trait many liberals seem to share.

Your total lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) of other’s viewpoints would be another.

I don’t like many of John Kerry’s positions, but I will still use Heinz catchup on my fries - even the ones from CFA.

I have absolutely no idea what problem you have with me on this issue, but you seem to be unhappy with my opinions on this matter.

(05-01-2019 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I am totally fine with it. In fact I think it is well past high time for conservatives to start employing some liberal tactics. XYZ sponsors a left-leaning newscast? Boycott them. Some transexual sues your school board so boys transitioning to girls can us the same bathroom as your daughter? Sue the board for placing your daughter in danger and causing her traumatic stress. Lefties want to boycott CFA? Fine, you boycott Ben and Jerrys and Starbucks. Find out where the consumer power lies.

I'm not. That's not the sort of world I want to live in where we spend all our time looking to be offended

(05-01-2019 10:12 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  I've known many conservatives who boycott particular business for political reasons -- but not a single one who makes a big show of it.

Agreed. In fairness, I know many liberals who do the same... but the whole idea of using 'volume' when you lack 'weight' does seem to be popular with the left.