digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at worldnetdaily.com —

Big Macs fund training for homosexual activists

worldnetdaily.com — Investors, take note! And customers, too. Shun McDonalds; they "hate" you anyway because you are Christians.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • durlek, on 08/15/2008, -13/+12The advancement of the “gay” agenda is an interesting marketing move by McDonalds. If I were a stockholder, I’d be a bit concerned to see them offend a demographic group as large as the heterosexual community. I wonder how that stock is doing.
    • BionicWhippet, on 08/15/2008, -6/+20I am heterosexual. McDonalds supporting gay rights does not offend me and I would guess that applies to the majority of heterosexuals. The only people offended are the ever diminishing minority of homophobic bigots.
      • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -13/+9What would be your response if you had an 11 or 12 year old daughter using the restroom by herself in a "family friendly" McDs restaurant and a biological male walked right on in with her? The NGLCC has recommended that confused perceived gender employees of McDs be allowed to use the restroom other than what they are biologically. And if you don't have a daughter, what about your wife?
        Is that a "family friendly" atmosphere you condone?
      • DuggDowner, on 08/15/2008, -9/+15georgiajim, i'd think your daughter would be happy to finally get to experience indoor plumbing.
      • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -8/+15jim, please explain to me exactly how that would be a problem. There are these amazing things called stalls in bathrooms; they allow for privacy. And who cares if a biological man who thinks he's a woman passes your daughter at the sink? First, he thinks he's a woman, so I doubt his penis is going to be very active upon seeing your daughter, and second, who hasn't gone into the opposite sex's bathroom once or twice in their lives? You know, when the line for "your" bathroom is too long, just slipping into the other one and telling all the shocked onlookers not to worry because you're just there to pee. What else do people go into bathrooms for? Something tells me that you're trying to give us the idea that any transgendered or gay person who walks into a bathroom is invariably always looking to molest someone, rather than to just pee and go back to work. That's not a very fair generalization, jim.
      • durlek, on 08/15/2008, -11/+7If we are supposed to let sexually confused men into the same restroom with the little girls, I suppose we would also need to let in the homicidal rapist pedophiles who pretend to be homosexual (until they get alone with the little girls). Hmmm... McDonalds doesn’t seem to be a very good place for little girls. I suppose it makes me a homophobic bigot that I want my daughter to be alive and unraped. That’s okay though, because there is usually a Burger King pretty close to every McDonalds and they don’t seem to mind my character flaws very much.
      • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -10/+8Burger King is also a sponsor of the NGLCC. The difference is BK didn't put a gay employee on the board, like McDs, and then tell "friendly families" if they didn't agree with homosexual marriage, they were guilty of hate. I don't boycott Burger King.
      • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -7/+12@durlek: Uhh... what?
        "If we are supposed to let sexually confused men into the same restroom with the little girls, I suppose we would also need to let in the homicidal rapist pedophiles who pretend to be homosexual (until they get alone with the little girls)."
        That is the most nonsensical and paranoid crap I've ever heard. What about the homicidal rapist pedophiles who choose to go after little boys? What about female homicidal rapist pedophiles? How common are these homicidal rapist pedophiles in the first place? You people are always coming up with false threats to justify your hatred. It's frightening.
      • durlek, on 08/16/2008, -9/+7kayala,
        Homicidal rapist pedophiles who wish to be alone with my little boy in the bathroom of a restaurant have to worry about me, because I often go with him. Apparently you believe it takes a paranoid individual to be concerned about child rape. I googled “child rape” and there were 896,000 hits. Most child rapes are perpetrated by men. I don’t want strange men in the bathroom with my (or anyone else’s) daughter. If that’s hard for you to understand, you can call me names if it make you feel better.
      • durlek, on 08/16/2008, -6/+7Here’s an article from today’s news which seems pertinent to the question ... “Do I want strange men sharing private places (like bathrooms) with little girls?”

        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404303,00.html

        I wonder how Steven Groene would answer that question.
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -5/+8Durlek, the statistics disagree with you.
        Most (70%) of the sexual assaults reported to law enforcement occurred in the residence of the victim, the offender, or the residence of another individual. Young victims were generally more likely to be victimized in a residence than were older victims. The age of the victim was strongly relate to where the assault occurred.
        -Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement,
        7/00, NCJ 182990, U.S. Department of Justice
        For nearly 90% of the youngest victims of rape, those younger than 12, the offender was someone known to them.
        -National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
        94% of child rape victims under the age of 12 were abused by a family member or an acquaintance/friend.
        -The Arizona Rep. 3/30/97.
        Don't let those pesky facts get in your way or anything. Clearly, they can't be indicating that you're more likely to rape your daughter in your own home than a stranger in a public bathroom is! And obviously, there's no way that a transgendered person who went into the wrong bathroom is simply trying to pee, wash his or her hands, and go back to work. You're so full of hate, you're not scared of lying and manipulating facts to justify it.
      • durlek, on 08/16/2008, -9/+5kayala,
        If you have interpreted the meaning of your statistics correctly ... all little children would be much safer if they just ran away and lived on the street in the until they became 12 years of age. I believe we can find some statistical evidence which would disagree.
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -5/+8That's not at all the logical conclusion of these statistics, and I'm pleased to see that you're making ***** up because you know that I'm right. If one interprets the statistics correctly, little children are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a person that they know, in the offender's residence. Nowhere in the statistics does it show any significant amount of your paranoid fantasies actually coming true. I don't expect an idiot like you to actually accept facts that are put in front of you, though. You'd rather live in a little microcosm where gays are the enemy no matter what, and while you're completely within your rights to do that, I'm completely within my rights to tell you that you're a ***** up individual with a warped sense of reality.
      • durlek, on 08/16/2008, -9/+4Why the name calling, kayala? You seem emotional.

        Were you not expressing the idea that children are safer around complete strangers than with their own family members?
      • Evilena, on 08/17/2008, -4/+7@durlek "I googled “child rape” and there were 896,000 hits."
        What do you think that proves? That there were children raped 896,000 this year?
      • kayala, on 08/17/2008, -5/+6"Were you not expressing the idea that children are safer around complete strangers than with their own family members?"
        No, I wasn't, and clearly you missed that. Perhaps you should practice your reading comprehension, or perhaps you shouldn't look at every piece of information wondering how you're going to fit this into your rigid worldview?
        In case you missed it, I was expressing the FACT that of children that are raped, a vast majority of them will be raped by someone they know. I did not say that all family members rape their children, but that most child rapes are perpetrated by family members. If you can't understand the distinction, then I'm afraid I can't help you. Ask your mother to spend more of your homeschool time learning about logic and reading comprehension and less about pseudoscience and theology.
      • durlek, on 08/17/2008, -6/+1kayala,
        If you were not trying to express the idea that children are safer around strangers than around their family members, what relevance does your information have to the question “Do I want strange men sharing private places (like bathrooms) with little girls?”

        evilena,
        It doesn’t prove the number of rapes. On the other hand, it does seem to indicate that child rape is an issue of concern for many.
      • kayala, on 08/17/2008, -3/+4Christ, do I have to spell this out for you?
        Your little girl is at an extremely low risk of any sort of sexual assault when sharing a bathroom with a man she doesn't know. That is the relevance. That is what it means. Any more questions, while we're here? Should I explain it even more clearly so that you're sure to understand?
      • durlek, on 08/17/2008, -6/+1I suppose it’s nice that you did not curse at me this time, but I’m certainly not good enough to be called Christ.

        Are you saying that the statistical data you provided should in some way make me feel comfortable with the idea of little girls sharing bathrooms with strange men? If so, I think you may need to reevaluate your data. It shows that family members are accused sexual assaults against children more often than strangers. It is difficult to determine what percentage of those reported incidents are actually fraudulent attempts by estranged spouses and their lawyers to gain control of children and marital assets, but it is a very common legal tactic. It’s also difficult to determine how many additional sexual assaults against little girls by strange men would occur if they had more opportunities ... like bathroom access. Parents have hundreds of times more private moments with their children than strange men do. If you dramatically increase the number of opportunities for strange men to offend, I believe it is logical to assume that they will offend much more often. I suppose the question is ... how many innocent little girls should heterosexual parents be willing to sacrifice in order to make sexually confused men feel more comfortable? I believe the answer should be zero.
      • kayala, on 08/18/2008, -2/+51. You continue to use emotionally manipulative language; this is not honest.
        2. Your attempt to brush off facts does not make them go away.
        3. Again, you assume that any man in a women's bathroom is going to be there for every reason except to use the toilet. Why is this?
        4. If your innocent little girl is really that little, she shouldn't be using the bathroom unaccompanied in the first place.
        I've not yet seen a reasonable argument, but I've seen a lot of unfair generalizations and stereotyping. Perhaps you consider that type of intellectual laziness acceptable, but those of us who hold ourselves to higher intellectual standards do not.
      • durlek, on 08/18/2008, -6/+1You asked: “you assume that any man in a women's bathroom is going to be there for every reason except to use the toilet. Why is this?”

        Because there also happen to be toilets in the mens room.
      • kayala, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4I'm not running around in circles with the intellectually lazy. Good-bye, idiot.
      • durlek, on 08/18/2008, -5/+1www.sourcewatch.org
        "Name-calling is a form of ad hominem attack that draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence."
      • kayala, on 08/18/2008, -0/+4How quick you are to hide behind a common logical fallacy when it suits your purpose, while you completely ignore all logical conventions during actual debate. I was commenting on your refusal to see the obvious facts for what they were, and opting instead to twist my words until they came to mean something totally different than the original meaning. You refuse to understand, you prefer to think in generalities, and that makes you intellectually lazy.
        An ad-hominem here would be more along the lines of "well, you're a meanie head!" I'm actually commenting on your inability to debate properly.
      • durlek, on 08/18/2008, -3/+0Hi , kayala.
        I thought you were gone. It’s nice to see that you’re still around to discuss this fascinating issue.

        Remember the news article from a couple of days ago with the man who molested, tortured, and murdered the little boy and “learned how to love” from the little girl?
        http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404303,00.html
        Did you look at the perpetrator’s picture? Doesn’t he look like the kind of guy who would love the opportunity to dress up like a woman and hang out in the ladies room where the little girls can’t bring their daddy?
      • georgiajim, on 08/18/2008, -2/+0durlek, kayala doesn't care what you think. It's all about her. She forces herself on people. She is an intellectual rapist. On another post she writes,"Attack the argument, not the person. kayala, you are a hypocritical piece of crap. I've seen you attack mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, friends, almost all posters you don't agree with. You cuss, threaten, belittle, bully, try to dominate, and almost always intimidate. You curse posters for their thought process, for their punctuation, for their spelling, and even curse them because they don't use the reply button to your liking. If you aren't bi-polar, then I truly believe you are possessed by demons. It must really suck to be you, kayala. Why don't you do yourself and all of us a favor and commit suicide. That way, you will put yourself out of our misery.
      • durlek, on 08/18/2008, -2/+0Hi Jim,
        I think kayala does care what I think because “she” seems to be very annoyed when people do not agree with “her”. Your observation that kayala breaks “her” own rules constantly is obviously correct. The variety of ways kayala “justifies” her behavior can be rather entertaining however.

        I’m not really sure about which gender to use when I refer to kayala. “She” might be a person who was born male, and was surgically mutilated later in life. What gender does that really create? I don’t know. There are many possibilities, but that is one of the easier theories for me to believe. What other kind of person really wants to let freaky mixed-up men with make-up into women’s restrooms? I’m amazed that kayala can ignore the fact that it would freak out most normal women ... and create many potentially dangerous situations ... ostensibly because sexually confused men need to feel more “comfortable”. It’s just too bad that “mental gymnastics” is not an olympic sport.
      • kayala, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2What babies you all are. Come back when you've grown up a bit. Durlek, you refuse to see sense, and georgiajim's still sore that his sister fended off his sexual advances. When you're ready to play like big boys and girls, let me know.
      • georgiajim, on 08/18/2008, -3/+0durlek, What really makes me shake my head at her narcissistic, self serving attitude, is how are we as parents and grandparents supposed to know if it is a confused gender person going into the restroom with our wives or children? Is she going to make sure they all wear signs so we know what kind of a male is going in. No parent or husband that cares about their family is going to stand by and watch a male go into a female restroom without checking it out. kayala expects us to take it and not say anything based on her version of faith that nothing will happen. She doesn't even believe in faith. She doesn't have any.
      • kayala, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1You're playing the politics of fear, and I'm countering you with fact. You don't like this, so you throw a hissy fit like a little girl. Grow up, ignorant fool.
      • durlek, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0Jim,
        It’s interesting. We’ve had a fairly long conversation about this topic, and kayala actually hasn’t mentioned one reason why mixed up men might really need to use women’s restrooms. I guess we’re supposed to let the freaky mixed up men with make-up have access to our women’s private spaces because the homosexuals will get really emotional and call us names if we don’t. I just don’t think that’s a good enough reason.
      • georgiajim, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0kayala, you have not countered me or anyone else with any facts about the perceived gender issue. You go ahead and give me your facts on how any of us are going to know that 100% of the time there will be no problem with a man going into a woman's restroom. How are any of us going to know that it is a confused perceived gender person? Are you going to allow them to be stigmatized further by hanging a sign around their neck? Do you give them identity tags? While, in your "all things homosexual is alright zealotry" you obviously are willing to take a chance with your own female family members well being, I'm not. Until you can provide "real" facts and case study that there won't be some straight perverted pedophile or rapist that can take advantage of this law, your facts are nothing but a bunch of typed letters that are laying in a heap on the floor. What about the 1 time it happens? It could be my family.You, and the legislators, are trying to force a lot of female family members to be volunteer victims.
  • Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -12/+15A company that claims itself to be a "family friendly" company, only to espouse the destruction of the traditional family, then to decry those who opposed to them as being filled with hate, deserves to be bankrupted through boycotts and sued by shareholders for breach of fiduciary duty.
    • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -5/+11Care to explain how supporting gay rights is equivalent to "the destruction of the traditional family"? I always hear such apocalyptic screaming from fundies and there's never any substance to the claims, so maybe you'll be different and give me a good reason why allowing two gay men to marry will somehow literally tear apart every other family in the country.
      • Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -7/+2First off I am not a "fundie". As if that's supposed to be some smear on your part. Is that your way of belittling those who believe in God? Have you really chosen sides like that?

        When you say "gay rights" it's usually in the same context as someone wanting some special right or privilege from government. No one person, or group should have rights over and above any other person or group.

        I don't have a problem with two gay people getting "married". But I do have a problem with them getting government involved into what is supposed to be a religious affair. Marriage is NOT a government function, it's only recognized by government. The Constitution is clear on this. The government can not get involved in the affairs of the Church. And that's where the gay community should be fighting.

        If gays find a church that will marry them, and there are many that would, then I think the government has no recourse than to recognize that marriage without running afoul of the separation that is supposed to be there. And that's where you should spend your resources, getting the government to know they can not discriminate one marriage from another.

        But most gay rights supporters are not settled with the idea that marriage should be equal, gay or straight. They want to actively push their own ideas on being gay to school children, corporations and the media. They want to cram their lifestyle down the throats of everyone under the force of government. It's sickening when Socialists do it, it's sickening when the far right does it and it's sickening when the gays do it.

        The lack of tolerance by those who are trying to convince people they are espousing tolerance is a laughing stock. To say someone is using "hate speech" because they disagree with the gay lifestyle is absurd, offends the senses and is an attack on other people's free speech. In reality they are pushing for laws to shut up those who disagree with them through unconstitutional "hate speech" legislation. And it's a cheap way to get your opponents to shut the hell up.

        My suggestion to these people is to get off your damned high horses and stop trying to cram it down everyone's throat, or there may be a huge backlash. Instead of trying to force people to accept the gay lifestyle try living the lifestyle in such a way that earns respect, the people will come around...and stop with the fricken gay nudity sex parades, it's enough to sicken anyone with a modicum of decency. I can't run around naked and pretending sex acts in the streets, why should the gay community?

        I've said my piece, take it or leave it.
      • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -4/+7"Fundie" is short for "religious fundamentalist." It's a term applied to the circus side-show freaks who shriek hellfire and only care about denying gays and women their rights. You seem to be along these lines.
        "No one person, or group should have rights over and above any other person or group."
        Precisely. So if I have the right to marry the person I love, why shouldn't a gay man be able to do the same? You can't really get away with saying "Any man can marry another person, as long as it's a woman," because that precedent was struck down in Loving v. Virginia, where we decided that "any black person can marry another person, as long as it's a black person" is not fair or equitable.
        "Marriage is NOT a government function, it's only recognized by government."
        Then why must we apply for marriage licenses?
        "And that's where you should spend your resources, getting the government to know they can not discriminate one marriage from another."
        I don't think we disagree here at all. Marriage as a religious function is totally separate from marriage as a legal function. However, the two are a bit entangled in this day and age - hence, the confusion.
        "They want to cram their lifestyle down the throats of everyone under the force of government."
        How so? Tell me how you determined that every person in favor of gay rights is also in favor of "cram[ming] their lifestyle down the throats of everyone." Really, I'm curious. Actually, while you're at it, tell me what constitutes "cramming their lifestyle down the throats of everyone," because I've heard a lot of people object to even having to hear about some guy's boyfriend - who cares? Every time you talk about your husband or wife, you're flaunting your sexuality, so check the double standard.
        The rest of your post is really nothing more than a tirade against a straw man, so I'm not terribly interested in dealing with it. I was with you for a while there, and then you went and spewed a bunch of crap you learned from biased WND articles. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
        By the way, you didn't explain to me how promotion of gay rights will lead to the destruction of the traditional family. I'm still waiting on that.
      • Minarchian, on 08/15/2008, -4/+4When I was writing my comment it crossed my mind that I was dealing with someone with a comprehension disability. I see that my intuition was true.

        **Fundie" is short for "religious fundamentalist." It's a term applied to the circus side-show freaks who shriek hellfire and only care about denying gays and women their rights. You seem to be along these lines.**

        How do you come about that conclusion? I was arguing that gays DO have a Right to wed.

        **Precisely. So if I have the right to marry the person I love, why shouldn't a gay man be able to do the same? You can't really get away with saying "Any man can marry another person, as long as it's a woman," because that precedent was struck down in Loving v. Virginia, where we decided that "any black person can marry another person, as long as it's a black person" is not fair or equitable.**

        Hey, idiot...I never mentioned anything about "one man and one woman". You're trying to put words in my mouth and ***** you for trying.

        As far as "one man and one woman" goes. That would be unconstitutional as well. Like I said. Government should have no say in this matter. Government sole purpose is supposed to be to secure our Rights, not dictate what they will be. It's all part of the "pursuit of happiness" thing in the Constitution. No one can say that choosing a mate is not part of the pursuit of happiness without showing their ignorance.

        **"Marriage is NOT a government function, it's only recognized by government."
        Then why must we apply for marriage licenses?**

        Where does it say you can not marry without a marriage license? As far as I know there are no laws that could stand a court test against it. You know why? Because marriage is a CHURCH function!

        Getting the privileges from government because you're married is the issue. Without the license the government can deny you the tax benefit. And, like I said, and you so conveniently ignored, that is where the fight should be. Like the color of one's skin, so should government be blind to gender and marriage. It's a fundamental Right to be with who ever you want to be with in life.

        As for you BS rant about blacks. Just where the hell do you think the whole marriage license crap started? It was started by government thugs trying to keep whites from marrying blacks. Look it up and learn something.

        **"They want to cram their lifestyle down the throats of everyone under the force of government."
        How so? Tell me how you determined that every person in favor of gay rights is also in favor of "cram[ming] their lifestyle down the throats of everyone." Really, I'm curious. Actually, while you're at it, tell me what constitutes "cramming their lifestyle down the throats of everyone," because I've heard a lot of people object to even having to hear about some guy's boyfriend - who cares? Every time you talk about your husband or wife, you're flaunting your sexuality, so check the double standard.**

        There it goes again...your lack of comprehension. I know a lot of gay couples who aren't radicals, who want to be just left alone and live. You know damned well I am referring to those who are radicals and extremists with an agenda. An agenda to force people to accept the gay lifestyle. Sorry, but you can't force people to accept anything without trampling on their rights. And if you don't agree with what I just said then I have a middle finger pointing in your direction. Not because I am against gays, but because I am *for* individual rights.

        **The rest of your post is really nothing more than a tirade against a straw man, so I'm not terribly interested in dealing with it. I was with you for a while there, and then you went and spewed a bunch of crap you learned from biased WND articles. Well, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
        By the way, you didn't explain to me how promotion of gay rights will lead to the destruction of the traditional family. I'm still waiting on that.**

        "Tirade against a strawman"...I guess that's the easy way out of confronting what I was saying. Do you really think that way they behave in these gay parades are showing the gay community in a good light? I mean really? You wouldn't have a problem with your 6 year old kid watching two guys dressed in exposing leather straps acting out bondage in the street? I mean really...common man, do you actually think it does the gay movement good to act like lunatics on parade?

        The destruction of the "traditional" family comes in when those with an agenda try to teach that the traditional family is wrong or created through hate or name any of the other crap they're pushing on kids. I was just figuring you might have had the intellect to see what I was saying, but your response just shows you have your own agenda.

        I'm talking about freedom. The freedom to live with who you please, the freedom to marry whomsoever you please and the freedom to be left the hell alone by government. And that means the freedom to teach your own children according to your own morals, beliefs or dogmas without having some school teaching against those beliefs. Schools are for the ABCs not the morality judgment of outsiders, either from the Socialists, the Christians, the gays or whoever thinks they have that right. I'm also for the freedom to think gays are space aliens, if that's what suits your fancy.

        In the end you and I are wanting the same thing. It's just seems that you want government to use force for your agenda and I am saying to get the government the hell out of the picture altogether.

      • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -3/+4The hissy fit is entirely unnecessary, except perhaps for someone of your emotional maturity.
        "No one can say that choosing a mate is not part of the pursuit of happiness without showing their ignorance."
        I remember debating an idiot just the other day who said exactly that. You might want to check that all you right-wingers are on the same page before shooting your mouth off...
        "Because marriage is a CHURCH function!"
        Then I hope you're prepared to annul all weddings that didn't take place in a church.
        "You know damned well I am referring to those who are radicals and extremists with an agenda. An agenda to force people to accept the gay lifestyle"
        My, my, can't we control our temper? Perhaps Christ would like to speak with you about behaving yourself. I don't think that your little savior would be very pleased. I wonder how you feel about the freakish extremists within your own ranks, Christian. Do we allow them to speak for all Christians?
        "Do you really think that way they behave in these gay parades are showing the gay community in a good light? I mean really?"
        Do you really think that the way the Phelps family behaves is showing the Christian community in a good light? Well, what should be done about that, do you think?
        "The destruction of the "traditional" family comes in when those with an agenda try to teach that the traditional family is wrong or created through hate or name any of the other crap they're pushing on kids"
        Then I'm sure you'd have absolutely no trouble showing me where this is happening. Who is teaching anyone that the "traditional" (the word you're looking for is "nuclear") family is actually wrong? I don't think most people would really argue that, and I'm wondering what your source is. Knowing you, it's probably more sensationalistic WND trash.
        "you have your own agenda."
        And what's that? Equal rights? Honest journalism? Heaven forbid!
        "It's just seems that you want government to use force for your agenda and I am saying to get the government the hell out of the picture altogether."
        I wonder how you think I want the government to "use force for my agenda". You seem to be so good at telling me what I think, so why don't you inform me? It's a little strange; see, I seem to remember you saying something to the effect of "***** you for trying to put words in my mouth" earlier in your post. Perhaps I'm just becoming forgetful. Silly me.
      • georgiajim, on 08/16/2008, -3/+1Minarchian, use these sites for examples of gays that act responsibly in public:
        http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_ ...
        http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -2/+4And for examples of Christians acting responsibly in public:
        http://www.godhatesfags.com/visual/photos/aidsisgo ...
        http://www.godhatesfags.com/visual/photos/bushkill ...
        http://www.godhatesfags.com/visual/photos/fagenabl ...
        http://www.godhatesfags.com/visual/photos/fagsdoom ...
        If we're going to judge groups by their worst, then you're *****.
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -2/+2I'm still waiting for your coherent argument. It hasn't come; you've spewed a whole lot of despicable ***** and a little bit of wisdom, but I haven't yet been given a single shred of evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that all homosexuals are trying to break the ties of other nuclear families. You're making ***** up and lying, you sick hypocrite.
  • SOLGAARD, on 08/15/2008, -10/+9"Two all-cloned-beef patties, special- "sauce", let-us, "cheese". A "pickle", for the "onion". On a "says-a-me" seeds bun."

    [ L O L ]

    The entire fagellah/fast-food agenda, in a jingle - (go figure).
    • BlazeofFire, on 08/15/2008, -7/+6HAHAHAHAHA! That is too much. Thanks I needed a smile and a laugh today.
  • dlbfromLA, on 08/15/2008, -9/+14Although I like the occasional quarter pounder with cheese, my family and I will never buy another MacDonald product again!
    • SOLGAARD, on 08/15/2008, -6/+7was my favorite burger for 3 decades, (i make better now)
      • ThoughtfulWi, on 08/16/2008, -2/+5Wow, and I thought it was three decades of heavy drug use that got you where you are today. I guess it was three decades of acid AND big macs. Ugh! Poor guy.
  • fredrick1, on 08/15/2008, -10/+11Mickie Ds will not see another penny from me and my family.
  • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -8/+11Just vote with your wallet and ignore the trolls.
    • DuggDowner, on 08/15/2008, -6/+8I didn't know McDonalds took food stamps.
  • klesb, on 08/15/2008, -12/+12I now only stop at McDs to use their restrooms. Haven't spent one cent there since the boycott started. It is somewhat fascinating to see a publicly-traded corporation commit commercial suicide. Thank God, I own no shares of their stock! You may want to check your mutual funds to see if any of those do! Not a good investment....
    • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -9/+8Be careful using the restrooms in McDs, klesb. You never know what might walk in. Remember, the NGLCC has recommended that McDs allows the confused gender perception folks to use the opposite gender restrooms.
      • BlazeofFire, on 08/15/2008, -10/+5Yeah - that will work until McDickyIcky's gets sued when someones child is assaulted by a pedophile with a gender bender disorder.
      • DuggDowner, on 08/15/2008, -6/+12Georgiajim why are you so obsessed with public washrooms? Something tells me you have a wide stance. . . .
      • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -3/+11jim, that's downright hateful. There's no need for that kind of disrespect. You know just as well as I do that any employee who walks into a bathroom of any gender just wants to pee, wash their hands, and go back to work. Suggesting that any person who isn't ramrod-straight is constantly trolling bathrooms for children to molest (while on the clock, no less!) is a total lie and is not at all necessary.
      • Phyraxus, on 08/15/2008, -6/+9Maybe because jim uses bathrooms to tap under other peoples stalls? (If you know what I mean ;)
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -5/+2He has to keep it a secret because he doesn't want his sister to know he's cheating on her.
      • georgiajim, on 08/16/2008, -3/+4Just so you know, kayala, I have never posted one thing about your family, only you. My sister lives in Idaho and has a medical condition that causes her to have in home medical monitoring. My brother, who lives in Minnesota and myself pay for her medical bills out of our pocket. Need to know anything else, *****? If you want a piece of me bitch, have at it. Leave my family alone.
      • kayala, on 08/17/2008, -4/+1Aww, look at the good little Christian! You're far too easy to provoke, little Christian fool. Something tells me your little deity won't be too happy that you're cussing people out. Then again, I doubt that you're literate enough to have read the Bible you say governs your life, so perhaps it's not your fault.
  • ThoughtfulWi, on 08/15/2008, -9/+10Funny, this article looks just like one posted a while back. Oh well, I guess Joe Fairy has to meet his quota of anti gay articles somehow. If there's no time to write a new one, dredge one up from the archives. Mr. Boycott doesn't appear to be working.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&si ...
    • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -5/+6Good moring, Thoughtful. Haven't seen any posts in a while. Hope all is well. Remember Thoughtful, those pesky 3rd and 4th quarter numbers aren't in yet. Have a nice day. (I mean that, no sarcasm)
      • ThoughtfulWi, on 08/15/2008, -3/+7Are you hitting on me?
      • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -4/+5HaHaHa! Had to digg up. No, Thoughtful, you seem like a decent sort, just checking on you.
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -2/+5Nah, it's just that his wife/sister told him to behave and play nicely.
  • PolishBear, on 08/15/2008, -6/+9Is it any wonder all the evangelists I see are so portly? Probably a combination of McDonald's Big Macs, milkshakes, and greasy church picnic food. Maybe they SHOULD boycott McDonald's. And get some exercise while they're at it. They might just lose a little weight. In the meantime, if I can go into McDonald's without being beaten over the head with a Bible, so much the better.
  • DuggDowner, on 08/15/2008, -8/+8The more public places Christians boycott, the better America will be.
  • sexydarin, on 08/15/2008, -11/+6McPerverts.
  • goodasyou, on 08/15/2008, -4/+13McDonald's stock has been up considerably since the day the boycott began (July 7).
  • dlbfromLA, on 08/15/2008, -8/+8I see the McPerverts are out in full force!!
  • Tookson, on 08/15/2008, -9/+2Is McDonald's sponsoring any Christian charities? I suppose they're probably too McEvil to think of such a thing. Just the thought of boycotting McDonald's makes me feel so much healthier. It's really gross to realize that their chicken McNuggets are made out of chicken guts w/ no meat at all. When that was exposed they added chicken breast strips to their menu. This time next year they will be handing out McBibles to all of their customers. heh
    • kayala, on 08/15/2008, -2/+5I suppose this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_McDonald_House ... - isn't sufficient because it's not explicitly Christian?
      • SOLGAARD, on 08/16/2008, -6/+4Promoting sin trumps flacid argument. (-1)
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -3/+4Ignoring the argument earns you a digg down, *****.
    • georgiajim, on 08/15/2008, -5/+3Tookson - I have looked at almost 100 cites and I can't find anything that McDs endorses any type of religion. That makes sense to me to remain neutral and attract as many customers as possible. That's why it boggles my mind they are accusing anyone that disagrees with homosexual marriage as being full of hate. They are choosing one segment of the population over another. Why not remain neutral like the many other corporations that sponsor the NGLCC? Not one other corporate sponsor of the NGLCC has made any statement showing preference of one group of customers over another. The Ronald McDonald charity is one of the best in the world for children by the way.
      • SOLGAARD, on 08/16/2008, -6/+6If they endorse/promote fagellah, they promote the humanist religion.

        All pagans do.
      • Tookson, on 08/17/2008, -0/+1@georgiajim and @kayala:

        tyvm for checking. :)

        I'm not surprised they remain "neutral" concerning religious charities--which actually do something for poor people, unlike celebrity charities that make a few people richer.
  • BSdetective, on 08/16/2008, -8/+4I have heard that McDonald's is planning on tearing out a section of the parking lots and will create a forest area with park benches to accommodate their gender confused customers who experience love at first sight, while dining at McDonald's. I have also heard that they are planning on replacing the Kid's playground with love seats to accommodate those same clients who experience love at first sight and can't get into the bathroom or park area during periods of peak usage.

    McDonald's is doing their part to help reduce the global population. If their fat-fortified food doesn't kill enough people, they will make up for it through their promotion of fagacide.



    • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -6/+8Is it really necessary to be that disrespectful? Do you think it earns you points with anyone? I'd think that even most of the self-respecting fundies around here would want to distance themselves from sideshow freaks shrieking "fagacide." Reported, *****.
      • BSdetective, on 08/16/2008, -6/+4Don't lecture me on being disrespectful. You are the most foul-mouthed, disrespectful individual on the web. I am not motivated by earning points and I don't worship at the alter of Political Correctness. Who appointed you to the position of Speech Police? You have a rather arrogant and inflated view of yourself, believing that you possess the power or the right to eliminate or control another individuals right to free speech.

        I don't normally respond to intellectual midgets or the emotionally handicapped, so flatter yourself and inflate your overactive ego. You have proven time again that you do not possess the intellectual or emotional capacity to confront and deal with reality, so maybe you should just stay in your playhouse and practice your make-up application, Lord knows that you need the practice.

        Here is what Fagicide is all about.
        (Disclaimer to the decent people, view this at your own peril. It is sick, demented, and disgusting)

        http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_ ...

      • Evilena, on 08/16/2008, -4/+4Here is what Fagicide is all about.
        (Disclaimer to the decent people, view this at your own peril. It is sick, demented, and disgusting)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Y3YfttgbI
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -4/+5It would appear that you're just the least little bit defensive, BSdetective! Are you scared that we'll realize you've been closely studying and masturbating to those pictures? We're not stupid, you know.
    • RecordKeeper, on 08/18/2008, -1/+2To all of you Sodomites,

      :Please know that an unrepentant homosexual will burn in Hell for eternity.
  • DOGODSWILL, on 08/16/2008, -7/+4 McDonald's is a perfect example of where the Liberals and *****'s are taking America because of Americans like ( Bionic Whippet "commenter above") .If people like this can't take a stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ (which America was founded upon) then they are as Anti-American as the Liberals and *****'s.
    • johnnick, on 08/16/2008, -3/+4Just wondering here - have you actually done any reading or research into the religious beliefs of the Founders? When you say things like, "the teachings of Jesus Christ (which America was founded upon)" it makes me think you might've skipped that part in U.S. History. Just to avoid appearance of bias, I'll avoid providing information from sites you might consider biased like Americans United for the Separation of Church and State or any atheist websites.

      As you'll see here (http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qtable.htm) they ranged from Deists like Jefferson through Theists, Congregationalists, Unitarians, Quakers, and into Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, and Anglican. The author of that site provides his references so you can check for yourself.

      A look at this posting from the Encyclopedia Britannica Blog (http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2007/02/the-us-fou ... ) says, "Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God” and the “Creator,” the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. There is also a story, probably apocryphal, that Benjamin Franklin’s proposal to call in a chaplain to offer a prayer when a particularly controversial issue was being debated in the Constitutional Convention prompted Hamilton to observe that he saw no reason to call in foreign aid. If there is a clear legacy bequeathed by the founders, it is the insistence that religion was a private matter in which the state should not interfere."

      And, finally, some more interesting discussion from people who have actually done the research. The Cato Institute has an excellent discussion of issues of religion and politics in democracies here - http://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/10/15/the-editors ... The referenced book "asserts that liberal democracy or republican government is founded on atheistic or Hobbesian premises. Hence American government was founded to be “post-Christian,” and the American founding otherwise lacks a political theology."

      So, the people who've looked at it appear to say that the Founding Fathers would probably disagree with your statement that America was founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. They actually explicitly chose to leave those out and let people worry about religion on their own.

      • DOGODSWILL, on 08/19/2008, -1/+1 Your knowledge or understanding of "separation of church and state" is no better than your understanding of " scripture". It doesn't take long for a person that has experienced the Holy Spirit to know when some one else hasn't. If a person has never experienced the Holy Spirit they can't begin to understand the Bible.
      • johnnick, on 08/21/2008, -1/+1@DOGODSWILL

        Your response about the Holy Spirit actually has nothing to do with the article, your original post or my response.

        Let's follow the time line:

        First, you claimed that America was founded upon the teaching of Jesus Christ.

        Then, I argued that your claim was incorrect and cited to several articles that provided support for the position that claim was incorrect.

        Now, you have now responded with an assertion that I don't understand the separation of church and state, without providing any evidence to counter my position, and the irrelevant point about my alleged lack of experience with the Holy Spirit.

        In response to your point about my lack of understanding regarding the separation of church and state, allow me to say that I am a lawyer and I have, in fact, studied the 1st Amendment under a noted Constitutional scholar and I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court. (I choose not to address your point about the Holy Spirit because it is irrelevant to the discussion.)

        So, how about you put up or shut up? Either provide some evidence to support your claim that America was founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ or accept the fact that it wasn't and move on. Note that I have not claimed that the Founders were not Christians (although many were Deists or Naturalists, and some may have even been Agnostics), nor have I claimed that the majority of Americans are not now Christians. My only point is to rebut your claim that America was founded upon the teachings of Jesus Christ. Should you wish to debate the concept of separation of church and state and 1st Amendment jurisprudence, we can certainly discuss that, as well.

  • The7Sticks, on 08/16/2008, -5/+8Isn't it interesting when a group of morons like the American Fascists Association claims that the gay agenda is advanced by McDonald's donation of $20,000 to a gay-and-lesbian task force, yet they take 20 times that amount ($500,000) out of their pocket, and instead of helping the poor and needy with that money, they use it to fund Proposition 8 in California to ban gay marriage? Hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does for Dandy Don The Revelator. I will not be a hypocrite, and in addition to voting NO on Proposition 8, I will be going to McDonald's everyday like Morgan Spurlock and say "Super Size Me!"

    Forget Jesus H. Christ, why not be a little Jesus H. Nice? Baa-zzing, I so totally zinged you, you morons.

    -"Well, who's that shouting? Don the Revelator!"
    "All he ever gives us is pain!"
    "Well, who's that shouting? Don the Revelator!"
    "He should bow his head in shame!"
    -From "John The Revelator", By Depeche Mode
    • SOLGAARD, on 08/16/2008, -4/+5You don'y have to display your lack of intellect for us, lil man- we're fully versed in your inanity.
    • Psalms83, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1'The7Sticks'
      Just as Mac Donalds has the right to donate to a cause they belive in ... The American Family association has the right to donate money to causes they belive in .... as is the right of every american citizen to support and donate to causes that they believe is important...just because a person is a christian does not mean he gives up his or her right as a citizen of the U.S. to influance issues that are important to the christian faith.
  • georgiajim, on 08/16/2008, -6/+5I wonder if if McDs is funding activist training for this event?
    http://americansfortruth.com/news/gay-icon-kameny- ...
  • georgiajim, on 08/16/2008, -6/+5Maybe McDs prefers funding activist training for this little gem:
    http://americansfortruth.com/news/depraved-iml-pra ...
  • SOLGAARD, on 08/16/2008, -7/+6FAGS-HAGS-BAGS-DRAGS- The Living God loves them ALL.

    But a "promise", is a "promise".
    • georgiajim, on 08/16/2008, -3/+8SOLGAARD - I'm sorry to push this so hard, but I get so tired of this crap being pushed on me. I will not accept this and will continue to fight it as hard as I can. If I am offending any of the true believers, I'm sorry.
      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -7/+7Maybe, jim, if you don't want to be confronted with homosexuals because they raise your repressed gay desires, you shouldn't be studying and whacking off to those pictures from the parades that you keep showing us! Just saying, your intense interest in it doesn't exactly say "I don't like gays." It says "I pretend I don't like gays because secretly I am one myself."
      • Orwell007, on 08/16/2008, -8/+7Kayala, the only things homosexuals raise is awareness of the absolute breakdown in basic humanity and decency. Possibly you are turned on by someone urinating on you or doing despicable things to your body. If you can't understand the simple fact that normal people are not going to accept this level of decadent and perverted behavior, that is your problem. We owe you no apology or acceptance.

        Your ignorant and arrogant attempt to ascribe motives to your detractors only reinforces your reputation for being a loud-mouthed, foul-mouthed, air-head and Useful Idiot. We don't care how offended you are. If you find the opinions of normal people unacceptable, no one is forcing you to read them. You have the freedom to leave this site and visit any site that you find more suitable to your lifestyle and political choices and desires. We are not going to shut up and we are not going to be intimidated by someone who lacks an ounce of self-respect or respect for anyone else..

        The mere fact that you defend the behavior, as displayed on the link below, defines you far better than any of us could dream of doing. You are a sick, perverted individual. anyone who would engage in the behavior shown on this link should be in an insane asylum for their own protection.

        FAGACIDE IN ACTION -
        (this is required reading to fully understand what the homosexual agenda is all a about)

        http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_ ...

      • kayala, on 08/16/2008, -6/+5Orwell, I have little interest in your nonsensical ranting, and I wonder what kind of idiot you'd have to be to think that your shrieking about the Communists Marxists Liberals Socialists Nazis is in any way convincing or intelligent. Go study some more of those pictures and masturbate to them. Whenever you decide to come out of the closet, you know that we'll accept you.
      • BettyLou2, on 08/16/2008, -7/+8kayla, no one really expects you to understand complex issues, such as the form of government we are electing. We accept you for the shallow and demented worshipper of self, that you are.

        Your smart-ass remarks are getting a little old. Climb back on your broom or dildo and fly back to Utopia.
      • Evilena, on 08/16/2008, -7/+5FAGACIDE IN ACTION -
        (this is required reading to fully understand what the homosexual agenda is all a about)
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2ykMJBTKIs&feature ...
      • kayala, on 08/17/2008, -5/+3BettyLou, you too see to be showing us some very repressed desires. Out with them! Don't hold them in and deny them like that; it just makes you look like a cranky old lady with sand in your vagina.
      • Evilena, on 08/17/2008, -5/+3You are right. I didn't notice that the first time. I don't think its sand. More like broom handle splinters.
        I wonder if she dresses the broom up in men's clothing first or just climbs on and flies to utopia.
      • greenfyre, on 08/17/2008, -4/+6@Orwell

        "Possibly you are turned on by"

        One thing that is not a turn on is some idiot taking extreme behaviours of a few and pretending that they are somehow unique to, and the norm of a group.

        The things you describe are not practised by most homosexuals, and are done by some heterosexuals as well.

        You might as well have also accused them of generally being born with 2 arms, drinking milk, and having mothers.

        @ BettyLou2"no one really expects you to understand complex issues"

        People who are capable of complex understandings demonstrate it rather than indulge in ad hominem attacks.
    • DOGODSWILL, on 09/02/2008, -0/+1 Gods promise is , that all Homosexuals will burn in Hell if they die before the Papture or before Repentance.
  • RecordKeeper, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4The Lord God tells us in the Bible, His living word that homosexuality is a grievous sin and an abomination

    In Christian love I must tell you who are Sodomites that when your physical body dies your soul lives on throughout eternity. If you die without knowing Jesus Christ as your Savior and asking forgiveness for your sins then you will burn in Hell eternally
    • johnnick, on 08/22/2008, -0/+2Is that knowing Jesus in the Biblical sense? 'Cause if you're right about the sodomy thing, that creates a little paradox for some of us. ;-)
  • downs1, on 08/18/2008, -4/+1The more I read about this whole issue, the more I believe we non-gays should tone down our rhetoric and verbal opposition to the homosexual issue. The disgust we feel will not go away, nor should it. Those who are pro-gay use the opportunity to ridicule those who are anti-gay. Those who are anti-gay who use the opportunity to condemn with lofty words from Scripture and then mix their comments with profanity and trashy language, which is not helpful in reaching the people and certainly not honoring to the Lord, actually make biblical truth look foolish. To quote Scripture even in love is most often rejected by these people who have chosen to go their own way. The time is coming, however, when the folks at McDonald's and companies like Ford and others that support the gay agenda will find they have made great errors in judgment. In the meantime, they will continue to support gay marriage, they will continue to attempt to indoctrinate our children. The gays will continue to live their life style, and they will continue to contract HIV and AIDS and die horrible painful deaths without telling their partners they have killed them also in the process. They will continue to scream that no one cares and no one is helping them. They will demand more government money, but they will never admit that it is their own choice of lifestyle that kills them, not us. God still loves them, but He despises their sin. Some have seen the light and have come out of homosexuality, but not through foul language from those who pretend to be Christians, but whose words and actions betray them.
  • DOGODSWILL, on 08/29/2008, -0/+1 Christians understand both , the Holy Spirit and Liberal or Humanistic thinking .As a lawyer you should understand, better than most, that a Judge has to be able to understand both sides of an argument to make a decision of truth that's not based upon personal opp ion . Since it is obvious you can't understand anything except buy human reasoning and have a zero understanding of the Holy Spirit ,I'm dropping any farther debating with you .(food for thought) I have a good lawyer for a good friend , and he has always said---------------I had rather argue with 10 wise men tan with one fool. Jesus said, that any man that don't except the teachings of Jesus Christ as being Superior to his own understanding is a fool .
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.