It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!

page: 47
32
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Furbs
 





Now, would you please respond to my question to you.

Please ask the question again because now I'm not sure which question you're referring to.


I would also like to know what unequal rights are being asked for.


This thread didn't stagnate as you can see. The unequal rights that are currently being said (and not asked for) is if the parents don't want the public school system to over step what is the parents responsibility....then some on here are suggesting the parents pull the child out of the school and to either home school their child or transfer them to another school.

This is, imo, shoving aside the children. If someone doesn't agree with (either) side.... they're ostracized.
If it wasn't all that fun for one group, then why do it to another.

Why not break the cycle?
I find Liberals to be intrusive and bullies




edit on 13-2-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)


What??? You mean if I don't want my kid to learn math or science because they attempt to explain things in a different way my religion does, I have to actually move schools????? How unAmerican!!!!!!




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by technical difficulties
 

link

Ask JC Penney to replace Ellen Degeneres as their new spokesperson immediately and remain neutral in the culture war.

I see they're asking their members to ask JC Penny for neutrality at the bottom of the page.
Does that count for anything, lol.

What if JC Penny hired someone who was a loud talking head for defending Marriage as between a man and a woman?
How would you feel about that? Would you possibly wonder if the person hired might have a greater influence on defending Marriage as between a man and a woman?
Of course I would disapprove of that. They are denying people rights, whereas Ellen isn't. It's not hard to understand.


Originally posted by sweetliberty
No wonder liberals are so bitter, they can't live and let live like most people do.
I had no idea the people protesting against gay marriage were liberals.


Originally posted by andersensrm
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The term marriage is now used in place of the word state sanctioned contract. Thats all it is, when you get married, of course there is religous meaning, but that changes for everyone. The term marriage also has a religous meaning within christianity as contract between a man and a woman. But the term marriage also has the meaning of a state sanctioned contract. Don't get those two mixed up. Denying a same sex couple to have a state sanctioned contract (marriage) is therefore discrimatory and therefore illegal. But hey its easy to call something its not, when you tie religion into politics.
I wish that was the case, but it's not.

gaymarriagesupport.com...
edit on 13-2-2012 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


The term marriage is now used in place of the word state sanctioned contract. Thats all it is, when you get married, of course there is religous meaning, but that changes for everyone. The term marriage also has a religous meaning within christianity as contract between a man and a woman. But the term marriage also has the meaning of a state sanctioned contract. Don't get those two mixed up. Denying a same sex couple to have a state sanctioned contract (marriage) is therefore discrimatory and therefore illegal. But hey its easy to call something its not, when you tie religion into politics.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


And what is wrong with a boycott? Liberals do it all the time. They boycotted Glenn Beck. They boycotted Wal-Mart.
Then there are the more serious things like getting on flotillas and boycotting countries---like Israel!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Furbs
 


And what is wrong with a boycott? Liberals do it all the time. They boycotted Glenn Beck. They boycotted Wal-Mart.
Then there are the more serious things like getting on flotillas and boycotting countries---like Israel!


Nothing is wrong with boycotting, its the reasoning behind it. Boycotting is good, because it allows for another voice other than voting.

ETA
IF you can get behind this boycott, then you could get behind any boycott for absolutely any reason.
edit on 13-2-2012 by andersensrm because: ETA



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Nothing is wrong with boycotting, its the reasoning behind it. Boycotting is good, because it allows for another voice other than voting.



And sometimes the boycott has the reverse affect.

I was talking to Terri Nunn about a year ago - - and she was telling me how much she loved the "Family Values" groups. Their complaints and boycotts - - generated Free Publicity and resulted in sky rocketing sales.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Furbs
 


And what is wrong with a boycott? Liberals do it all the time. They boycotted Glenn Beck. They boycotted Wal-Mart.
Then there are the more serious things like getting on flotillas and boycotting countries---like Israel!


As others have stated above me, nothing is wrong with boycotting. I don't even begrudge the people boycotting JCPenney. I boycott JCPenney's myself, although I do it for completely different reasons involving the idiotic gender training in their commercials.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


That would be another bad reason to boycott. To jumpstart sales huh? I wonder how that sales meeting went.
If we boycotted everything based on our beliefs, america wouldn't be what it is today. As much as people don't like it, there is a standard that is followed. We can step on either side of that standard, but only so far. People think that they should be able to do whatever they want, but that wouldn't be what we have here, that would be anarchy. I still don't get the reasoning for the whole rally in the first place. They don't want there kids exposed to same sex concepts or however you want to call it, so they're going to go to every spokeswoman, politician, tv commercial, tv show, etc. and try to eliminate talking of sex, or same-sex. Thats just not practical. If you didn't want your kids to learn about sex in general, until you deemed it time to learn, how would you reasonably pull that off?? So they succeed in getting Ellen out, just to get another gay spokeswoman for Macy's. When does it all end? When we start not acknoledging the fact that they exist???



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Furbs
 





Now, would you please respond to my question to you.

Please ask the question again because now I'm not sure which question you're referring to.


I would also like to know what unequal rights are being asked for.


This thread didn't stagnate as you can see. The unequal rights that are currently being said (and not asked for) is if the parents don't want the public school system to over step what is the parents responsibility....then some on here are suggesting the parents pull the child out of the school and to either home school their child or transfer them to another school.

This is, imo, shoving aside the children. If someone doesn't agree with (either) side.... they're ostracized.
If it wasn't all that fun for one group, then why do it to another.

Why not break the cycle?
I find Liberals to be intrusive and bullies




edit on 13-2-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-2-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)


Here is my question again.



This thread is about a group that is boycotting JCPenney because a gay person is their spokesperson.

You then went on to say the following.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
No wonder liberals are so bitter, they can't live and let live like most people do.

How do you reconcile the above quote with the thread topic?


You have not answered it. You have sidestepped it. You have answered questions not asked, but you have not directed comment toward the question itself.

The rest of your post has no impact on this, as the thread is about a JCPenney's Boycott, and has nothing to do with educational institutions.

Are you incapable of speaking to the topic?

If you wish to diatribe on "The Liberal Homosexual Agenda" please start another thread, because the topic of this thread is clear.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   
The only rights I see infringed on are Ellen's. Its not just because she is gay, its because she is on tv, and she doesn't hide it. Bad Ellen. She should hide the fact that she's gay. This is what the million moms are really trying to say.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


The question:


How do you reconcile the above quote with the thread topic?


The quote prompting your question:


No wonder liberals are so bitter, they can't live and let live like most people do.


Just look at the title and you'll get your answer. I don't believe the rally was a simple.... "for being GAY!" Ellen and the title of the thread both aren't innocent and without baiting.
Most people ignored the rally and Ellen for that matter but as you can see.. Liberals (and not limited to Liberals but in the two instances.... Liberals have to incite emotions, imo.
And some Liberals (like on this thread) post and post and post without any suggestions to possible solutions, they're simply happy to be a part of the problem. Which is no different than the moms rally.

I'm afraid the Liberal posters on here would turn inside out before they even remotely tried to seek a possible balance, possible solution.
If I didn't answer your question the way you wanted it answered or if I'm not answering the correct question then I can only apologize for not understanding you.




edit on 13-2-2012 by sweetliberty because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetliberty
reply to post by Furbs
 


The question:


How do you reconcile the above quote with the thread topic?


The quote prompting your question:


No wonder liberals are so bitter, they can't live and let live like most people do.


Just look at the title and you'll get your answer. I don't believe the rally was a simple.... "for being GAY!" Ellen and the title of the thread both aren't innocent and without baiting.
Most people ignored the rally and Ellen for that matter but as you can see.. Liberals (and not limited to Liberals but in the two instances.... Liberals have to incite emotions, imo.
And some Liberals (like on this thread) post and post and post without any suggestions to possible solutions, they're simply happy to be a part of the problem. Which is no different than the moms rally.

I'm afraid the Liberal posters on here would turn inside out before they even remotely tried to find a balance.
If I didn't answer your question the way you wanted it answered or if I'm not answering the correct question then I can only apologize for not understanding you.





Are you saying that you don't believe that the "Million Moms" did this simply because Ellen is openly homosexual? Because, if that is what you are saying, I believe you are being willfully ignorant of the situation because they categorically and without ambiguity stated that it was exactly because she was openly homosexual.



"Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families," the million (or so) moms write on their website. "DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there."


From the OP.

What emotions were incited by 'Liberals'? Did 'Liberals' call for a boycott of JCPenney? I am having a hard time following how you are blaming any of this on 'Liberals'.

What problems are you believing 'Liberals' are not helping to try to find a solution for in regards to the AFA's boycott of JCPenney?

What 'balance' are you believing can be had on this issue?

I will accept your apology for not being able to understand my question. I didn't actually expect a straightforward answer, as no honest answer that could come from it would be able to keep you from sounding incredibly hypocritical.
edit on 13-2-2012 by Furbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


Thread has drifted a long time ago, has branched into several different topics in relation to homosexuals - so relax?



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Furbs
 


You clearly aren't keeping up with this thread and I suggest you catch up on your reading please.
Had you kept up or at least tried to keep up, you wouldn't be as judgmental and arrogant. I see I hit a nerve when I used the word "Liberal"


Maybe you could do me a favor and just say what you want to say instead of trying to make me say what you want me to say.
I will always be honest with you and myself. Don't question my honesty while your on here baiting and not just saying what you want to say.

I will look at your last post later and post again tomorrow.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   
 

HEY! REMINDER!!

The topic of this thread is One Million Moms rally at JcPenny's to fire Ellen Degeneres for being GAY!.

Do not discuss each other. Do not make off topic posts. Do not post against the Terms and Conditions of Use......otherwise you may find yourself post banned.

BACK TO THE TOPIC ONLY!


Thank you.
 

edit on February 13th 2012 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

edit on 13-2-2012 by Furbs because: I withdraw my comment, as I do not want to be seen as attacking anyone or drawing it off topic.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I began following this post with its original topic early on... and even posted... then I left when it began to deterioate with people arguing and making statements without a bit of fact...
But I do have one question and please, I mean ABSOLUTELY no disrespect to the OP.
Fact.. the subject matter of the original post has great and important meaning to me as I have several family members who are not heterosexual, but gay.
My mind is asking me though, why do we let anyone or any group, i.e. the purpoted 'million moms' get away with such a bold face lie, not a little white lie, not a little pink one with bows, or not by fifth graders, but a HUGE, BIGOTED lie with an intent to threaten a business and incite BIGOTRY against others.
Even though I have read this has turned out to be a media bonanza for gay lifestyle this is such a dispicable lie by dispicable people.
Stars and flags to the OP and thumbs down to the lying bigoted 40,000 moms.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by Furbs
 


And what is wrong with a boycott? Liberals do it all the time. They boycotted Glenn Beck. They boycotted Wal-Mart.
Then there are the more serious things like getting on flotillas and boycotting countries---like Israel!


Nothing is wrong with boycotting, its the reasoning behind it. Boycotting is good, because it allows for another voice other than voting.

ETA
IF you can get behind this boycott, then you could get behind any boycott for absolutely any reason.
edit on 13-2-2012 by andersensrm because: ETA


Ok then I will take to task the liberals reasons for boycotting Glenn Beck, WalMart and Israel!!!



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by andersensrm
The only rights I see infringed on are Ellen's. Its not just because she is gay, its because she is on tv, and she doesn't hide it. Bad Ellen. She should hide the fact that she's gay. This is what the million moms are really trying to say.


Ok well liberals boycotted Glenn Beck because they hate him and all that he stands for, because he exposed Soros and the communist Van Jones, and so much of the agenda, and ACORN, they boycotted him because he is a proponent of Constitutional conservativism. It's pretty much the same thing, a war of ideologies.

For the record, I didn't say I could get behind the boycott, I said let the market determine the outcome. Anyway, JC Penney likely is looking for a bigger market target, thus traditional families may feel that Penneys has abandoned those values for the sake of a dollar. What's new though? Strangely, if it was OWS fighting against the evil corporations, it would be a totally different picture here, which is what is the hypocrisy of it all.
edit on 13-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by andersensrm
The only rights I see infringed on are Ellen's. Its not just because she is gay, its because she is on tv, and she doesn't hide it. Bad Ellen. She should hide the fact that she's gay. This is what the million moms are really trying to say.


Ok well liberals boycotted Glenn Beck because they hate him and all that he stands for, because he exposed Soros and the communist Van Jones, and so much of the agenda, and ACORN, they boycotted him because he is a proponent of Constitutional conservativism. It's pretty much the same thing, a war of ideologies.

For the record, I didn't say I could get behind the boycott, I said let the market determine the outcome. Anyway, JC Penney likely is looking for a bigger market target, thus traditional families may feel that Penneys has abandoned those values for the sake of a dollar. What's new though? Strangely, if it was OWS fighting against the evil corporations, it would be a totally different picture here, which is what is the hypocrisy of it all.
edit on 13-2-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)


you must think I am a liberal or something. I am not, and I don't think that they should have boycotted glenn beck and whatever else you think they boycotted for wrong reasons. All I am saying is you can't boycotte something that a person can't change. A person can't change skin color, or sexual orientation, or eye color, or anything else that you can't change, provided you can do the job.

So traditional family values are, don't let gay people work? Don't let gay people hold public jobs?

What about the practicality, do these moms really think there going to get a thing going, where if your gay you can't have any job that is open to the public? I don't really get where it ends, which is a problem. In one fail swoop this group is saying, if your gay, hide it, or you can't work any public job. That is discrimatory if I've ever heard it, and if you can argue that it isn't, then I could argue that NOTHING is discrimiatory.

Which brings me back to the question, if this isn't a hate group, or discrimatory against gays, then what the hell is? What does it take, I always thought just discriminating was enough. Apparently not.



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join