Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NewsMax)   Mitt Romney will lose the 2012 election because he failed to stand with Chick-fil-a like Ronald Reagan would have   (newsmax.com) divider line 176
    More: Unlikely, Mitt Romney, Ronald Reagan, elections in 2012, Bill Donohue, Alan Dershowitz, Richard Viguerie, moral clarity, Massachusetts Governor  
•       •       •

1930 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Aug 2012 at 6:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



176 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 03:55:30 PM  
Clinton would have stood with Chik-Fil-A too, but that's because he liked a good chicken sammich.
 
2012-08-06 04:17:09 PM  
I can just see Bill, sandwich in one hand, waffle fries in the other, watching these ladies and trying to feel their...pain.

wizbangblog.com
 
2012-08-06 04:17:55 PM  
He told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race.

Oh yes, please do that.
 
2012-08-06 04:18:39 PM  
Catholic League Chief 'Astonished' By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance

Gay politics aside, that's really how dumb Bill Donohue is. Romney? Stance? Oil and water.
 
2012-08-06 04:19:21 PM  

ManateeGag: Clinton would have stood with Chik-Fil-A too, but that's because he liked a good chicken sammich.


He used chicken grease for lube.
 
2012-08-06 04:20:36 PM  
Ronald Reagan is too liberal for today's GOP.
 
2012-08-06 04:22:37 PM  
Romney's aides have explained that while the presumptive GOP presidential nominee favors the traditional definition of marriage, he is trying to structure his remarks to keep the focus solely on the economy in order to have the best possible chance of defeating President Barack Obama in November.

No core. No values. Only saying and doing things that will advance his personal ambitions.

I'd say those reasons are much more important than than gays and fast food when deciding whether to elect the guy.
 
2012-08-06 04:23:48 PM  
An article about the opinion of the head of the Catholic League? Oh good, I don't have to read it.
 
2012-08-06 04:23:56 PM  

Aarontology: Ronald Reagan is too liberal for today's GOP.


While true, I think it's important to be fair. He didn't care for the gays at all.
 
2012-08-06 04:24:14 PM  
I welcome anyone who would vote according to what they believe a Bronze Age war god would want to sit out all elections.
 
2012-08-06 04:25:02 PM  

Diogenes: Aarontology: Ronald Reagan is too liberal for today's GOP.

While true, I think it's important to be fair. He didn't care for the gays at all.


You've got me there.
 
2012-08-06 04:25:27 PM  

exick: An article about the opinion of the head of the Catholic League? Oh good, I don't have to read it.


The only reason to read it is schadenfreude.
 
2012-08-06 04:26:13 PM  
Romney will lose because he's a non-conservative that even hard-core repubtards can see through. His conservative "bona fides" are pretty much non-existant and the (R)s have done everything they can to ignore that fact. He's not a Christian and thats grated on many nerves and for the fundys who are trying to ignore it he's not making it easy. Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian). He's alienating the voters that he absolutely needs to have in order to win and if he doesn't take a strong stand against -something- in the next couple months the electoral is going to remain where it is: 290 Obama, 190 Romney, 50-60 tossup.
 
2012-08-06 04:33:53 PM  
farm5.static.flickr.com
 
2012-08-06 04:34:02 PM  

xynix: Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian).


you don't think their deep, visceral hatred of obama won't turn them out to hold their noses and vote for romney?
 
2012-08-06 04:34:12 PM  
Isn't "Mitt Romney will lose the 2012 election because..." pretty much a mad libs/magic 8-ball sort of question at this point?
 
2012-08-06 04:37:18 PM  

miss diminutive: Isn't "Mitt Romney will lose the 2012 election because..." pretty much a mad libs/magic 8-ball sort of question at this point?


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-08-06 04:37:54 PM  
Uh, right. Back in the Reagan days, the GOP wasn't the party of anti-gay hatemongers that they are now. Really, the GOP wasn't that socially conservative back then if compared to today.
 
2012-08-06 04:45:17 PM  

slayer199: Uh, right. Back in the Reagan days, the GOP wasn't the party of anti-gay hatemongers that they are now. Really, the GOP wasn't that socially conservative back then if compared to today.


No. Reagan is just the one who started it.
 
2012-08-06 04:47:42 PM  
"I don't understand why Mitt Romney doesn't just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chick-fil-A and show solidarity with these people," Buchanan said, adding: " . . . Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally."

I think there's something to this and Misters Donahue and Buchanan make a good point. On Chick-fil-a Appreciation Day, I heeded the advice of Governor Huckabee and headed down with my younger brother to the franchise in Northridge, not far from the final resting place of President Reagan.

Of course, the wait was nearly 90 minutes. We all knew it would be totally worth it, both for the delicious chicken and to make a stand for traditional marriage. The atmosphere was amazingly positive. We laughed, told stories and sang our favorite Christian songs.

About 75 minutes in, after I had finally gotten into the store, amid this festive atmosphere, a sudden hush fell over the crowd. It was caused by a noticeable chill in the air. The older ones among us knew almost instinctively. My brother looked up at me and started to ask what it was, but I gave him a sly smile and put my finger over his mouth to shush him before he could finish the question. I said, "I'll tell you when we get out of here."

The rest of us looked at each other knowingly. We all understood what happened. The Gipper was there with us that day.
 
2012-08-06 04:47:50 PM  

FlashHarry: xynix: Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian).

you don't think their deep, visceral hatred of obama won't turn them out to hold their noses and vote for romney?


I would say thats going to depend strongly on who Romney picks as his VP. If the person is an evangelical than he will get a decent turn out.. IF he chooses someone in the gray area of religion then he'll lose about 20% of the evangelical vote. I know two deeply conservative evangelicals who will not vote for a non-Christian no matter what though..
 
2012-08-06 04:48:25 PM  
In Reagan's day the GOP was the party of, "As long as it doesn't need my tax dollars, do what you want, in your own house, on your own time. It's not the government's job to be some nanny state and tell you how to live your life. Also, don't be a farking communist, because that's treason and we will kill you."
 
2012-08-06 04:52:07 PM  

JerseyTim: The Gipper was there with us that day.


So that's what they use in those sanwiches!

Pft. "Chicken". Yeah right.
 
2012-08-06 04:53:03 PM  

FlashHarry: xynix: Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian).

you don't think their deep, visceral hatred of obama won't turn them out to hold their noses and vote for romney?


I think many will sit it out. I know my grandmother is.

"Those farkers had over 4 years to find someone to unseat that ni-bong, and the best they could come up with is Romney. I'm staying home."

Which will be funny, since she volunteers at the polls ;-)
 
2012-08-06 04:55:11 PM  

Makh: In Reagan's day the GOP was the party of, "As long as it doesn't need my tax dollars, do what you want, in your own house, on your own time. It's not the government's job to be some nanny state and tell you how to live your life. Also, don't be a farking communist, because that's treason and we will kill you."


Um, it was in Reagan's day that the unholy alliance with Christian "values voters" really gained traction. It was the birth of the Christian Conservatives.

They were always there but much quieter, preferring to pull at the levers of power in private. Reagan changed that.
 
2012-08-06 04:55:25 PM  

JerseyTim: I heeded the advice of Governor Huckabee and headed down with my younger brother to the franchise in Northridge, not far from the final resting place of President Reagan.


That's actually the closest one to Ronnie's resting place. Thank the Great Chicken above for that place so now I don't have to go to Torrance or, worse, USC to get my fix. I only wish it had been there when I was in college. That location is like a mecca of fast food. There's a Chick Fil A on one side of the street, an In N Out on the other, and a Five Guys and Pinkberry catty-corner.
 
2012-08-06 05:01:17 PM  

ManateeGag: Clinton would have stood with Chik-Fil-A too, but that's because he liked a good chicken sammich.


Oddly enough, Bubba is a vegan now.
 
2012-08-06 05:02:21 PM  
More likely than you think subby
 
2012-08-06 05:04:03 PM  
Yeah, I say go with this.
 
2012-08-06 05:04:09 PM  

xynix: I know two deeply conservative evangelicals who will not vote for a non-Christian no matter what though..


i thought evangelicals had come around to accepting mormons as christians.
 
2012-08-06 05:04:24 PM  
Obama might win because stupid people will vote for stupid politicians for stupid reasons.
 
2012-08-06 05:09:39 PM  
Oh, please don't stay home, Teatards. We liberals would be so happy if everyone would come out and vote. Don't make us unhappy!

/And whatever you do, don't throw me in the briar patch
 
2012-08-06 05:09:44 PM  

GAT_00: slayer199: Uh, right. Back in the Reagan days, the GOP wasn't the party of anti-gay hatemongers that they are now. Really, the GOP wasn't that socially conservative back then if compared to today.

No. Reagan is just the one who started it.


Realize that Reagan was born in 1911 and the world was a different place. Until 1973 homosexuality was considered a mental disorder by the brainiacs in the medical world. Even though this was the case Reagan was a child of Hollywood which was pretty gay in 50s and 60s. If anything he was accepting and open to homosexuality. I think the reason people view him as anti-gay was because he stated, in regards to AIDS, that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments." He was not discriminatory in this thought though feeling that anyone having sex out of wedlock or that had pre-marital sex was clearly a sinner. History would put an anti-gay spin on that though.

In fact the first openly gay couple to stay a night at the White House was under Reagan's administration (his interior decorator + boyfriend). In the 70s he fought a dangerous political battle where he strongly opposed a ballot that would keep gay teachers out of the classroom as he was gearing up to run for pres. As Lou Cannon, one of his biographers, points out: ["respectful of the privacy of others" and was "not the sort of person who bothers about what people do in their own bedrooms." This attitude was consistent with Reagan's larger philosophical commitment to individual liberty and limited government.] The repubs could use some non-polarized leadership like that now.. And a lot less derp.

Reagan has been unfairly judged and the political risk he took when many of the nation considered homosexuality an abomination was tremendous. For Obama or Romney to say they support homosexual rights takes practically no risk these days. Consider that..
 
2012-08-06 05:10:35 PM  

exick: An article about the opinion of the head of the Catholic League? Oh good, I don't have to read it.


Good ol' Bill? Has this one-man "league" apologized for being an anti-Semite yet? And why is Newsmax publishing the writings of an anti-Semite in the first place? Are they friendly with antisemitic figures?
 
2012-08-06 05:16:06 PM  

EnviroDude: Obama might win because stupid people will vote for stupid politicians for stupid reasons.


*yawn*

I realize it's Monday and all, but if you're just going to phone it in spare yourself the minimal effort.

Article: Even Romney's biggest single donor wishes he'd take firmer stances (from Newsmax no less)

EnviroDud: B-b-but Obama is a poopyhead!
 
2012-08-06 05:16:32 PM  
www.theage.com.au
 
2012-08-06 05:16:40 PM  

xynix: He's not a Christian and thats grated on many nerves and for the fundys who are trying to ignore it he's not making it easy. Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian).


You'll never find a person more devoted to the idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to Earth to die for the sins of Humanity so that humans could enjoy everlasting life--than a devout Mormon. I take your point that many evangelical Christians have been taught that Mormonism isn't part of their sphere but don't let a group of Protestant heretics whose religion was invented in the 17th and 18th centuries be the gatekeepers of 2000 years of "authentic Christianity?" Don't grant them that bullshiat status in the first place. Evangelical Protestants are very much a minority of worldwide Christians. They don't set the rules and they shouldn't be allowed to claim they do. Every time one of them does it they should be called out and exposed for the tiny minority they are.
 
2012-08-06 05:20:45 PM  

Somacandra: Good ol' Bill? Has this one-man "league" apologized for being an anti-Semite yet? And why is Newsmax publishing the writings of an anti-Semite in the first place? Are they friendly with antisemitic figures?


Considering the piece also quotes Pat Buchanan, I'm going to have to answer in the affirmative.
 
2012-08-06 05:29:03 PM  

EnviroDude: Obama might win because stupid people will vote for stupid politicians for stupid reasons.


Nah. Obama WILL win because the stupid people will divide their votes among Romney, a Libertarian or two, and a few assorted Teabaggers.

In 2004, Bush won easily because the stupid people were united behind him.
 
2012-08-06 05:33:38 PM  

FlashHarry: xynix: I know two deeply conservative evangelicals who will not vote for a non-Christian no matter what though..

i thought evangelicals had come around to accepting mormons as christians.


Evangelicals have strict beliefs and there is no room in them for Mormonism. Look at the history so far.. Newt Gingrich who has thrice married/cheated/probably has a bunch of kids running around got 46% of South Carolinas voters where Romney got 10%. To me that's saying "I'll take a crappy Christian over a non-Christian anyday." Mormonism is considered a false religion and though many won't say it out loud being in the Mormon religion is the same thing as being a follower of David Koresh.

From a social stand-point its interesting to note that our first president was a Diest and most likely didn't even believe in Christ. Jefferson was also along these lines.. The reason Christian conservatives try to act like our founding fathers were uber:christians is because they both belonged to the mega-church of their day. Basically if you wanted to have influence in society in pre-colonial America you became involved in the church. Didn't mean you were Christian though. However even before our first political battles as a fledgling democracy politicians were using God as a tool to amass votes.
 
2012-08-06 05:37:47 PM  

Somacandra: xynix: He's not a Christian and thats grated on many nerves and for the fundys who are trying to ignore it he's not making it easy. Evangelical Christians are going to be a very hard vote for him to get on the surface alone (he's not Christian).

You'll never find a person more devoted to the idea that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came to Earth to die for the sins of Humanity so that humans could enjoy everlasting life--than a devout Mormon. I take your point that many evangelical Christians have been taught that Mormonism isn't part of their sphere but don't let a group of Protestant heretics whose religion was invented in the 17th and 18th centuries be the gatekeepers of 2000 years of "authentic Christianity?" Don't grant them that bullshiat status in the first place. Evangelical Protestants are very much a minority of worldwide Christians. They don't set the rules and they shouldn't be allowed to claim they do. Every time one of them does it they should be called out and exposed for the tiny minority they are.


The problem being that the majority of the evangelicals you cite are right here in our voting districts. I have no opinion on Mormons vs Christians. In fact my best friend is Mormon and his parents are spectacular people who have never drank, adopted 4 kids, raised them, sent them to college, etc etc. It's irrelevant though because the evangelicals believe what they believe and they make up about 20% of the Christian vote.
 
2012-08-06 05:40:32 PM  
"No one's going to be allowed to speak at any great length on this issue," [Huckabee] predicted in regard to the convention. "All we're going to hear is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's flatulent."

Yeah, too much Cick-fil-A will do that
 
2012-08-06 05:42:24 PM  

xynix: FlashHarry: xynix: I know two deeply conservative evangelicals who will not vote for a non-Christian no matter what though..

i thought evangelicals had come around to accepting mormons as christians.

Evangelicals have strict beliefs and there is no room in them for Mormonism. Look at the history so far.. Newt Gingrich who has thrice married/cheated/probably has a bunch of kids running around got 46% of South Carolinas voters where Romney got 10%. To me that's saying "I'll take a crappy Christian over a non-Christian anyday." Mormonism is considered a false religion and though many won't say it out loud being in the Mormon religion is the same thing as being a follower of David Koresh.

From a social stand-point its interesting to note that our first president was a Diest and most likely didn't even believe in Christ. Jefferson was also along these lines.. The reason Christian conservatives try to act like our founding fathers were uber:christians is because they both belonged to the mega-church of their day. Basically if you wanted to have influence in society in pre-colonial America you became involved in the church. Didn't mean you were Christian though. However even before our first political battles as a fledgling democracy politicians were using God as a tool to amass votes.


On the other hand these people don't exactly have a history of intellectual consistency or logical integrity.
 
2012-08-06 05:43:03 PM  

"I don't understand why Mitt Romney doesn't just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chick-fil-A and show solidarity with these people," Buchanan said, adding: " . . . Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally."

Read more on Newsmax.com: Catholic League Chief 'Astonished' By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


No, Reagan would have said something clever and everyone would laugh and then he would then change the subject to whatever he wanted to talk about and it would work.
 
2012-08-06 05:44:37 PM  

Sgt Otter: ManateeGag: Clinton would have stood with Chik-Fil-A too, but that's because he liked a good chicken sammich.

Oddly enough, Bubba is a vegan now.


just the occasional tuna taco, from what I hear.
 
2012-08-06 05:45:49 PM  
We need more Republicans like Eisenhower.
 
2012-08-06 05:54:01 PM  
The more precisely the position of Mitt is determined, the less precisely his momentum can be known, and vice versa.

/this is referred to as the Heightenedderp Uncertainty Principle
 
2012-08-06 05:55:22 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The more precisely the position of Mitt is determined, the less precisely his momentum can be known, and vice versa.

/this is referred to as the Heightenedderp Uncertainty Principle


When to we get to use magnets to smash him into stuff?
 
2012-08-06 05:57:02 PM  
but what are you going to do about it, it's a two party system, you have to vote for one of them!

AHAHAHAHAHA
 
2012-08-06 05:58:36 PM  

Krieghund: I can just see Bill, sandwich in one hand, waffle fries in the other, watching these ladies and trying to feel their...pain.

[wizbangblog.com image 480x720]


That is far and away the hottest couple I've seen kissing in front of a Chick-fil-a sign.

Went to Chick-fil-a Saturday, sad that I didn't get a free show.
 
Displayed 50 of 176 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report