I don't really take issue with Oprah for rejecting the idea of having Sarah on her show. 

I do see KFC's point though.  What she has made her career about is what she is ultimately contradicting.  Secondly, she says she doesn't want to make this political but yet already did when she had Obama.  I would care less if she would have just said.  I'm in the bag for Obama, and be done with it.  Although, I'm not an Oprah fan I don't care for blatant hypocrisy.

Strong-headed, intelligent, opinionated, but wacko....?  Nope.

Funny! 

Once again Dr. Guy nails one on the head. 

Accurate or not, that's my impression as well.

Good one Sancho. I laughed AND snorted at the same time while reading this.

While I get KFC's point, honestly, who cases about Oprah? Big deal, no loss. What can you expect?

LOL, this is your best argument? I guess the fairness doctrine should only be fair when its not affecting the party that came up with it.

Yeah well being crass beats having an avatar that looks like a Maxipad commercial  

Wow, that was just wrong, funny, but wrong.

So do you still drink coca-cola KFC?

While I'm pretty sure you are thinking this is a 'gotcha' type question my purpose is more of this.  You seem to be willing to boycott something when there is an organization behind it (in this case FFRW) and against McDonalds but I'm truly curious to whether your convictions are personal or whether you are more of a groupy. 

I only bring this up because you now are setting a pattern of championing boycotts (now with 2).

I feel like you're dogging me AD......Geeesh!

No, I'm not a groupy but if they make sense and these two do.....I'll listen.  I already told you there have been other boycotts that I've not followed by the AFA. 

And....there are other places or things I stay away from because they go against what I believe.  For instance, I've already mentioned Hooters.  Never go to the place.  I "boycott"  R rated films as well.  I mean there are tons of stuff I try to avoid because it violates what I believe and it has nothing to do with somebody telling me to do it.

I would think by now AD you'd know better that I am a pretty independant thinker. 

You're missin' out, KFC.  Break your rules from time to time, because you might just like it .

hahahaha Kurtin.....well I lied a tiny bit.....there are a very small select few I have watched and usually they are only rated R because of period violence.  Braveheart comes to mind for one.  Gladiator another and wasn't Passion of the Cross rated R? 

Most of the time these movies are all about gratuitous sex or language which I can't stand and don't think it has any redeeming value.   Sometimes I'm even disgusted with a PG-13 when they throw in some bad language for no other reason than to just do it.  I don't think it would take anything off the movie not to say certain words. 

I learned something today about not to allow "brain staining" to happen.  Or rather to be careful what you allow your brain to be stained with.    You know how hard it is to clean up those persistent stains so how much harder is it to scrub the brain from the stains of everyday living? 

can't edit.....I meant to say "Passion of the Christ." 

You mean brainwashing?

~Zoo

Don't you mean culturalization?

So why not champion KFC's Coca-Cola Boycott?  How about Wal-Mart too? 

KFC, I'm concerned that your apparent inconsistencies on these issues leave ambiguities on your convictions here.

Let me see if I can clarify here.  There is a fundamental difference of presenting the information as you did in this article about Oprah.  You stated that you would boycott Oprah but you don't watch her much anyhow.  I have no objections with this.  You stated the information and what you thought.  The McDonalds article came across more of a championing a cause to which you are promoting others to boycott as well for said reasons.  But if the whole issue was about them (Mickey D's) promoting a homosexual agenda then why not advocate boycotts against Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and others from the link I sent ya?  I apologize if this seems like I am 'dogging' you but I am either wanting clarification or possibly helping you to not appear so inconsistent.

I think it is something to think about.

There are no inconsistinces and we've already had this discussion when it first came up AD. 

McDonalds came out with an in your face response to the AFA plea.  They pretty much said "we're not only going to continue sending money to the Chamber of Gay and Lesbian Commerce we're going to put an employee on the board."  They then went on to call Christians hate mongers.

So of course, I'm going to respond with my dollars by not supporting not only what they're doing but their attitude about itl.  I want other Christians to know what McDonald's thinks of them. 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean that  I presented a diff case with Oprah than McDonalds.  I feel the same about both of them pretty much.  The only diff is one I would not choose to spend money at and the other only involves switching channels. 

I'm not adverse to taking my money elsewhere no matter what the store or diner happens to be if I feel my beliefs are being violated or my money is not going to a good cause.  I've done this with road races  and I've told you this before. 

That's not the reasons you gave.

Hmmm, I see it as more of pointing out hypocrisy (Oprah) versus boycotting the business that advocates against your beliefs (MDs and homosexuality).

Again you presented your case for boycotting McDonalds as being advocates for the homosexual agenda.  All I asked is if you were still drinking your cokes (the company that supports more so this agenda than MDs) and you feel like I am dogging you.  

To which you responded that it was about their attitude and anti-Christian?  I cannot find such references in either article until now.  Maybe I missed it?

I’m beginning to sense I have stepped on your toes and hit closer to home then I intended.  

Really?  What reasons did I give AD? 

OK.  Yes.   So what's the problem?  It's ok to boycott for hypocrisy but not boycott because I wish my money to be better spent? 

yes you missed it.  Their attitude was part of the original issue.  The boycott was because they were supporting a cause even though the AFA asked if they could remain neutral remember?  When they were approached they responded with a reply that Christians were hate mongers and homophobic. 

no, I think it's more what you wish to feel.  I'm not sure exactly how I can make this any clearer to you AD.  We've been around and around on this one. 

Why are you so persistent with the whole Micky D's Boycott?  Obviously you disagree? 

No problem, you were the one that couldn't see the differences in your boycotts. 

I don't see that anywhere in your article.

From BAM article:

Note the bolding was YOUR emphasis.

IF and a BIG IF this was truly your issue (which now you say it was the 'attitude') then you would be inclined to boycott your precious coke which gives MORE to promote the agenda you are against.  Yet you seem fine drinking your cokes.  All I am asking is why and pointing out the inconsistencies. 

See KFC, this is the problem.  The issue isn't about Mickey D's.  It's more about your reasoning!

Knowing what you know about Coca-Cola why aren't you boycotting them too?

[quote]Knowing what you know about Coca-Cola why aren't you boycotting them too?[/quote

ok, I let you squirm long enough.......

I am.  And you forgot BEST BUY. 

I drink Pepsi. 

Ok, let's look at how you're twisting things a bit AD shall we?  You said first:

Do you see what you left out? Is the problem with the boycotts or the way I presented them AD?

Again I'll repeat: 

I'm not sure exactly what you mean that I presented a diff case with Oprah than McDonalds.

KFC is a Pepsi drinker.  I knew there was a reason we had some friction!
Oh, Coca-Cola is sooo much better!!!

You're boycotting all of the good things now!  Except for Oprah that is...

No Way!  Pepsi in the small bottles (any soda in cans is yuck!).