Not In and Out Too?
-
You know It’s funny but sad at the sametime. That a party and a faction of our society gets to claim they are for freedom and all that goes with it.
Yet disagree with them and they boycott, and do anything to impede the freedom of your speech and thought. Should a business be punished by a political party becuase they made a donation to another party? Is this not hyprocisy at its best? Is this not the beginnings of fascism? It would be one thing if a average citizen chose not attend a certian establishment becuase of their political beliefs. Yet why does a political party get to declare war on the same said establishment?
Is there not any government law agianst such actions? Is there not a ethics code violation for such behavior? The forefathers went to great links to serparate the Church/reglious beliefs from the state/government. For fear that one group or Section of society would force their beliefs on the masses through political process. Should it not be the same for policial parties using their power to infringe on said citizens/businesses to spread their politcal agenda?
Crazy thing is? In and Out is everything the DNC claims they want out of a business. It’s family owned, it pays decent wages to its employees, and genuinely cares about the people that work for them. Yet now they are the enemy and must be punished because they made a small donation to the opposing party.
Where did this entitlement come from? This thought that the DNC is beyond reproach. That if you don’t like someone or dont’ want them to share their message you can bully them into submission?
Go figure?
-
It is embarrassing and a joke how much the left, liberals, or whatever you want to call them boycott something. If something doesn’t go their way or someone says something “mean” they just lose there shit. I mean I wish I had that much time to care about as many different non issues and protest them.
Obviously they are not going to be able to bully or push In and Out of business, but it is sad that it has come to this. They claim that that Trump and the “right” are bullies however it is exactly what they do when someone / something says or does something they do not approve of.
It is a joke. Plain and simple. However, it does give me something to look and laugh at.
-
You aren’t a “constitutionalist” if you don’t believe in boycotts. Stated clearly in the first amendment is “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.”
So they aren’t impeding free speech. They are peacefully protesting. Or, you know, exercising their first amendment right… Only the hypocritical right “constitutionalists” can try to argue against something in the constitution by trying to use the constitution lol. Or try to bring up the “Fore Father’s” intentions for one amendment, but not the others.
Do I think it is for a good reason in this particular case, no (mainly because of the points you made that In and Out is a model business that everyone should support). But that doesn’t mean this is fascism or limiting free speech.
-
The argument that boycotting is unconstitutional, or fascist, or wanting to impose laws against boycotts is nuts guys.
Every time people say something like this, our grip on reality erodes a little bit.
-
It is true that the Constitution does indeed protect the rights of Citizens to boycott as they see fit. However the DNC is a political organization. Which it’s sole purpose is to govern “all people” the Constitution is supposed to protect. Even those that don’t agree with their agenda. A political organization like the DNC calling for a boycott of an establishment/business on the grounds that they made a political donation to an opposing party is very troubling. This action lays the ground work for Fascism indeed. A simple look at any Dictionary will only confirm my theory. Lets not forget this so called boycott isn’t coming from average citizens. It’s coming from a political party that holds a plethora of government positions and offices through out the country. It’s demanding a boycott against a business on the grounds it made a donation to an opposing political party.
The real issue isn’t the act of the Boycott itself, as the Constitution protects and gives rights to stage a boycott. It’s the being that has called for the boycott, the Chairman of the DNC. And the reason for the boycott, that In and Out made a donation to an opposing party. This very act runs counter to the very reason the First Amendment was in the Constitution to begin with. To protect and give rights to the average citizens to have their own voice and thoughts on all issues. Even political points of view. It was never intended to be a tool used by a political party to punish a person/business that has different views than said party. Which in this case is the DNC.
In the end I think this boycott will fail. As In and Out is loved and enjoyed by almost everyone that darkens their doors. Its business model is admired and respected through out our great Country. Maybe even the world? Yea it doesn’t excuse the DNC and it’s actions to punish a business on the grounds, that it has differing political views.
Just because we have the freedom to say and boycott what we wish, doesn’t mean we always have the right. There’re certain terms and aspects of our speech that should never be spoken or practiced as they are rude and disrespectful. Nobody is calling for a ban on boycotts especial not I. However If you can’t see a issue with the DNC a political party calling for a boycott on In and Out because it made a political contribution to the RNC? Then you most be a liberal?
-
@DoubleDD What one Californian democrat tweeted, regardless of his position in the party, is not the same thing as the party’s position.
Just like Trump.
Our over-attribution, over-aspersion, and overreaction are DANGEROUS things.
-
I don’t think I could imagine a more legitimate boycott. If a business decides to align itself with a particular party, why should people in the other party support it? It would be stupid.
@DoubleDD I don’t remember seeing lots of your objections when Right Wingers calling for boycotts of Disney for its progressive LBGQT policies, or when nitwits got bent out of shape at Starbucks for its allegedly antiChristmas coffee cups (that actually were merely nonreligious holiday themes).
It really is just an example of why corporations should not be considered “people” for political participation purposes. The owners should keep the corporation out of politics.
-
@mayjay yeah, the business chose to make this political. So I think Double DD was being a bit disingenuous.
-
I think your point is too true. It would be nice and less mudding of the waters if companies/corporations would stay out of political issues and just let the people decide. Yet it benefits these entities to make these donations and in some cases can be damaging if they don’t. Lets not forget Lobbying is big business in our US Government.
The reason I didn’t have a problem with the boycotts you mentioned is for a couple reasons.
-
It’s was not endorsed or pushed by said party, the RNC
-
There were conservative leading voices that actually spoke out against such a boycott. Calling the boycotts for what they were, “stupid”.
I have yet to hear the liberal voices coming out condemning such said boycott. In fact the consensus from the left seems to be by all means.
Not you mayjay but in general.
If you’re ok with a political party punishing a company/business because they a made a political contribution to the opposing party? Then how far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go to push your political agenda?
Would you be ok attacking and punishing average citizens that don’t agree with your political views? So if it’s ok to punish a company because they have a different political view, then would it be ok to punish a average citizen that has a different political view? Do not companies and business owners have the same rights as average citizens? Are they not both not protected under the law?
Some of the thoughts here are mind boggling. And I’m the one being disingenuous?
-
-
@DoubleDD Well, now, the conservative position says not to make employees pay union fees when the union engages in lobbying they disagree with, or contribute to pol parties. If that is a valid stance (and I actually agree with that), then I think the only possible consistent view would be for people not wanting to support an opposing party to not fund donations that come from spending their money there.
-
DoubleDD said:
Some of the thoughts here are mind boggling. And I’m the one being disingenuous?
I guess I just forgot about the part in history where fascism started with the Nazi’s boycotting sausage stands. Or the Italians boycotted a pizza restaurant. And that was somehow the downfall of the country and the start of WWII.
You are not only hypocritical in your stance, but completely blowing something out of proportion.
It isn’t ok for people to boycott a fast food chain, but it is ok for people to boycott NFL games? And Trump, the head of the Republican party, is condemning it and encouraging the boycott. I mean, do you not see your own hypocrisy? lol.
-
Though I like the point you’re trying to drive. However the DNC boycotting a business just because they might have a different political view, is quite different than the RNC trying to break the strangle hold the Union shops have on the people they represent.
In and Out is a food chain. One can chose not to eat there for whatever reason they chose. Just as one can chose to eat there if they wish for the opposite reasons. Its a free enterprise to sink or swim at it’s own peril. However a political party such the DNC calling for a boycott just because a business donated money to an opposing party disrupts the free market system, and stacks the deck in their favor in power and control over local assemblies.
I am a union worker, and quite proud of it in fact. Just the history of the selfless acts of a few individuals to fight back against pure greed and power to form the Union concept is indeed a story of great sacrifice and heroism. However as a Union worker I have no choice.
Unlike the average citizen that gets to choose on whether they want to spend their hard earned cash at IN and Out. I have no choice in were my union dues are spent. The power of choice is stripped from me as a worker/member that supports the very Union that takes my dues. In a sense I’m being forced to support certain candidates even if my views run contrary to their agenda.
This is hardly the same.
I quick study of history and just some plain old common sense would tell you nothing just happens over night. As the saying goes Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was the Nazi empire.
However I think your comparison to Hitler and the Nazi party is spot on. Just for different reasons. Without wasting the day away by examining the rise of the Hitler and the Nazi party to power. I’ll just get to the basics.
-
One of Hitler’s key aspects was his ability to feed into the misery of the German people. As the citizens of Germany, lets just say they were having a tough go at it.
-
Yet instead of trying to build Germany up, he wanted to consolidate his power. So he resorted to the blame game. He blamed the rich (jews) for the woes of the German people and attacked other political parties. Its all there in the history books. Try picking one up?
-
Yes he indeed attacked and boycotted business that didn’t agree with his political agenda. Yet he didn’t stop there. He even began to attack the German citizens themselves. Even those that had support for him in the beginning.
Any of this sound or look familiar to you?
You see the problem isn’t the people boycotting on this issue or that one. The problem is a political party calling for boycotts against people and business that disagree with their political agenda.
-
-
@DoubleDD Your three points sound exactly like a description of how Trump got elected. Very interesting that you see a boycott of a hamburger stand as a closer comparison.
-
Really?
Look I understand Trump rubs some people the wrong way. Totally get it. He can be a hard person to like, or even support.
Yet I don’t remember Trump blaming any American citizens for the problems of America. Rich or Poor. In fact he has pointed his ire at our government it’s self.
It’s funny when it’s quite obvious. He is loathed by both parties of our two party system. Yes even the RNC doesn’t like the guy.
Just saying…
-
John McCain, healthcare
-
Crimsonorblue22 said:
John McCain, healthcare
Don’t get me started on McCain.
-
Trump is just Putin’s shill.
-
@BShark ok I won’t!
-
Where did Unions come into this conversation?
You still haven’t responded to my comparison that Trump is calling for a boycott of the NFL. How is this different than someone saying they should boycott a burger place?
Is this not “disrupting the free market?”
-
Then guess so was Obama?
-
@mayjay brought up unions.
No I don’t agree with any standing president calling for a boycott.
Sadly an argument can be made he’s not calling for a boycott on the NFL for political reasons. Wrong or right on the surface it appears to be for nationalism. Not to punish someone that supports an opposing party. Still as president he/she should stay out of such issues. In my humble opinion.
Disrespecting the flag is really never a good action to take, when trying to create support or draw attention to your cause. No matter what the cause is. Unfortunately perception seems to carry more weight than intention. No matter how pure they may be.
Hope that answers your question?
-
@mayjay why would they still go to the restaurant?! I don’t know because they like the food and it never bothered them before! You think this is he first contribution that In and Out has made to the RNC? No, but in this social media world everyone wants to show so much fake outrage and boycott. It’s so stupid.
-
@Woodrow Thank Donald Trump for bring us into the era of social media politics. @DoubleDD has said many times, Trump has cut out the “Fake News” middle man and gone directly to the people via Twitter. The fact that he has copycats is expected.
-
@Woodrow I am flat astounded to think anyone, especially conservatives, could believe people are doing something illicit by choosing where they spend their own freakin’ money. What should we do, then–make people certify that their money will be spent unaffected by political choices?
Capitalism is a great system provided that both businesses and consumers make choices as unfettered as possible. If a business pisses people off, their sales will suffer. As it is, and as it should be.
-
@mayjay you didn’t answer my question… so you think this is the first time that they have made a contribution ? These protest are all just hey look at me and my fake outrage. It’s exhausting and honestly working against the “liberals”.
Also I could care less where people spend money. Spend how you want . Just don’t think throwing a tantrum every time you someone says or does something you don’t like is a way too live.
-
@Woodrow I assumed this was stimulated by the contribution. So it sounds like the Dems reacted to something that occurred in an election cycle. Kudos to the Dems!
-
@DoubleDD @Woodrow So about conservatives being upset and Boycotting Nike now? Appears both sides are doing it…
-
@Kcmatt7 I think people burning their shoes right now are dumb. Also if you have already paid for something is it really a protest?
-
@Woodrow It is a protest, just self-defeating. About as influential as refusing to vote because you think “the system” is faulty or because you don’t like the only candidates on the ballot.
-
@Woodrow What about those who refuse to buy Nike products in the future?
-
@Kcmatt7 I am not going to stop buying Nike. Kind of like all those liberals that were going to boycott Chick Fil A?? I am going to go out on a limb and say they are still doing just fine. It was just some idiots with what I call fake outrage throwing a adult temper tantrum.
I am not for boycotting any company.
-
I this is exactly what I speak of in politics friends. It has turned into a contest of who can be more of a hypocrite. Take off the the Democrat and republican glasses folks, all politicians are liars and cheats to help some company most of the time. The republicans are big oil and the Democrats are big Pharma. Sometimes I think it all just a plot to make us think we have free choice but we don’t.
-
Kcmatt7 said:
@DoubleDD @Woodrow So about conservatives being upset and Boycotting Nike now? Appears both sides are doing it…
I don’t have a problem with any average citizen or fringe group boycotting whatever they see fit. Even though most of the time they are dumb. My problem is a political organization calling a boycott on a person or business because of political afflation.
In the case of In and Out. The head chairman of the DNC called for a boycott against In and Out because they made a donation to the Republican party. I find plenty wrong with that.
Plus I don’t think it would be fair to blanket all the protesters as conservatives as the ones now boycotting Nike. I would assume there are plenty of Liberals that are not happy with Nike.
I’m no great business person, but sometimes the saying, “There is no such thing as bad press” rings true. You have to applaud Nike in this instance. They found the most Controversial sports figure they could find and made him the voice of their ad campaign.
LIke it or not it’s a genius move. Especially in light of the FBI investigations in college basketball. They have in a essence grabbed control of the content of the Media headlines and public perception. Even if in the coming days a story breaks that Nike has crossed the line in dealing with college players. Nobody will care. As Kaepernick will be all the rage.
