Discussion in 'Community' started by GrandAdmiralJello, Nov 4, 2012.
Were they really on your list of places to eat?
Denny's was but I have not eaten there in years. They are just like any Coney Island restaurant and in the realm of Big Boy and IHOP. I used to love, LOVE, their Grand Slam Breakfast and they have good coffee. But if the owner is a jerk then screw it.
i eat at a denny's pretty regularly after dancing on friday nights because its the only restaurant nearby the venue that's open after midnight. im probably going to think twice before going now, not because i buy the logic of "voting with your feet/wallet", but simply because i would find it personally distasteful to participate in any small way in a fat rich man's little tantrum. i feel awful for the employees he's taking this out on
EDIT: wait no i just remembered what a franchise was and checked the article - he owns 40 denny's in florida, not all of them. so false alarm. 1 AM smothered cheese fries and smoothies for all... at least if you dont live in florida. he also owns some dairy queens there and a franchise called Hurricane Grills and Wings
Looks like a large Florida Denny's franchisee, which is not the same thing as the entire Denny's corporation. Same thing happened with an Applebees franchisee, and like them I expect Denny's to distance itself from this idiot if they haven't already. Both are still terrible restaurants, however.
Applebees is delicious!
applebees is terrible. denny's is also terrible but again you can't be choosy at 1 AM
is this something you would shove down your gullet?
it looks like a damn meatball made of cake
If THAT was made of cake, yeah I'd eat it. But I gather it's not so...
they're "red velvet pancake puppies". so take from that what u will
Red velvet cake--YUM!!!!
The same CEO of Denny's who is charged with sexual abuse for forcing a female employee to perform sex acts on him for years as a condition of continued employment?
that guy actually is the CEO of waffle house, (not a franchisee like the denny's dude) which, btw, is vastly superior to denny's even though there's really not anything i can eat there anymore since i got diagnosed with a wheat allergy and shortly thereafter stopped eating pork and beef
The specifics are escaping me at the moment, but at least one Denny's chain in Raleigh had allegations of racial discrimination against customers.
That would be like killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. I liked this comment that someone I don't know left on that status, though.
To which the OP replied "You are a socialist get out of here!" which is a sentence I didn't know it was possible to say unironically.
I liked Obama's comment in 2008 about the Republicans expecting you to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, even if you don't have any boots.
And I can at least wrap my brain around the pro-life stance, even if I don't agree with enacting it into law. The notion of trying to sugarcoat opposition to contraception as anything other than devaluing women to nothing but their uteruses, though...sorry, not following. I can't be convinced that giving women control over when they become pregnant can ever be a bad thing.
that was lovely, catherine. almost makes me want to be a liberal
I'm not opposed to it being legal. I'm opposed to myself doing it and to the government forcing me to pay for someone else to do it.
Tax dollars do not go towards funding abortions. The Stupak and Hyde amendments prohibit it.
a good facebook post to balance out the bad
Well, that seems to draw the lines pretty clearly, doesn't it?
GROUP 1: Thinks that we don't have to give in order to receive, thinks that controlling women's reproductive choices is OK, and believes that only the financially successful are worthy of love.
GROUP 2: Socialists.
By this definition, "socialist" just means "not an *******".
It was ambiguous.
I meant contraception. I'm pro-choice on contraception. But the unborn deserve the same protection from murder as the born.
In what sense is it ambiguous to say "The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly created health insurance exchanges. [. . .] The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires State health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles [. . .] . Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions."
From a thrice repeated point that the ACA must comply with Hyde Amendment in all respects, you somehow get ambiguity about whether it respects the Hyde Amendment?
I was responding to this point about contraception. Not the point about abortion.
Rick Santorum is already organizing for 2016, both preparing a grassroots movement and securing fundraisers.
Warren Buffet is already endorsing Hillary Clinton.
I don't know whether to or
I'd settle on both reactions. Though, I can't say I'm shocked about Santorum trying again.