You're a Mean One, Grinch Alert

[paft.livejournal.com]

Robert Jeffress:

Well, you know every year people bemoan the War on Christmas and I thought, “Let’s do something positive about it,” so we created this website, Grinchalert.com, it allows people to go on our website and, uh, if they’ve encountered a business that shuns Christmas they can talk about it and put that business on the naughty list but if they find a business that celebrates Christmas, they can put that business on the nice list. It’s just a fun way to say to businesses and organizations, “You don’t have to bow to political correctness. It’s okay to say, “Merry Christmas…”

John Roberts: What if businesses who are on the naughty list lose customers?... Would it be a good idea to affect people’s business at this season, which can be make or break for some people, and in this economic climate?

Jeffress: John, let me make it clear, we have never even hinted at a boycott…

"Never even hinted at a boycott?" Really? Here’s what Jeffress said on Fox:

Jeffress: One great example in the Dallas area, there was a bank that took down a Christmas tree because they said it would offend customers. Well, there was another bank that got put on our nice list, the Providence Bank, because they put up a nativity scene. The CEO told me yesterday that there were customers changing from the bank that removed the Christmas tree, and they’re flocking to his bank.

Gretchen Carlson: You are not calling for a boycott of any of these businesses….

Jeffress: Oh, not at all, not in any way! You know, there’s a Mexican restaurant you mentioned that was saying Happy Holidays, but our family still goes there every week…

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

So it’s all about reassuring businesses. Honest! It’s all about making them feel nice and safe. He’s not advocating a boycott.

But he’s delighted to share as an example that little story of a bank losing customers because they took down a Christmas tree.

See, here's what mystifies me about this... Jeffress likes the idea of forcing other people and businesses to utter "Merry Christmas" and post signs saying "Merry Christmas" who are uncomfortable doing it. Do the people at "Grinch Alert" really imagine that businesses and retailers intimidated into towing Grinch Alert's line are acting in the spirit of the season?

And here's one more video, especially for the Reverend Mr. Jeffress:

Thanx to Juliebogen

Crossposted at Thoughtcrimes

Comments

[paft.livejournal.com]

So you've run out of things to say and are now resorting to just attacking me as a poster.

What do the Tea Party and the Republicans have to do with this post?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

They don't. But you asked me how I "rationalize" that I (and most likely other people in this comm) know how what you're going to answer. I responded.

[paft.livejournal.com]

You do realize, don't you, that it's dishonest and a bit cowardly to just make up answers for someone?

Is actual argument too demanding for you?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

No, but it clearly seems to be for you.

Where on the website does it specifically say that the group who formed the site is encouraging boycotts of the businesses mentioned? I'd LOVE for you to post that.

[paft.livejournal.com]

I'm not the one making up answers for other people.

The website doesn't have to say it's encouraging people not to patronize the businesses listed in the "naughty" section. Those who read it will know exactly what to do.

You still haven't said what you think most businesses would conclude about the impact of being listed as "naughty" there. Care to take a shot at it?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

The website doesn't have to say it's encouraging people not to patronize the businesses listed in the "naughty" section. Those who read it will know exactly what to do.
That's their INDIVIDUAL CHOICE. If I don't like the business practices of certain companies, I'm not going to purchase any goods or services through them. There's nothing wrong with that. It's my choice where my money goes.

You still haven't said what you think most businesses would conclude about the impact of being listed as "naughty" there. Care to take a shot at it?
Not really. Business PR people aren't as predictable as you. :D

[paft.livejournal.com]

So you've shifted from denying that it's an attempt at a boycott to defending the boycott.

And now you're claiming that you can't predict a businesses reaction to the prospect of bad publicity at Christmastime.

It's always fascinating to watch people feign dumbness rather than concede a point.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

I'm not 'denying' anything. Your knight in shining armor jk_fabiani already pointed out that the website doesn't call for a boycott of the businesses mentioned in the posts.

And no, I don't claim to know how a business is going to react at ANY point.

And Pamela, it's ALWAYS a pleasure to watch you resort to your true form when your lack of depth is thrown back in your face.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

[paft.livejournal.com]

M: Your knight in shining armor...

Do you have any idea how stupid, petty, and childish this makes you look?

m: and no I don't claim to know how a business is going to react at ANY point.

Any educated adult of normal intelligence knows how a business is likely to react to bad publicity during the Christmas Season.

You are not stupid, M. Why are you pretending to be?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Pamela?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Just so we're clear on this: So you have nothing else to add about the point that your opponent is making, and you choose to resort to personal attacks? Am I getting this right?

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

No, that's NOT what I said. The last few messages exchanged between PAFT and I had no personal attacks at all.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

The last few - maybe not. What about the ones preceding them.

[dreadfulpenny81.livejournal.com]

What about them? I'm not the only one who was tossing around ad hominems.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

I saw two people arguing about something, and one of them gradually starting to employ the good old derail-it-through-snark trick. While I strongly disagree with Paft that the issue in this post is a big deal, this still doesn't mean that I couldn't help noticing how you've been slipping out of the political discourse, and into a muddy territory that no one would have liked to join you into.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

wow, they way you are called Pamela here creeps me out royally.

Gotta give you this paft, the way various peeps from all sides have been glib about you in this community, you have ovaries of steel to still be coming back. Don't let the wankers wank you out!

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

For the record, this matter has been discussed here too. ThoughtCrimes is Paft's blog. She writes the articles there. She's free to cross-post them to LJ. That's no violation of copyright, and there's no rule prohibiting the popularizing of one's own writings. The only condition being that they should be on a political subject.

Just wanted to clear this out.

Also, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the subject which is being discussed on this thread.