Humor
See other Humor Articles
Title: Fake KFC Ad with John Goodman
Source:
NYDailyNews
URL Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai ... -chick-fil-a-article-1.1127382
Published: Aug 4, 2012
Author: Meena Hart Duerson
Post Date: 2012-08-04 17:47:21 by Hondo68
Keywords: mock Chick-fil-A, the gayest chicken, open on Sundays
Views: 53514
Comments: 111
Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay marriage stance may have sparked a nationwide controversy, but a hilarious new video suggests one of the chain’s competitors is using the opportunity to win the chicken war.
In a new spoof for FunnyorDie.com, John Goodman is decked out as Kentucky Fried Chicken founder and mascot Colonel Sanders and declares he “loves the gays.”
“It don’t take a bonified Einstein genius to know that I’m an old-fashioned sort,” he bellows from a Southern-styled living room.
“But when it comes to ... marriage rights - why I reckon I’m a bit more progressive than my pals down at Chick-fil-A,” he says. “Yep, let it be known that Colonel Sanders loves the gays. Hell, I might even be gay.”
The video then cuts to a man flirtatiously calling out to him, “Hey, Colonel, dinner’s almost ready.”
“See?” Goodman says to the camera mischeviously.
Outfitted in the Colonel’s signature white-suited style, Goodman uses his over-the-top impression to mock Chick-fil-A, which has been under fire since the company’s president said last month they are “guilty as charged” when it comes to supporting the “biblical definition of the family unit.”
The chain donated $4 million in 2009 and 2010 to right-wing groups that oppose the legalization of gay marriage.
By contrast, the Colonel - as played by Goodman - wants to scoop up all the business Chick-fil-A has lost by alienating gay customers, advertising KFC as the place to go “if you want the gayest chicken.”
“I love all gay people always. And, we’re open on Sundays,” he says, taking another swipe at Chick-fil-A which is only open Monday through Saturday for religious reasons.
“The only church the Colonel attends on Sunday is the church of chicken,” Goodman’s Colonel says. “Not to be confused with Church’s Chicken, whom I hear, unlike myself, hate gays.”
The video comes on the heels of Wednesday’s “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day,” in which supporters of the fast food chain packed its stores across the country in a rally organized by and Fox News host and former GOP candidate Mike Huckabee.
Despite the firestorm over Chick-fil-A’s position, the “Colonel” says he doesn’t actually care about beliefs - it all comes to money.
“I don’t actually give a s---,” Goodman says pointedly. “Gay or not, you’re all just a bunch of big old money mouths walking around talking and eating.”
Watch the video on your mobile device HERE.
A hilarious new video from ‘Funny or Die’ show how KFC could have reacted to Chick-fil-A’s anti-gay-marriage stance.
Funny or Die
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 72.
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
What is really funny is how clueless the PC left is. Chik-Fil-A just had record sales on Wednesday, due to all of those Christian folks that this comedian thinks is a tiny fringe. On the other hand, gays are only around 2% of the population. I seriously would not be surprised if KFC sued these folks for defamation. I'd much rather have the business of the overwhelming majority of the nation than to pander to a tiny percent.
Well,if you are a life-long leftist that has been living in cities and been a part of the entertainment industry your whole life,EVERYBODY that is a heterosexual is a fringe element. If you piss off the homos in Hollywood your career is over because none of the writers will write for you,and none of the distributors or producers want anything to do with you due to fear of a writer's strike. Same thing in NYC if you are a actor or actress. Good luck getting a job on Broadway if you are anti-homo anything.
You being for the perversion of marriage. Makes you part of the problem. Just saying.
I don't get to post or read forums too much anymore so maybe there is more to this response than just this one post, but am I missing something here? After reading and then rereading sneaky's statement, I don't see how you get "You being for the perversion of marriage" from sneaky's statement. What he said is true. There's been multiple stories over the years of the negative consequences of speaking out against homosexuality if you work in the in the entertainment industry. There IS a gay mafia within the entertainment industry and they actively seek to destroy anyone who doesn't embrace their perversion. Saying it is so does not mean that one condones it.
Hello Fibr. Sneaky thinks we should redefine marriage to include same sex couples. That is perverting it.
I see. This was a continuation of an on-going debate between you two. Ok, I get it now. I figured it was something like that but wasn't sure and thought I would ask.
Yes we go at this every once in a while. Some of my words towards him were harsh. I don't support hurting anyone. But when the time comes that I am seeing on the horizon. I will defend myself. It will be against people that think like Pete in this instance. When Pete talks about some other issues I agree with him. But this is an issue no moral person imo can ignore. It goes the the redefining of our culture into some sex obsessed fag culture. I don't want to live in a nation where fags are a protected class with special protections. Did you know that Obama's health law says if you are a fag you can just say so and get free healthcare from some other fags policy. I know you have a strong libertarian streak in you. I don't know what side you come down on this issue.
You are right, I do have a string libertarian streak in me. But I am also a devout Christian who believes that homosexuality is a perversion. The problem IMHO is the fact that the state is involved in marriage in the first place. Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman with God as witness. The state isn't involved at all. Oh sure, they can forcibly involve themselves as they have done, but that doesn't make their involvement anymore legitimate than the state claiming that it is midnight at three o' clock in the afternoon. Their claim that they are the deciding factor on what is and what is not a marriage is not a legitimate claim. There are already some states that have declared that two men or two women can marry. Do you look upon that declaration as legitimate? I don't, regardless of what the state says. By removing the state from the equation and requiring the state to look at everyone as individuals instead of groups to be manipulated and controlled, you remove the problem. This, of course, should be done in conjunction with respecting freedom of association. No business should be forced to serve a person or a group of people the business owner does not want to associate with. On the same token, no land lord should be forced to rent his property to a person or couple he considers to be immoral. I don't care if two men or two women live together and perform act of perversion among themselves. I do not consider them a threat to me, my family, or Christianity. I will not associate myself or my family with these people and I will teach my children why. Jesus said, "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector." In addition, Jesus told the Apostles, "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." Finally, Paul told the Corinthians, "It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife. And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." No where does it say to use the force of government to force compliance to God's will. It is much better, IMO, to stay away from those people and pray for them. God did not even want to give man "the state" and warned us about it, but "we" insisted on it and so he gave it to us...good and hard. If he didn't even want us to have "the state" then why would he want us to use it to force people into compliance? It's not as if the faithful living in an immoral and decadent society is anything new. On the contrary, the OT is filled with stories of the faithful going about their life in a world of decadence and immorality. Those faithful preached the word of the Lord to any that would listen and did their own thing in accordance with the law. Did they expect the state to force compliance? No, because then, as now, the state was complicit in the decadence and immorality. I know I am in the minority but I do not believe that looking to the state to solve an issue of immorality is a viable option, therefore the best course of action for Christians is to remove the state from the equation.
Another great post on your part. There is question about societal values within all your reasoning because of historical trends. Prior to WW2 the family unit was an enviable picture of America, rooted in social-cultural mores/values about raising a family within an agrarian culture. WW2 stopped this behaviour. Since WW2 America has experienced serious internal problems that have not been addressed as the fracture of the family unit as progressed. And the social trends are ever-increasing, too. The same fracture about family values has lead to the socialization of America energized by the press and harboured by obvious QUEERS, such as yukon of LP. There is no solution.
#73. To: A K A Stone (#72)
(Edited)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Orthodoxa (#1)
Chik-Fil-A just had record sales on Wednesday, due to all of those Christian folks that this comedian thinks is a tiny fringe.
#5. To: sneakypete (#4)
#24. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#5)
(Edited)
You being for the perversion of marriage. Makes you part of the problem. Just saying.
#25. To: Fibr Dog (#24)
"You being for the perversion of marriage" from sneaky's statement.
#40. To: A K A Stone (#25)
Hello Fibr. Sneaky thinks we should redefine marriage to include same sex couples. That is perverting it.
#43. To: Fibr Dog (#40)
I see. This was a continuation of an on-going debate between you two. Ok, I get it now. I figured it was something like that but wasn't sure and thought I would ask.
#51. To: A K A Stone (#43)
(Edited)
I know you have a strong libertarian streak in you. I don't know what side you come down on this issue.
#67. To: Fibr Dog (#51)
(Edited)
#72. To: buckeroo (#67)
(Edited)
Replies to Comment # 72.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 72.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]