Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Chick-fil-A.s taste for liberty. First Amendment needs no amendment.
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Aug 26, 2012, 1:15:47 PM8/26/12
to
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
liberty/
Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
left believes in free speech.
The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant chain for a
personal expression of the company�s CEO indicates a vein of hostility
toward those who happen to have a differing opinion on an important
public-policy issue. Given that some liberals are already campaigning for
a constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free expression
is more crucial than ever.
Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A�s chief, made a simple statement affirming a
traditional view of marriage.
For this, activist homosexual organizations called for a boycott of the
company�s 1,600 restaurants. Radicals characterized Mr. Cathy�s support
for the concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman as a
verbal assault on their values. �The real issue at hand is not freedom of
speech, but Chick-fil-A�s secretive funding of documented anti-gay hate
groups,� fumed Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride. �There
is no justification for such a business operating on our nation�s
campuses.� Characterizing opposing views as hate speech is a cheap method
of tarring a rival while avoiding making a real argument.
As students return to campus for the fall semester, the group is calling
on colleges nationwide to ban the popular fast-food chain from their food
courts.
This has prompted Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-rights
organization, to remind school administrators that retaliation against the
food chain for exercising constitutionally protected speech would be
unlawful. Still, Davidson College in North Carolina, while having no
franchise on campus, has suspended a practice of serving Chick-fil-A at
monthly student events.
A separate peril to free speech unfolded on Capitol Hill in recent months.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, backed by dozens of Democratic
colleagues, introduced the People�s Rights Amendment, which would limit
constitutional protections to �natural persons� and exclude �corporations,
limited-liability companies or other corporate entities.�
Speech emanating from such organizations would be �subject to such
regulation� as Congress considered �reasonable.� Drawing a distinction
between the nature of individuals and groups of like-minded individuals is
to venture into Nonsense Land.
It�s clear the proposed constitutional amendment is an effort to undo the
Supreme Court�s watershed 2010 decision upholding free-speech protection
for organizations: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Since Citizens United�s success in overturning the FEC�s ban of its film
critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential run in 2008,
liberals have redoubled their efforts to neutralize the powerful voice of
conservatism among the American electorate.
The threat shouldn�t be taken lightly. Five states already passed
resolutions backing the People�s Rights Amendment: Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Hawaii, New Mexico and Vermont.
Granting Congress authority to regulate speech would be as profoundly un-
American as current efforts to punish Chick-fil-A for its president�s
embrace of traditional marriage.
The Founders enshrined freedom of expression as the First Amendment
because without it, other liberties have no voice.
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
liberty/
Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
left believes in free speech.
The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant chain for a
personal expression of the company�s CEO indicates a vein of hostility
toward those who happen to have a differing opinion on an important
public-policy issue. Given that some liberals are already campaigning for
a constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free expression
is more crucial than ever.
Dan Cathy, Chick-fil-A�s chief, made a simple statement affirming a
traditional view of marriage.
For this, activist homosexual organizations called for a boycott of the
company�s 1,600 restaurants. Radicals characterized Mr. Cathy�s support
for the concept of marriage as a union between one man and one woman as a
verbal assault on their values. �The real issue at hand is not freedom of
speech, but Chick-fil-A�s secretive funding of documented anti-gay hate
groups,� fumed Shane Windmeyer, executive director of Campus Pride. �There
is no justification for such a business operating on our nation�s
campuses.� Characterizing opposing views as hate speech is a cheap method
of tarring a rival while avoiding making a real argument.
As students return to campus for the fall semester, the group is calling
on colleges nationwide to ban the popular fast-food chain from their food
courts.
This has prompted Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious-rights
organization, to remind school administrators that retaliation against the
food chain for exercising constitutionally protected speech would be
unlawful. Still, Davidson College in North Carolina, while having no
franchise on campus, has suspended a practice of serving Chick-fil-A at
monthly student events.
A separate peril to free speech unfolded on Capitol Hill in recent months.
Rep. Jim McGovern of Massachusetts, backed by dozens of Democratic
colleagues, introduced the People�s Rights Amendment, which would limit
constitutional protections to �natural persons� and exclude �corporations,
limited-liability companies or other corporate entities.�
Speech emanating from such organizations would be �subject to such
regulation� as Congress considered �reasonable.� Drawing a distinction
between the nature of individuals and groups of like-minded individuals is
to venture into Nonsense Land.
It�s clear the proposed constitutional amendment is an effort to undo the
Supreme Court�s watershed 2010 decision upholding free-speech protection
for organizations: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Since Citizens United�s success in overturning the FEC�s ban of its film
critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton during her presidential run in 2008,
liberals have redoubled their efforts to neutralize the powerful voice of
conservatism among the American electorate.
The threat shouldn�t be taken lightly. Five states already passed
resolutions backing the People�s Rights Amendment: Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Hawaii, New Mexico and Vermont.
Granting Congress authority to regulate speech would be as profoundly un-
American as current efforts to punish Chick-fil-A for its president�s
embrace of traditional marriage.
The Founders enshrined freedom of expression as the First Amendment
because without it, other liberties have no voice.
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion.
Barack Obama and Eric Holder, committed treason by knowingly and
deliberately arming enemies of the United States of America through
Operation Fast and Furious. Complicit in the murder of Federal employees
during the execution of their duties.
--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to ne...@netfront.net ---
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 1:41:24 PM8/26/12
to
In article <XnsA0BB68667C...@202.177.16.121>,
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> said:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-liberty/
-- wds
"Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroys...@usurper.org> said:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-liberty/
>
> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of
> marriage, but another fundamental issue raised during the
> argument is whether the left believes in free speech.
>
> The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant
> chain for a personal expression of the company's CEO
> indicates a vein of hostility toward those who happen to have
> a differing opinion on an important public-policy issue.
> Given that some liberals are already campaigning for a
> constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free
> expression is more crucial than ever.
Wow. Absolutely no shame at all.
> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of
> marriage, but another fundamental issue raised during the
> argument is whether the left believes in free speech.
>
> The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant
> chain for a personal expression of the company's CEO
> indicates a vein of hostility toward those who happen to have
> a differing opinion on an important public-policy issue.
> Given that some liberals are already campaigning for a
> constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free
> expression is more crucial than ever.
-- wds
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 1:55:02 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 10:15 AM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
> liberty/
>
> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> left believes in free speech.
The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech. There
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
> liberty/
>
> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> left believes in free speech.
isn't any possibility of rational debate over this. The left have
always believed in totalitarian control of speech.
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 1:55:42 PM8/26/12
to
it, Lil Billy.
Tom
Aug 26, 2012, 1:59:33 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 12:55 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 10:41 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <XnsA0BB68667C93E6F089P2...@202.177.16.121>,
> On 8/26/2012 10:41 AM, William December Starr wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Leroy N. Soetoro" <leroysoet...@usurper.org> said:
>
> >>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-fo...
>
> >> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of
> >> marriage, but another fundamental issue raised during the
> >> argument is whether the left believes in free speech.
>
> >> The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant
> >> chain for a personal expression of the company's CEO
> >> indicates a vein of hostility toward those who happen to have
> >> a differing opinion on an important public-policy issue.
> >> Given that some liberals are already campaigning for a
> >> constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free
> >> expression is more crucial than ever.
>
> > Wow. Absolutely no shame at all.
>
> In other words, he's stating the facts, and you have no rebuttal. Got
> it, Lil Billy.
wds has a better grasp of the issue than Sarah Palin, who said the
> >> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of
> >> marriage, but another fundamental issue raised during the
> >> argument is whether the left believes in free speech.
>
> >> The rapid rise of efforts to retaliate against the restaurant
> >> chain for a personal expression of the company's CEO
> >> indicates a vein of hostility toward those who happen to have
> >> a differing opinion on an important public-policy issue.
> >> Given that some liberals are already campaigning for a
> >> constitutional amendment to curtail speech, defense of free
> >> expression is more crucial than ever.
>
> > Wow. Absolutely no shame at all.
>
> In other words, he's stating the facts, and you have no rebuttal. Got
> it, Lil Billy.
people boycotting CFA are violating CFA's First Amendment rights.
Tom
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 2:04:28 PM8/26/12
to
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 2:06:13 PM8/26/12
to
He's an idiot in his own way - a totalitarian left-wing idiot.
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 3:28:54 PM8/26/12
to
In article <eJCdnR_c6rhq_6fN...@giganews.com>,
something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
-- wds
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
You know, in the world outside of your head the fact that you say
> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
-- wds
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 3:43:53 PM8/26/12
to
you're getting the direction of causation wrong. It's not true because
I believe it - rather, I believe it because it's true.
Tom
Aug 26, 2012, 3:46:30 PM8/26/12
to
What a turd...
Tom
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 3:57:59 PM8/26/12
to
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 4:10:49 PM8/26/12
to
In article <LaCdnVAnF5rk4afN...@giganews.com>,
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>
>>> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
>>> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
>>
>> You know, in the world outside of your head the fact that you say
>> something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
>
> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told you
> then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong. It's not
> true because I believe it - rather, I believe it because it's
> true.
How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
is? ("Well I bloody well wouldn't believe it if it _wasn't_ true,
would I now?")
And by the way, _you_ told me that? You mean that "George Plimpton"
and "Delvin Benet" are the same person?
-- wds
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>
>>> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
>>> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
>>
>> You know, in the world outside of your head the fact that you say
>> something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
>
> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told you
> then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong. It's not
> true because I believe it - rather, I believe it because it's
> true.
is? ("Well I bloody well wouldn't believe it if it _wasn't_ true,
would I now?")
And by the way, _you_ told me that? You mean that "George Plimpton"
and "Delvin Benet" are the same person?
-- wds
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 4:35:47 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 1:10 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <LaCdnVAnF5rk4afN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>>
>>>> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
>>>> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
>>>
>>> You know, in the world outside of your head the fact that you say
>>> something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
>>
>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told you
>> then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong. It's not
>> true because I believe it - rather, I believe it because it's
>> true.
>
> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
> is?
It is important how I know; I know.
> In article <LaCdnVAnF5rk4afN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>>
>>>> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech.
>>>> There isn't any possibility of rational debate over this.
>>>
>>> You know, in the world outside of your head the fact that you say
>>> something with utter finality does not, in fact, make it true.
>>
>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told you
>> then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong. It's not
>> true because I believe it - rather, I believe it because it's
>> true.
>
> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
> is?
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 4:43:59 PM8/26/12
to
In article <65-dnQPJq_8-FafN...@giganews.com>,
know. (Assuming of course that you care whether anyone else
agrees with you.)
By the way, you didn't respond to my question about whether
"George Plimpton" and "Delvin Benet" are the same person.
-- wds
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>
>>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told
>>> you then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong.
>>> It's not true because I believe it - rather, I believe it
>>> because it's true.
>>
>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
>> is?
>
> It is important how I know; I know.
That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>>
>>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told
>>> you then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong.
>>> It's not true because I believe it - rather, I believe it
>>> because it's true.
>>
>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
>> is?
>
> It is important how I know; I know.
know. (Assuming of course that you care whether anyone else
agrees with you.)
By the way, you didn't respond to my question about whether
"George Plimpton" and "Delvin Benet" are the same person.
-- wds
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 4:52:34 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 1:43 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <65-dnQPJq_8-FafN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told
>>>> you then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong.
>>>> It's not true because I believe it - rather, I believe it
>>>> because it's true.
>>>
>>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
>>> is?
>>
>> It is important how I know; I know.
>
> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
> know.
I'm not really concerned with that.
> In article <65-dnQPJq_8-FafN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>> William December Starr wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>> You tried saying something like this earlier today. I told
>>>> you then, you're getting the direction of causation wrong.
>>>> It's not true because I believe it - rather, I believe it
>>>> because it's true.
>>>
>>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that it
>>> is?
>>
>> It is important how I know; I know.
>
> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
> know.
Ubiquitous
Aug 26, 2012, 4:52:01 PM8/26/12
to
leroys...@usurper.org wrote:
>Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>left believes in free speech.
They do, but only if you agree with them.
>Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>left believes in free speech.
And you posted this off-topic article here because?
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Carol Kinsey Goman
Aug 26, 2012, 4:59:17 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 1:52 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> leroys...@usurper.org wrote:
>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>
> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
Because it belongs there.
> leroys...@usurper.org wrote:
>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>
> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
Mason Barge
Aug 26, 2012, 5:09:09 PM8/26/12
to
On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:47 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
>liberty/
>
>Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>left believes in free speech.
Why just the left? The extremes of the right are just as bad.
<leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
>liberty/
>
>Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>left believes in free speech.
Not that this is actually suppression of free speech. People have just as
much right to boycott someone who says something they don't like as the
person has to say it.
Also not to mention, Chick-fil-A's sales have gone up since the boycott
started.
Tom
Aug 26, 2012, 5:14:09 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 26, 3:52 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
Stop being such a jerk, Douchie.
Tom
> leroysoet...@usurper.org wrote:
> >Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> >but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> >left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>
> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
>
Uh-oh... net cop on patrol!
> >Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> >but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> >left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>
> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
>
Stop being such a jerk, Douchie.
Tom
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 5:15:56 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 2:09 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:47 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
>> liberty/
>>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> Why just the left? The extremes of the right are just as bad.
They're bad, but they're not /just/ as bad. The left is worse.
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:47 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
>> liberty/
>>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> Why just the left? The extremes of the right are just as bad.
As I noted earlier, most attempts by the right to suppress speech are
founded in fears, often unfounded, over security or the integrity of the
moral fabric of society. The underlying wish is not punish the person
saying something they find damaging, but to prevent the damage.
It's much different with the left. The left believe that certain
thinking is "incorrect", and their attempts are always aimed more at
punishing the speaker. They are *offended* by what they perceive as
"politically incorrect thought", and they want to punish the offenders.
The left are also far more prickly and sensitive over transgressions
than the right are. Their threshold is much too low.
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 5:21:46 PM8/26/12
to
In article <5ZKdnYGzNJkOEafN...@giganews.com>,
fingers?
(By the way, are you also "Delvin Benet"?)
-- wds
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that
>>>> it is?
>>>
>>> It is important how I know; I know.
>>
>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>> know.
>
> I'm not really concerned with that.
So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
> William December Starr wrote:
>> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>> William December Starr wrote:
>>>
>>>> How do you know it's true, as opposed to merely believing that
>>>> it is?
>>>
>>> It is important how I know; I know.
>>
>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>> know.
>
> I'm not really concerned with that.
fingers?
(By the way, are you also "Delvin Benet"?)
-- wds
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 5:25:21 PM8/26/12
to
William December Starr
Aug 26, 2012, 5:30:14 PM8/26/12
to
In article <b9qdneMWjs7cCafN...@giganews.com>,
incredibly vain if you think it's that important to the outside world.
And hey, are you also "Delvin Benet"?
-- wds
George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>>
>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
>> fingers?
>
> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
But it's only the score on the scorebord in your head. You must be
>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>>>> know.
>>>
>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>>
>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
>> fingers?
>
> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
incredibly vain if you think it's that important to the outside world.
And hey, are you also "Delvin Benet"?
-- wds
Tom
Aug 26, 2012, 5:12:00 PM8/26/12
to
What are you, like three?
Tom
George Plimpton
Aug 26, 2012, 5:47:07 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 2:30 PM, William December Starr wrote:
> In article <b9qdneMWjs7cCafN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>>>
>>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
>>> fingers?
>>
>> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
>
> But it's only the score on the scorebord in your head.
No, I'm sorry; you're mistaken. It's really how it is.
> In article <b9qdneMWjs7cCafN...@giganews.com>,
> George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
>>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
>>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>>>
>>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
>>> fingers?
>>
>> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
>
> But it's only the score on the scorebord in your head.
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 5:49:46 PM8/26/12
to
go back to your blocks.
Barb May
Aug 26, 2012, 5:49:46 PM8/26/12
to
religious conservatives, further thinning their ranks. By all means, let
them eat their way to an early grave -- for Jesus!
--
Barb
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 5:50:10 PM8/26/12
to
trotsky
Aug 26, 2012, 5:50:29 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/12 3:52 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> leroys...@usurper.org wrote:
>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
Not TV related.
> leroys...@usurper.org wrote:
>
>> Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> left believes in free speech.
>
> They do, but only if you agree with them.
Barack Obama
Aug 26, 2012, 5:51:55 PM8/26/12
to
Ubiquitous
Aug 26, 2012, 6:23:57 PM8/26/12
to
drs...@aol.com wrote:
>On Aug 26, 3:52 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> leroysoet...@usurper.org wrote:
>> >Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> >but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> >left believes in free speech.
>>
>> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>>
>> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
>
>On Aug 26, 3:52 pm, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>> leroysoet...@usurper.org wrote:
>> >Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>> >but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>> >left believes in free speech.
>>
>> They do, but only if you agree with them.
>>
>> And you posted this off-topic article here because?
>
>Stop being such a jerk, Douchie.
Epithet noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
--
"Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference
between us and [leftists] is that we can argue as well as inveigh.
They can only hurl invectives." -- Don Feder
Obveeus
Aug 26, 2012, 7:27:40 PM8/26/12
to
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 17:15:47 +0000 (UTC), "Leroy N. Soetoro"
> <leroys...@usurper.org> wrote:
>
>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
>>liberty/
>>
>>Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
>>but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
>>left believes in free speech.
>
> Why just the left? The extremes of the right are just as bad.
>
> Not that this is actually suppression of free speech. People have just as
> much right to boycott someone who says something they don't like as the
> person has to say it.
where the 'kiss-in' crowd intended to loiter and take up space in
Chick-Fil-A restaurants for the purpose of impeding business.
> Also not to mention, Chick-fil-A's sales have gone up since the boycott
> started.
'day of hate', but as a private company they have been tight lipped about
what their actual sales levels are on an ongoing basis.
Message has been deleted
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 9:36:45 PM8/26/12
to
On 8/26/2012 7:25 PM, -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫ wrote:
> Funny how the turd busters whine like the little pussy's
Do you think it might be time to show folks who and what you are?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Verified Singles Ad Posted by "bobandcarole" -- 2000/03/15
Newsgroups: alt.personals.big-folks
From: bobandcarole...@webtv.net
Subject: SOUTHERN INDIANA COUPLE SEEKS.......
Date: 2000/03/15
Message-ID: <16150-38CFF923...@storefull-155.iap.bryant.webtv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 597971835
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-WebTV-Signature: 1
ETAtAhR2SkL1wrRFHUycTObIdbiDles6xAIVALFK3FZBTgD7zo+rTuS69JTfKwbp
Content-Disposition: Inline
We are a white cpl, 40s, looking for bi female, or cpl w/bi female
for
hot times. she is 5/7 fullfigured, 44dd tits, and a juicy shaved pussy
that squirts when she cums. he is 6/1 225, hairy chest, short beard,
and 7 inches. we seek people in the louisville, southern indiana area.
We can exchange pics. if interested, email us...bobandcarole...@webtv.net
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
> Funny how the turd busters whine like the little pussy's
Do you think it might be time to show folks who and what you are?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Verified Singles Ad Posted by "bobandcarole" -- 2000/03/15
Newsgroups: alt.personals.big-folks
From: bobandcarole...@webtv.net
Subject: SOUTHERN INDIANA COUPLE SEEKS.......
Date: 2000/03/15
Message-ID: <16150-38CFF923...@storefull-155.iap.bryant.webtv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 597971835
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Content-Type: Text/Plain; Charset=US-ASCII
Mime-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
X-WebTV-Signature: 1
ETAtAhR2SkL1wrRFHUycTObIdbiDles6xAIVALFK3FZBTgD7zo+rTuS69JTfKwbp
Content-Disposition: Inline
We are a white cpl, 40s, looking for bi female, or cpl w/bi female
for
hot times. she is 5/7 fullfigured, 44dd tits, and a juicy shaved pussy
that squirts when she cums. he is 6/1 225, hairy chest, short beard,
and 7 inches. we seek people in the louisville, southern indiana area.
We can exchange pics. if interested, email us...bobandcarole...@webtv.net
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
lib_duster
Aug 26, 2012, 10:01:32 PM8/26/12
to
-̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫
Aug 26, 2012, 10:02:36 PM8/26/12
to
On Aug 27, 1:36 am, lib_duster <clean...@libs.out> wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 7:25 PM, -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫ wrote:
>
> > Funny how the turd busters whine like the little pussy's
>
> Do you think it might be time to show folks who and what you are?
Your attempt at touting a froggery over a decade old as authentic is
> On 8/26/2012 7:25 PM, -̮̮̃-̃ ̾●̮̮̃̾•̃̾ ™Usenet Legends bobandcarole ----->♫♫♫♫ wrote:
>
> > Funny how the turd busters whine like the little pussy's
>
> Do you think it might be time to show folks who and what you are?
as absurd as posting it without verifiable headers or even a link to
this bogus bullshit. Can't you dick-suckers come up with some original
material?
Mason Barge
Aug 27, 2012, 1:15:16 PM8/27/12
to
instead of ChikFillet aren't exactly taking a step towards healthy living.
anim8rFSK
Aug 27, 2012, 1:40:54 PM8/27/12
to
In article <8nan38pmie3vo4huh...@4ax.com>,
Well, as Chick cooks *everything* in peanut oil, even McDonalds is a
step up.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
step up.
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Mason Barge
Aug 27, 2012, 2:00:49 PM8/27/12
to
"Bacon is good for me." - King Curtis
Obveeus
Aug 27, 2012, 2:37:03 PM8/27/12
to
"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hate to say it, but people going to McDonalds or Burger King or Bojangles
>> instead of ChikFillet aren't exactly taking a step towards healthy
>> living.
>
> Well, as Chick cooks *everything* in peanut oil, even McDonalds is a
> step up.
http://www.prototypesource.com/planters-nutmobile.htm
Meanwhile, Bojangles is a step down. I'm not even sure it is chicken as
they put such a heavy layer of rancid spice coverup flavoring on everything
that it drown out any meat taste.
Rupert
Sep 3, 2012, 10:25:03 AM9/3/12
to
On Aug 26, 7:55 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> isn't any possibility of rational debate over this. The left have
> always believed in totalitarian control of speech.
>
What exactly do you mean by the left?
> On 8/26/2012 10:15 AM, Leroy N. Soetoro wrote:
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
> > liberty/
>
> > Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> > but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> > left believes in free speech.
>
> The left do not believe, and never have believed, in free speech. There
>
> >http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/20/chick-fil-as-taste-for-
> > liberty/
>
> > Chick-fil-A triggered a nationwide debate over the meaning of marriage,
> > but another fundamental issue raised during the argument is whether the
> > left believes in free speech.
>
> isn't any possibility of rational debate over this. The left have
> always believed in totalitarian control of speech.
>
What exactly do you mean by the left?
Bert
Sep 3, 2012, 11:14:19 AM9/3/12
to
In
news:90c92d64-05c8-4a4c...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
The people who sat on the left side of the French National Assembly,
obviously.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
news:90c92d64-05c8-4a4c...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
The people who sat on the left side of the French National Assembly,
obviously.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Rupert
Sep 6, 2012, 5:24:45 AM9/6/12
to
On Aug 26, 11:47 pm, George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> wrote:
> On 8/26/2012 2:30 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>
> > In article <b9qdneMWjs7cCafNnZ2dnUVZ5o2dn...@giganews.com>,
> On 8/26/2012 2:30 PM, William December Starr wrote:
>
> > George Plimpton <geo...@si.not> said:
>
> >>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
> >>>>> know.
>
> >>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>
> >>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
> >>> fingers?
>
> >> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
>
> > But it's only the score on the scorebord in your head.
>
> No, I'm sorry; you're mistaken. It's really how it is.
People in the grip of delusions are often quite convinced of them.
>
> >>>>> That's not very likely to be persuasive to anyone else, you
> >>>>> know.
>
> >>>> I'm not really concerned with that.
>
> >>> So you make these emphatic Usenet posts just to exercise your typing
> >>> fingers?
>
> >> No. It's more to let you jackballs know what the score is.
>
> > But it's only the score on the scorebord in your head.
>
> No, I'm sorry; you're mistaken. It's really how it is.
Bill Steele
Sep 10, 2012, 3:49:31 PM9/10/12
to
In article
<875ca058-e3f1-4746...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
True. We seem to be discussing a pos that does not exist.
<875ca058-e3f1-4746...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
0 new messages