|
It could happen to you.
If you read this thread you can see one self absorbed person wants to get a
tshirt that says "Well, then, I need to get a tee-shirt that says: F*ck the F*cking Republicans". "Tom" wrote in message t... I also think that those who wear items like this in public places are self absorbed with little respect for others or for standards of social behavior. Personally, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment - best one I've read in this thread. |
It could happen to you.
Harry,
You have an a preferred method of dealing with those your political opponents. It surprised me when you stated: "It's based on my political beliefs and my sincere opinion that society would be better off if most of today's "conservacrooks" were euthanized. Preferably in Texas. By the usual methods." Is it possible that is not what our founding fathers had in mind? You are concerned about GWB's reducing our personal liberties, you have expressed a desire to bring them to an ultimate end. ;) "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Well, then, I need to get a tee-shirt that says: F*ck the F*cking Republicans Free speech or not, how do you possibly justify wearing something like that in mixed company including young children old enough to read and senior citizens who may be deeply disturbed by it. No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket. It's being led there by selfish "adults" who care for nothing but their own agenda. Whew, it stinks! Eisboch I am not overly concerned about non-violent expression of political ideas. I think it perfectly appropriate to wear clothing that says F*ck Bush, if one feels like doing that. I do not think it appropriate to wear a tee shirt that urges violence upon Bush. I am concerned about the actual obscenities perpetrated on the people of the United States and the world by Bush and his administration of criminals. |
It could happen to you.
edit
Harry, You have an a preferred method of dealing with your political opponents. It surprised me when you stated: "It's based on my political beliefs and my sincere opinion that society would be better off if most of today's "conservacrooks" were euthanized. Preferably in Texas. By the usual methods." Is it possible that is not what our founding fathers had in mind? You are concerned about GWB's reducing our personal liberties, you have expressed a desire to bring them to an ultimate end. ;) "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Well, then, I need to get a tee-shirt that says: F*ck the F*cking Republicans Free speech or not, how do you possibly justify wearing something like that in mixed company including young children old enough to read and senior citizens who may be deeply disturbed by it. No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket. It's being led there by selfish "adults" who care for nothing but their own agenda. Whew, it stinks! Eisboch I am not overly concerned about non-violent expression of political ideas. I think it perfectly appropriate to wear clothing that says F*ck Bush, if one feels like doing that. I do not think it appropriate to wear a tee shirt that urges violence upon Bush. I am concerned about the actual obscenities perpetrated on the people of the United States and the world by Bush and his administration of criminals. |
It could happen to you.
Harry is just your typical intolerant liebral
"Starbuck's Words of Wisdom" wrote in message ... Harry, You have an a preferred method of dealing with those your political opponents. It surprised me when you stated: "It's based on my political beliefs and my sincere opinion that society would be better off if most of today's "conservacrooks" were euthanized. Preferably in Texas. By the usual methods." Is it possible that is not what our founding fathers had in mind? You are concerned about GWB's reducing our personal liberties, you have expressed a desire to bring them to an ultimate end. ;) "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Eisboch wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Well, then, I need to get a tee-shirt that says: F*ck the F*cking Republicans Free speech or not, how do you possibly justify wearing something like that in mixed company including young children old enough to read and senior citizens who may be deeply disturbed by it. No wonder the country is going to hell in a hand basket. It's being led there by selfish "adults" who care for nothing but their own agenda. Whew, it stinks! Eisboch I am not overly concerned about non-violent expression of political ideas. I think it perfectly appropriate to wear clothing that says F*ck Bush, if one feels like doing that. I do not think it appropriate to wear a tee shirt that urges violence upon Bush. I am concerned about the actual obscenities perpetrated on the people of the United States and the world by Bush and his administration of criminals. |
It could happen to you.
Eisboch wrote:
The tee-shirt printing made a political statement, which is fine, but also included a profanity that, to social standards supported by numerous court findings, is not fine in a public venue. I did a long google on this one. In every case that I found where a person who was refused entry or service because of a printed profanity on their clothing, who then filed a civil complaint to protect their " right to free expression" --- lost. Which is as it should be, assuming that one trusts the courts to follow community standards. Practically, it is a common sense issue to me. Profanity is not shocking or particularly offensive to me personally, however I don't think it is appropriate around young children, my wife or others who may be influenced or offended. Personally, I don't care who gets offended. But the over use of profanity shows a small vocabulary, and it's unpleasant to listen to... or to see plastered in large print in a public place. I also think that those who wear items like this in public places are self absorbed with little respect for others or for standards of social behavior. Or they're insecure and want to attract attention to themselves. However, it is certainly a free speech issue, and a community standards issue. It should be pointed out that any time political opinions are supressed, it doesn't matter why. And any time one person loses freedom of speech, we all lose it. Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying 'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple. As a matter of community standards of behavior, that's entirely a different kettle of fish. It's entirely up to you if you vote to outlaw Pepsi T-shirts because you like Coke, or Rolling Stones T-shirts because you like the Beatles. It's dumb & intolerant, but it's pretty much standard human nature. And that's why we need to draw the line carefully about protecting free speech. DSK |
It could happen to you.
Bert Robbins wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:35:27 -0400, Bert Robbins wrote: Depends on the business, but if it's one of public accommodation, restaurant, bars, hotels, theaters, and such, you better hire better security, because you can't ban an entire class of people. And let's be honest, not every purple haired person has robbed you. I know quite a few purple haired people that are fine, upstanding, hard-working Americans. There are some workout centers in my area that don't allow a certain class of people. Would you like to join me in demonstrating against them? Wouldn't let you in, huh? ;-) I'm not a lawyer, but I would suspect you are talking about workout centers that have a membership, as in a "club". They would be under a completely different standard. An example: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/...gay.boyscouts/ Nice try. These businesses refuse to let me use their facilities. Seriously- under what pretext? If these are "private" athletic clubs then surely all non-members would be barred from using the facilities. You start to get some traction on this issue if the opportunity to join isn't available to anybody caring to apply *and* if the club has advertised, "Join Hercules Health Club, only $99 a month!" Some clubs, like the popular "Curves" franchises, are for women only. If the club doesn't advertise that membership will be granted to anybody willing to pay $99 amonth, as a private organization it has the right to include or exclude anybody and for a wide variety of arbitrary factors. I got some legal advice on this issue a few years ago when I was serving as the Board Chairman of a local yacht club. We had a mess in which an extremely conservative board member "pressured" (as we later discovered)one of the general membership to write a letter to the board objecting to the sexuality of a third member in good standing. The author of the letter was an extremely well liked individual, and the letter contained a threat to withdraw from the club because he felt that having a person of non-traditional sexuality cross dressing at club functions was exerting a terrible influence on his kids. By a 1-vote margin the board voted to have the Board Chairman confront this member and pressure him to resign. Leary of a lawsuit based on "sexual discrimination", I sought legal advice and learned that as a private club that didn't publicly offer memberships, the club was free to discriminate against anybody it pleased. (I had a discussion with the person of non-traditional sexuality, and requested that the person come dressed as a man to club functions as he had been introduced as Mr. So-and-so when he had joined the club and the members had a right to make the assumption that he was a man. He was very willing to comply, as long as he could be allowed to dress as a woman when he was aboard his private boat or not at a club function. Not satisfied with this arrangement, the original person who had pressured the letter writer made a big stink and demanded that the cross-dressing transsexual be involuntarily removed from club membership- comments included "It's a question of standing up for your own principles!". I don't know how that finally resolved itself, I was disgusted with the whole hateful affair and my term as Board Chairman was ending, so I just dropped out and haven't been back for several years) So, Bert, under what grounds are you being exluded from a local club? Is it a black club that won't admit a white person? A white club that won't admit a black person? Is it "Curves" or one of the clubs that advertise they are only for women? Odds are, if they are a private organization, they have the right to invite you in or keep you out for any arbitrary reason they might select. BTW, you personally don't want to protest against the club if it's "Curves". My wife looked into joining that club, but did not and will not. The owner of the parent corporation is an ardent right winger who makes huge donations to conservative candidates and is a major-league supporter of "right to life" groups. (My spouse and I disagree on abortion issues- a subject where I am more in step with most conservatives). |
It could happen to you.
"JIMinFL" wrote in message Bush basher kicked off plane. http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html 120 posts about the wrong thing, carrying on the fine left wing tradition of changing the subject. This ditzy broad wasn't yanked for bush-bashing; she was tossed for wearing a demonstrably vulgar piece of clothing in a public place in which other patrons complained. She, and others of both sides who pull stunts like this, are merely clamoring for attention, shouting 'see how clever and irreverent i am!!!' She got exactly what she wanted, and exactly what she deserved. |
It could happen to you.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message It was a tee-shirt. It wasn't as if she authorized the bombing of a nation not at war with us, or lied about the presence of WMDs. Changing the subject? |
It could happen to you.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ......Some things are important, some are not. I agree. And you need to get them sorted out in your mind. |
It could happen to you.
Eisboch wrote: Harry Krause wrote in message ... JIMinFL wrote: Bush basher kicked off plane. http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html The woman was right; the airline was wrong. Nope. Airlines have the right to refuse service to anyone who, in their judgment, is inappropriately dressed, intoxicated or otherwise in violation of their policies. The problem here was not the images. It was the "word". Good for them! The woman can complain all she wants but airlines can set their own standards. Eisboch Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses private property, our government should quit subsidizing them. Also, if the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property, that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc? I'll bet that while still on private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!! |
It could happen to you.
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:29:33 +0000, Bryan wrote:
I find public displays of the f word extremely offensive. She didn't "think it would bother anyone." What f-ing planet does she live on! So... "f-ing" is OK, but "****" is not? LOL! Lloyd |
It could happen to you.
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:35 -0400, DSK wrote:
Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying 'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple. DSK Why don't you take a poll, Doug? I wouldn't cheer at your T-shirt. Or, were you referring to the liberals who seem to think any behavior or speech should be tolerated by everyone anywhere? -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
It could happen to you.
"PocoLoco" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:35 -0400, DSK wrote: Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying 'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple. DSK Why don't you take a poll, Doug? I wouldn't cheer at your T-shirt. Or, were you referring to the liberals who seem to think any behavior or speech should be tolerated by everyone anywhere? Nobody was talking about the guvmint restricting free speech........only a private corporation. The constitution is a document that limits guvmint, not private entities. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
It could happen to you.
wrote in message Good God, here we go again. Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses private property, our government should quit subsidizing them. The government does not subsidize them. Also, if the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property, that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc? well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance I'll bet that while still on private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!! what does private property have to do with miranda? |
It could happen to you.
Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them. John Gaquin wrote: The government does not subsidize them. Excuse me? Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry? DSK |
It could happen to you.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message Lying a country into a war is important. when will you start lambasting the memory of FDR? |
It could happen to you.
Kevin is once again showing the world why he still holds the title of "King
of the NG idiots" "John Gaquin" wrote in message ... wrote in message Good God, here we go again. Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses private property, our government should quit subsidizing them. The government does not subsidize them. Also, if the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property, that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc? well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance I'll bet that while still on private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!! what does private property have to do with miranda? |
It could happen to you.
As a private business, the airline has the right to set standards for its passengers. Yes. But some limits are, uh, off limits. i.e. Illegal If the airline want to say, "We won't sell you a ticket unless you swear you'll vote a straight Republican ballot in the next election", that would be its right and privilege to do so. Ah, no. |
It could happen to you.
"Gary" wrote in message eenews.net... As a private business, the airline has the right to set standards for its passengers. Yes. But some limits are, uh, off limits. i.e. Illegal Such as? If the airline want to say, "We won't sell you a ticket unless you swear you'll vote a straight Republican ballot in the next election", that would be its right and privilege to do so. Ah, no. Why not? |
It could happen to you.
Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying 'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple. I doubt that. Personally, I wouldn't wear nor approve of anyone wearing a tee shirt that says "F**K" anyone - I just don't think it's appropriate in public and I don't particularly want my grand daughter exposed to that.. I seriously doubt the woman was thrown off the plane on political grounds and I imagine the result would have been the same had the shirt read "F**K" Hillary. |
It could happen to you.
"DSK" wrote in message Excuse me? Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry? There was the one-time bailout following the terrorist attacks, which legislation did include what you could call indirect subsidy in the form of deferred tax payments, etc. These deferments have, I believe, all passed in the intervening 4 years. There is also a small program to subsidize essential air service to small rural communities, comprising some $120M per annum, a statistical pittance of which, I believe, Southwest does not partake. Generally speaking, though, the days are long gone when airlines were broadly subsidized by federal money across the board. |
It could happen to you.
"Harry Krause" wrote in message Oh, puh-lease, save that particular crop of crap for your drugged-up right-wing buddies. Cha-Ching!! |
It could happen to you.
Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry? John Gaquin wrote: There was the one-time bailout following the terrorist attacks Correct. No subsidy there, huh? ... which legislation did include what you could call indirect subsidy in the form of deferred tax payments, etc. If by "etc" you mean guaranteed bond backing & loans (grants really since nobody expectes them to be paid back, but calling it a "loan" helps mask the size of the deficit) then yep, right again. But that's not really a "subsidy" is it? I mean, what's a few billion among friends right? ... These deferments have, I believe, all passed in the intervening 4 years. Bzzzt But you're 2 for 3 here, pretty good. ... There is also a small program to subsidize essential air service to small rural communities, comprising some $120M per annum, a statistical pittance of which, I believe, Southwest does not partake. Don't know about that, if true the program doesn't work. Rural air service sucks, and that's on the east coast near the DC-Boston axis. ... Generally speaking, though, the days are long gone when airlines were broadly subsidized by federal money across the board. Other than all the subsidies and unpaid loans, yeah. But who's gonna get picky about details when you're having a nice little fascist rant? Actually I'm glad to see that you have at least a slight connection to reality, even if you forget at times. Perhaps you could keep an eye on the other members of your little club. DSK |
It could happen to you.
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. DSK |
It could happen to you.
"DSK" wrote in message ... Southwest is one of the few truely profitable airlines, according to a friend who is a pilot for American. He said the secret of their profitability is that they only fly one type of airplane, (the Boeing 737 at the time of our conversation). Their spare parts inventory, technical maintenance staff, pilots and air crew only have to support and be qualified in the one type of aircraft. Eisboch |
It could happen to you.
Also I read somewhere that they bought fuel contracts with guaranteed prices
that gives them a significant advantage over other airlines. "Eisboch" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... Southwest is one of the few truely profitable airlines, according to a friend who is a pilot for American. He said the secret of their profitability is that they only fly one type of airplane, (the Boeing 737 at the time of our conversation). Their spare parts inventory, technical maintenance staff, pilots and air crew only have to support and be qualified in the one type of aircraft. Eisboch |
It could happen to you.
Doug,
Do you read rec.boats? It is the liberals in rec.boats who relish in using vulgar terms (ie ****head, ****head, rectal fissure, etc). The conservative argue just as much as the liberals, just without the vulgar terms. "DSK" wrote in message ... Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. DSK |
It could happen to you.
"Eisboch" wrote in message ... "DSK" wrote in message ... Southwest is one of the few truely profitable airlines, according to a friend who is a pilot for American. He said the secret of their profitability is that they only fly one type of airplane, (the Boeing 737 at the time of our conversation). Their spare parts inventory, technical maintenance staff, pilots and air crew only have to support and be qualified in the one type of aircraft. Eisboch They also have a short turn around time WRT getting the planes back in the air..........without in flight service, there is less cleaning etc to do.................also their leg to leg operation......instead of the hub/spoke system works to their advantage. |
It could happen to you.
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
Ah I see - so the political blogs that are coveted places of discourse by both political parties for advancing their agendas and viewpoints are not relevant to you because you are better than them? Not at all. I have work to do and a real life to attend. I'm not in the least bit interested in "political discourse" nor "advancing agendas" but rather, what each person does in the real world. Outgassing a lot of words on the net doesn't affect anything, except it can generate a unified field of talking heads all agreed on a point. It gives them a feeling that they're right, but that doesn't change the real world one bit. My morals? You are challenging MY morals? ??? Feeling guilty about something? Other than that you lie to try and make political points, and you think furriners are bad just because some of them are French, and you've raised your children to use violence when threatened by ideas, I don't know a thing about your morals. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Really? Prove it. Tell me Tom, which of the two of us has cussed out the other, using a long string of vulgar profanities? Yes I did - politely in fact WHAT? You want me to google up your posts following the evolution expose? You call that polite? ... and you deserved it. Heres' another lesson in morals- when you are proven wrong on a subject, instead of admitting your mistake and learning, you say that the other person deserves to be called names, and if he persists, to be slapped by your children. No wonder President Bush thinks torture is OK, when he's backed by people with your "morals." And this particular morning, you deserve this too - you are well and truly an ass Doug. Yeah. Whatever. That was polite, right? I guess calling names is better than facing facts, if you have a certain political leaning that makes you always right no matter what. DSK |
It could happen to you.
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:36:57 -0400, DSK wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. Ah I see - so the political blogs that are coveted places of discourse by both political parties for advancing their agendas and viewpoints are not relevant to you because you are better than them? And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. My morals? You are challenging MY morals? What - you been drinking or something this morning? On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. Prove I don't. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Really? Prove it. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. This is priceless...........I would bet that kevin has used more vulgar terms than the above list combined........DSK is obviously a firm believer in the "tell a lie long enough and it will be accepted as truth" I can't speak to them as they aren't bloggers as far as I know. And I don't condone it in any case. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. Yes I did - politely in fact and you deserved it. And this particular morning, you deserve this too - you are well and truly an ass Doug. And a good little liebral....whining about others doing the very thing they are guilty of..... "righties just tend to lie a lot," What a hoot...............compared to kevin and his masters" from Penn Tech, or harry's lobsta boat.... LMAO |
It could happen to you.
A timely article
http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._11_05_DP.html Not a week goes by that some part of the Left does not hurt America. But in the past two weeks, three examples stood out for the degree of such harm. The first example involved the ACLU, which has threatened Southwest Airlines with a lawsuit. Southwest ordered a passenger off a flight after she refused to cover her T-shirt on which was printed an expletive -- "Fu--ers" -- referring to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The ACLU position is not surprising. That organization had once defended a high school student whose school had prohibited him from wearing to class a T-shirt that read "Big Pecker." I have previously noted in this column the widespread approval of foul language on the Left, such as the expletive-filled entertainment at a John Kerry fundraiser organized by MoveOn.org. Nor is it surprising that a high percentage of my e-mail from people on the Left contains obscenities. To most Americans, the huge increase in public cursing is a sign of a deteriorating civilization; to the Left it is a sign of a freer, less hypocritical one. .................................................. ........................... ........................ "Starbuckaroo" wrote in message ... Doug, Do you read rec.boats? It is the liberals in rec.boats who relish in using vulgar terms (ie ****head, ****head, rectal fissure, etc). The conservative argue just as much as the liberals, just without the vulgar terms. "DSK" wrote in message ... Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. DSK |
It could happen to you.
Paul,
I find the language offensive, but I don't believe it will be the downfall of America. It is the lack of education, that forces uneducated people like jps, Kevin and Harry to use profanity that will be the downfall of America. "P Fritz" wrote in message ... A timely article http://realclearpolitics.com/Comment..._11_05_DP.html Not a week goes by that some part of the Left does not hurt America. But in the past two weeks, three examples stood out for the degree of such harm. The first example involved the ACLU, which has threatened Southwest Airlines with a lawsuit. Southwest ordered a passenger off a flight after she refused to cover her T-shirt on which was printed an expletive -- "Fu--ers" -- referring to President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The ACLU position is not surprising. That organization had once defended a high school student whose school had prohibited him from wearing to class a T-shirt that read "Big Pecker." I have previously noted in this column the widespread approval of foul language on the Left, such as the expletive-filled entertainment at a John Kerry fundraiser organized by MoveOn.org. Nor is it surprising that a high percentage of my e-mail from people on the Left contains obscenities. To most Americans, the huge increase in public cursing is a sign of a deteriorating civilization; to the Left it is a sign of a freer, less hypocritical one. .................................................. .......................... ....................... "Starbuckaroo" wrote in message ... Doug, Do you read rec.boats? It is the liberals in rec.boats who relish in using vulgar terms (ie ****head, ****head, rectal fissure, etc). The conservative argue just as much as the liberals, just without the vulgar terms. "DSK" wrote in message ... Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. DSK |
It could happen to you.
Harry Krause wrote:
This country is going to hell in a handbasket because it has lost its sense of morality and direction since the advent of modern conservacrooks and nincompoop presidents like Bush. WOW! this even shocked me! Are you insinuating the high levels of morailty(tongue planted FIRMLY in cheek) during the clinton years was something to brag about? Now that is funny, thanx for playing... |
It could happen to you.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:36:57 -0400, DSK wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: I read a lot of political blogs I don't read any. Got better things to do. And (this may be a cruel thing to say) if this is what shapes your political morals, then I'm glad I don't read blogs and will deliberately stay away from them. On average, I read an equal amount of left wing and right wing blogs Yeah I bet. My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. On the other hand the other side of the aisle tends to be much more civil and language tends to be much less hyperbolic. No, the righties just tend to lie a lot, and when they can't think of a good enough lie, they call names. You yourself cussed me out not long ago. Perhaps you've forgotten. DSK Perhaps you could display some of those vulgarities? Other than calling Harry what he was, I think you'll have a hard time finding them. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
It could happen to you.
JIMinFL wrote:
Also I read somewhere that they bought fuel contracts with guaranteed prices that gives them a significant advantage over other airlines. I'm sure that force majeure has negated those contracts. Dan |
It could happen to you.
"Eisboch" wrote in message He said the secret of their profitability is that they only fly one type of airplane, ........ Different factors can receive different emphasis. In my view, having been a small part of the industry, Southwest's success is owed primarily to good, solid management and excellent employee relations. Having to support and train for only one aircraft type is certainly a significant factor in cost control. |
It could happen to you.
"Dan Krueger" wrote in message ink.net... JIMinFL wrote: Also I read somewhere that they bought fuel contracts with guaranteed prices that gives them a significant advantage over other airlines. I'm sure that force majeure has negated those contracts. Dan Nope, but I think they do expire this year. |
It could happen to you.
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:36:57 -0400, DSK wrote:
Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. "Ah, wrong, asshole." "He happens to be dead, asshole. So, in short, **** you, you low life piece of garbage." "Show it to your wife, dickhead. What a true low life piece of **** you are to bring someone's mother or father into a discussion" "If the information is accurate, who give's a **** where it came from?" "Oh for ****'s sake! It's all public info. You just don't like what it says so you'll discount the source." All in the last couple of days, and from just two ultra-liberal posters here... Bassy and Just Plain. You *know* your assertion is indefensible. Go ahead and admit it... liberals are far more vulgar that conservatives. It's a lack of common decency and manners. Jack |
It could happen to you.
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:27:21 GMT, Jack Goff wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:36:57 -0400, DSK wrote: Shortwave Sportfishing wrote: My observation is that the liberal/lefties are much more vulgar Well, that may be true in blog-world but it's the exact opposite in the real world. Look at the postings in this newsgroup. Who is it that uses the most vulgar terms? JohnH, "Bert Robbins" P-Fritz etc etc. In other words, the Hate-Clinton Club for Angry White Men. "Ah, wrong, asshole." "He happens to be dead, asshole. So, in short, **** you, you low life piece of garbage." "Show it to your wife, dickhead. What a true low life piece of **** you are to bring someone's mother or father into a discussion" "If the information is accurate, who give's a **** where it came from?" "Oh for ****'s sake! It's all public info. You just don't like what it says so you'll discount the source." All in the last couple of days, and from just two ultra-liberal posters here... Bassy and Just Plain. You *know* your assertion is indefensible. Go ahead and admit it... liberals are far more vulgar that conservatives. It's a lack of common decency and manners. Jack It's because we're repressed. Or maybe because we're beyond adolescence. -- John H "The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so." Ronald Reagan |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com