I work for lawyers. Lawyers always win when there’s a change.
Why? I assumed he was banned for a good reason in the first place.
We currently face an unknown path forward on what might be discussed and how it can be discussed. In some responses to the change threads it has been noted that a somewhat kumbaya moment is near. Civil debate with open minds and without personal attacks being the operative intent. I would much prefer that to the constant argument of left leaning circle jerking.
Bringing some banned customers back might encourage more give and take dialogue that could simply end with “let’s leave off with that on this we disagree” that not only would satisfy the family friendly all ages discourse, but might also help the 8 and 9 year old future multi sport participants whose parents allow them to access our corner bar understand better how to interact with others on civic matters in civil ways.
I don’t know if Dan and Ryan have been effectively sidelined as our bouncers, so it may be a moot subject.
this morning i bounced amstel and mr. tibb. my new product is rope, which i give away n/c. what you do with it is up to you. hang yourself with it if you want, but consequences will flow.
4 Likes
I know you don’t like the ‘like’ button, so in addition to clicking it I’m going to say “Thanks!” Your efforts to keep the poo-flinging to a minimum are appreciated.
For an ignorant slut, you aren’t half bad.
“Generally, when someone posts in the lavender room first after registering, I disable that account. I’ve made a couple of exceptions recently, to allow more right wing voices in, and that may be where you see a bit of a problem.”
What’s up with the capital letters? Is this part of the new format?
if i’m writing a post with capitals in the right places i’m almost certainly dictating this on my phone, and my phone has betrayed my style by inserting those characters. bad phone. bad phone.
1 Like
That is so awesome that YOU, " allow more right wing voices in". Thank you.
Oldtritroll is still here. Weird.
Conservative voices sure, that isn’t what that trollfarm employee is
You should maybe listen to the words she said.
Kamala Harris, May 2007:
“We’re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you’re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs”.
Sounds like a violation of the 4th Amendment.
Maybe Harris would like to inspect your books too.
OK, go back in time, become a San Francisco resident in the 90s, become licensed to purchase a firearm, buy a firearm, then commit a crime in SF, then you can sue for unreasonable searches.
But that won’t matter because it’s part of the contract you have with the city of SF and has already been litigated.
While That could be what she meant, she didn’t say anything about this search being limit to first committing a crime.
Moreover on the comment of gun confiscation, listen to her own words.
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6360516566112
A mandatory gun buyback program is a gun confiscation program. It the way confiscation is implemented.
Can you explain how the President has the power to implement a gun confiscation program?
I don’t have to, I’m not running for president, and I did not say I support confiscation. It is dishonest to say she does not want your guns and make statements about mandatory buybacks.
Sure she is promising things she can’t do by herself, but that is true of most things a president campaigns on.
It is dishonest to leave out the fact that she no longer supports mandatory gun buy backs. Likely because they are expensive and don’t work.
She has had so many flipflops on policy that her new positions are just not believable.