Starbucks

[Oscar_LaVista]

you are a liar.  no doubt about it.  i have proven you a liar many times.  and of course you are a bigot.  you lie about what democrats believe and support all the time, in almost every post.  that is bigotry. 

[Dan]

you are a liar.

Nope.  Now apologize.

i have proven you a liar many times.

Nope.

and of course you are a bigot.

Prove it.  Show me where I have ever judged someone based on anything other than merit.  Short of that, apologize.

you lie about what democrats believe and support all the time

No I don't.  I stand by my assessment.

that is bigotry.

Whooooooaaaaa.  So THAT is why you are calling me a bigot?  Because of my assessment of liberals?

Here's a tip for you, the next time you decide to put a label on someone, make sure you choose the appropriate label.  A perception of a political philosophy is not bigotry.

[1965hawks]

To: oscar lavista

in re: reply #44

Evidently you're as stubborn as your erstwhile opponents--now, evidently, your allies--who hang out on our forums far-right  lunatic fringe. If you would simply read the articles I provided, you would see why the two men arrested were neither trespassing nor loitering and, more important, you will discover the argument that they were required to buy something, in order to remain on the premises, is false.

You really disappoint me, oscar lavista. I expected the usual bogus arguments from our opponents on the right, but not from you. I suppose my assessment of you as a level-headed, rational, progressive, and my ally against this forum's irrational right-wingnuts was all wrong.   

[Dan]

You really disappoint me, oscar lavista. I expected the usual bogus arguments from our opponents on the right, but not from you.

That's funny.  I expected the usual bogus arguments from him but was surprised he got this issue right.  You, on the other hand, hawks, did not disappoint.  I got exactly what I expected from you.

[Oscar_LaVista]

To: oscar lavista

in re: reply #44

Evidently you're as stubborn as your erstwhile opponents--now, evidently, your allies--who hang out on our forums far-right  lunatic fringe. If you would simply read the articles I provided, you would see why the two men arrested were neither trespassing nor loitering and, more important, you will discover the argument that they were required to buy something, in order to remain on the premises, is false.

You really disappoint me, oscar lavista. I expected the usual bogus arguments from our opponents on the right, but not from you. I suppose my assessment of you as a level-headed, rational, progressive, and my ally against this forum's irrational right-wingnuts was all wrong.

I read your sources.  I also HEARD what the store manager said to the cops.  And I know the cops came to the store based on what she said, proving it was her right to have them removed.  now what do you say that counteracts these facts and should make anyone want to defend these assholes?  what the fuck?  they couldn't split a coffee? fuck them. 

i am not a slave to any party or any cog in a wheel.  i think for myself.  98 times out of a hundred it is the same as almost all liberals, and completely opposite of what right wingers and republicans believe.  but on this one case, i see no reason why these jerks could not buy a freaking coffee and avoid any bullshit.  so screw them.  has nothing to do with race, it has to do with small business owners having the right to save space for paying customers. 

[WWV10MHZ]

[darkflower]

Why should they have to buy a coffee when someone else was showing up to buy them coffee? Since when does anybody have to buy anything before their entire group has shown up?

And gee, both Starbucks and the police dispute your claim and side with the two men arrested, not with the manager nor the arresting police.

[zsq987]

DankWeed......  Yep, I forgot.  They're Black, so SOMEONE ELSE has to show up to buy their coffee.

THAT explains it.

Thank You!!

[1965hawks]

To: anchorsgedan, wwv10mhz, oscar lavista, zsq987, d2d!, omiaqt, seahooker, takncarabizniz, and wxzyw

in re: "Starbucks" and "Philly Police Commissioner Apologises"

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2018/04/18/starbucks-philadelphia-arrests-raise-question-ever-ok-kick-someone-out-your-store-sometimes-but-race/521750002/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/starbucks-police-boycott-black-men-arrest-philadelphia-racism-a8305381.html

[Dan]

Why should they have to buy a coffee

Because that is the store policy.  If you are going to occupy a table, the store policy is that you buy something.

Since when does anybody have to buy anything before their entire group has shown up?

They don't have to.  They can wait outside for their party to show up.

Starbucks and the police side with the two men

They are wrong about themselves.  They both acted appropriately.  Starbucks and the Police chief are incorrect that this incident was about race.  Starbucks owes it's fired manager an apology and a huge settlement for impugning her character.  The Chief of Police owes its officers an apology for maligning them for performing their duty appropriately.

[Dan]

To: anchorsgedan

in re: "Starbucks" and "Philly Police Commissioner Apologises"

Apologize for what?  Starbucks did nothing wrong.  The police did nothing wrong.  If there's anything I cannot stand is righteous people being persecuted or apologizing for doing the right thing.

[Dan]

Somebody needs to tell those newspapers that this incident had absolutely nothing to do with race.