Good for business - 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to restaurant's sales TRIPLING

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)]

Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
restaurant's sales TRIPLING

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-service-sign-leads-Reedy-Creek-Diner-restaurants-sales-TRIPLING.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

[topcat]

<***@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:***@KnuEr...
> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-service-sign-leads-Reedy-Creek-Diner-restaurants-sales-TRIPLING.html
>
>


Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.

TC

[Gary Forbis]

On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.

I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
business
owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
what
his "customers" want.

Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
not the
same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
make
appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.

However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
who
don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
could
see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
one
wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
nuisance.

[topcat]

"Gary Forbis" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.

I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
business
owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
what
his "customers" want.

Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
not the
same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
make
appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.

However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
who
don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
could
see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
one
wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
nuisance.

********

I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN speak
English and won't serve people who don't.

My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any way. If
a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish or for
having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not the
governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course, in the
example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP with
multi-culturalism.

TC

[Robert Bannister]

On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>>
>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>>
>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.
>
> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> business
> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> what
> his "customers" want.
>
> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> not the
> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> make
> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> who
> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> could
> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> one
> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> nuisance.
>
> ********
>
> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN speak
> English and won't serve people who don't.

Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
for "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
unnecessary.
>
> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any way. If
> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish or for
> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not the
> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course, in the
> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP with
> multi-culturalism.

I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
order; not for barring redheads.


--
Robert Bannister

[topcat]

"Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
>> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
>>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>>>
>>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
>>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>>>
>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>>>
>>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.
>>
>> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
>> business
>> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
>> what
>> his "customers" want.
>>
>> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
>> not the
>> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
>> make
>> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
>> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>>
>> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
>> who
>> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
>> could
>> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
>> one
>> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
>> nuisance.
>>
>> ********
>>
>> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
>> speak
>> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English for
> "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> unnecessary.
>>
>> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any way.
>> If
>> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish or
>> for
>> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
>> the
>> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
>> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course, in
>> the
>> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
>> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP with
>> multi-culturalism.
>
> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their order;
> not for barring redheads.
>
>

Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
re-engineer society.

TC

[Gary Forbis]

On May 24, 4:31 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
> >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)>  wrote in
> >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.
>
> >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case.  Clearly the
> >> business
> >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service.  I guess that's
> >> what
> >> his "customers" want.
>
> >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> >> not the
> >> same as descrimination on the basis of language.  While one should
> >> make
> >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> >> who
> >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar.  I
> >> could
> >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> >> one
> >> wanted excluded.  Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> >> nuisance.
>
> >> ********
>
> >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> >> speak
> >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English for
> > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > unnecessary.
>
> >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any way.
> >> If
> >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish or
> >> for
> >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
> >> the
> >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course, in
> >> the
> >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP with
> >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their order;
> > not for barring redheads.
>
> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> re-engineer society.

A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right. A
business
should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
of the society in which it conducts business. If you want to
descriminate
then go conduct your business in a society that allows that. Our
nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
Descrimination hinders these ideals. No one has a right to live in
our society but not obey the laws of the land.

[Cheryl]

On 2011-05-24 10:25 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:

>
> A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
> Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right. A
> business
> should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
> of the society in which it conducts business. If you want to
> descriminate
> then go conduct your business in a society that allows that. Our
> nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
> Descrimination hinders these ideals. No one has a right to live in
> our society but not obey the laws of the land.

So all criminals, from the ones who run red lights to those who murder,
have lost the right to live in their native land and must move elsewhere
immediately.

I can visualize an international version of musical chairs as everyone
who disobeys a law loses the right to live in a country and moves on,
only, sooner or later, to disobey a law (maybe an anti-littering
ordinance), loses the right to live in the new place, moves on....

--
Cheryl

[Peter Brooks]

On May 25, 12:22 pm, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
> On 2011-05-24 10:25 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>
>
> > A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
> > Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right.  A
> > business
> > should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
> > of the society in which it conducts business.  If you want to
> > descriminate
> > then go conduct your business in a society that allows that.  Our
> > nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
> > Descrimination hinders these ideals.  No one has a right to live in
> > our society but not obey the laws of the land.
>
> So all criminals, from the ones who run red lights to those who murder,
> have lost the right to live in their native land and must move elsewhere
> immediately.
>
> I can visualize an international version of musical chairs as everyone
> who disobeys a law loses the right to live in a country and moves on,
> only, sooner or later, to disobey a law (maybe an anti-littering
> ordinance), loses the right to live in the new place, moves on....
>
It is funny how people invest a metaphorical abstraction 'society'
with some sort of objective reality - as you point out, the
contradictions arising are risible.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 25, 4:09 am, Peter Brooks <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 25, 12:22 pm, Cheryl <***@mun.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2011-05-24 10:25 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
> > > A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
> > > Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right.  A
> > > business
> > > should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
> > > of the society in which it conducts business.  If you want to
> > > descriminate
> > > then go conduct your business in a society that allows that.  Our
> > > nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
> > > Descrimination hinders these ideals.  No one has a right to live in
> > > our society but not obey the laws of the land.
>
> > So all criminals, from the ones who run red lights to those who murder,
> > have lost the right to live in their native land and must move elsewhere
> > immediately.
>
> > I can visualize an international version of musical chairs as everyone
> > who disobeys a law loses the right to live in a country and moves on,
> > only, sooner or later, to disobey a law (maybe an anti-littering
> > ordinance), loses the right to live in the new place, moves on....
>
> It is funny how people invest a metaphorical abstraction 'society'
> with some sort of objective reality - as you point out, the
> contradictions arising are risible.

It's funny how a colony of genetically identical cells comes to
have the label "individual".

We know reality through our senses. Our sense of reality is
subjective. It is all shaddows on the wall. We assume an
objective existence of the other from the shaddows. Society
isn't a metaphor at all but has objective existence. Its existence
is to the individual as the individual is to the cell. We shed
cells all the time but live on.

Cheryl's problem is her denial of reality. While there might
be a society that casts one off for littering, I don't know of
any. This doesn't mean littering will go unpunished. Societies
respond differently to different acts of its individuals.

[P. Rajah]

On 5/25/2011 7:09 AM, Peter Brooks wrote:

> On May 25, 12:22 pm, Cheryl<***@mun.ca> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-24 10:25 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
>>> Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right. A
>>> business
>>> should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
>>> of the society in which it conducts business. If you want to
>>> descriminate
>>> then go conduct your business in a society that allows that. Our
>>> nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
>>> Descrimination hinders these ideals. No one has a right to live in
>>> our society but not obey the laws of the land.
>>
>> So all criminals, from the ones who run red lights to those who murder,
>> have lost the right to live in their native land and must move elsewhere
>> immediately.
>>
>> I can visualize an international version of musical chairs as everyone
>> who disobeys a law loses the right to live in a country and moves on,
>> only, sooner or later, to disobey a law (maybe an anti-littering
>> ordinance), loses the right to live in the new place, moves on....
>>
> It is funny how people invest a metaphorical abstraction 'society'
> with some sort of objective reality - as you point out, the
> contradictions arising are risible.

There is a clear difference between businesses and individuals. A
business can be put out of business for not complying with the law. An
individual cannot be "put out of business" in the same sense, except
when s/he commits a capital offense in certain states. What is risible
is the fact that neither you nor Cheryl seem to be able to make the
distinction between citizens and commercial interests.

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not
constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their
gains."
Thomas Jefferson

--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 15:14:54 -0400, "P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote:

>"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not
>constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their
>gains."
>Thomas Jefferson

As good a description of multinational corporations as any I've seen.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Mike Lyle]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 07:09:25 +0200, Steve Hayes
<***@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 25 May 2011 15:14:54 -0400, "P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote:
>
>>"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not
>>constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their
>>gains."
>>Thomas Jefferson
>
>As good a description of multinational corporations as any I've seen.

Yes: I always thought the slogan "The poor have no country" flew very
wide of the mark. The poor are the ones who _have_ to have a country,
while Rupert Murdoch and the rest can pick and choose.

--
Mike.

[topcat]

"Cheryl" <***@mun.ca> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 2011-05-24 10:25 AM, Gary Forbis wrote:
>
>>
>> A society can set it's social norms and enforcement mechanisms.
>> Living in a particular society is a privilege not a right. A
>> business
>> should not have and does not have the right to act against the will
>> of the society in which it conducts business. If you want to
>> descriminate
>> then go conduct your business in a society that allows that. Our
>> nation wants to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility".
>> Descrimination hinders these ideals. No one has a right to live in
>> our society but not obey the laws of the land.
>
> So all criminals, from the ones who run red lights to those who murder,
> have lost the right to live in their native land and must move elsewhere
> immediately.
>
> I can visualize an international version of musical chairs as everyone who
> disobeys a law loses the right to live in a country and moves on, only,
> sooner or later, to disobey a law (maybe an anti-littering ordinance),
> loses the right to live in the new place, moves on....
>
>

His argument falls apart at the beginning anyway. Laws exist to make sure
that society doesn't spiral into anarchy. A place where the person with the
most physical might or the most weapons or the most shrewdness rules the
day. People who break these laws, naturally deserve to be punished for doing
so. This, of course, has nothing to do with who is or isn't served in a
PRIVATELY owned restaurant.

TC

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:31:21 -0400, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:

>Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
>who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
>one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>re-engineer society.

Is that really why it's called private enterprise?


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[topcat]

"Steve Hayes" <***@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:31:21 -0400, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>>Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>>people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
>>who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>>enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This
>>is
>>one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>>re-engineer society.
>
> Is that really why it's called private enterprise?
>


If you're going to join the discussion, join it. If not, then stop asking
stupid questions.

TC

[Steve Hayes]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 07:22:24 -0400, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:

>
>"Steve Hayes" <***@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 24 May 2011 07:31:21 -0400, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>>>people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
>>>who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>>>enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This
>>>is
>>>one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>>>re-engineer society.
>>
>> Is that really why it's called private enterprise?

>If you're going to join the discussion, join it. If not, then stop asking
>stupid questions.

I'm confident that there are several people who are better-informed that you
are who might be able to answer the question.

I suspect that your etymology is false, but someone might know the true
etymology.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Duggy]

On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
> >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)>  wrote in
> >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.
>
> >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case.  Clearly the
> >> business
> >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service.  I guess that's
> >> what
> >> his "customers" want.
>
> >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> >> not the
> >> same as descrimination on the basis of language.  While one should
> >> make
> >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> >> who
> >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar.  I
> >> could
> >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> >> one
> >> wanted excluded.  Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> >> nuisance.
>
> >> ********
>
> >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> >> speak
> >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English for
> > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > unnecessary.
>
> >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any way.
> >> If
> >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish or
> >> for
> >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
> >> the
> >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course, in
> >> the
> >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP with
> >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their order;
> > not for barring redheads.
>
> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> re-engineer society.

The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.

===
= DUG.
===

[topcat]

"Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> >>> freedom.
>
> >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> >> business
> >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> >> what
> >> his "customers" want.
>
> >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> >> not the
> >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> >> make
> >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> >> who
> >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> >> could
> >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> >> one
> >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> >> nuisance.
>
> >> ********
>
> >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> >> speak
> >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > for
> > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > unnecessary.
>
> >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> >> way.
> >> If
> >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> >> or
> >> for
> >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
> >> the
> >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> >> in
> >> the
> >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> >> with
> >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > order;
> > not for barring redheads.
>
> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This
> is
> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> re-engineer society.

The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.

******

Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.

CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.

I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force me
to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?

TC

[Gary Forbis]

On May 25, 4:16 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> > >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> > >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> > >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> > >>> freedom.
>
> > >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> > >> business
> > >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> > >> what
> > >> his "customers" want.
>
> > >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> > >> not the
> > >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> > >> make
> > >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> > >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> > >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> > >> who
> > >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> > >> could
> > >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> > >> one
> > >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> > >> nuisance.
>
> > >> ********
>
> > >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> > >> speak
> > >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > > for
> > > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > > unnecessary.
>
> > >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> > >> way.
> > >> If
> > >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> > >> or
> > >> for
> > >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
> > >> the
> > >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> > >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> > >> in
> > >> the
> > >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> > >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> > >> with
> > >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > > order;
> > > not for barring redheads.
>
> > Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> > people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> > who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> > enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This
> > is
> > one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> > re-engineer society.
>
> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> food.  The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD.  That's why it's
> called PRIVATE enterprise.  The government has no business making laws
> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> ******
>
> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.

Society should only deal with safety?
Shouldn't it inforce private property rights?
What does property rights have to do with safety?

[topcat]

"Gary Forbis" <***@msn.com> wrote in message
news:579eeae6-0c6a-4a1f-8125-***@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 4:16 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> > >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> > >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
> > >>> in
> > >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> > >>> freedom.
>
> > >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> > >> business
> > >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> > >> what
> > >> his "customers" want.
>
> > >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> > >> not the
> > >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> > >> make
> > >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> > >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> > >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> > >> who
> > >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> > >> could
> > >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> > >> one
> > >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> > >> nuisance.
>
> > >> ********
>
> > >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> > >> speak
> > >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > > for
> > > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > > unnecessary.
>
> > >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> > >> way.
> > >> If
> > >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> > >> or
> > >> for
> > >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
> > >> not
> > >> the
> > >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
> > >> lose
> > >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> > >> in
> > >> the
> > >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> > >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> > >> with
> > >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > > order;
> > > not for barring redheads.
>
> > Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> > people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
> > decide
> > who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> > enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
> > This
> > is
> > one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> > re-engineer society.
>
> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> ******
>
> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.

Society should only deal with safety?
Shouldn't it inforce private property rights?
What does property rights have to do with safety?

*******

CLUE: He brought up a safety issue, I addressed it. Stop jumping all over
the place and I won't have to.

CLUE: This is about property rights.....MY right to allow or NOT allow
whoever I want in my PRIVATELY owned business.

CLUE: Stop playing the "I'll ask a silly question in hopes of tripping up
the other debater" game. I'm on to it, and won't answer any more silly
questions. Support your side with a valid argument, like I'm doing.

TC

[Franklin Hummel]

On May 25, Patriot Games = topcat =
Buster Norris = Crazy Bastard = Bob Milby Jr.
irrationally SHRIEKED:
> [ Blah! Blah BLAH, blah!!!!!! BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ]

I'm just passing on to all of the posters who repeatedly kick Bob
Milby's ass that "Patriot Games" now seems to have another sockpuppet,
"topcat", along with his "Buster Norris" puppet.

"topcat"'s pattern of posting is very similar to the way Junior uses
his "Buster" puppet.

Read "his" posts and decide for yourself.

[Robert Bannister]

On 25/05/11 8:45 PM, topcat wrote:
> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:579eeae6-0c6a-4a1f-8125-***@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 4:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>> "Duggy"<***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Robert Bannister"<***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>>> On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
>>>>> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>>
>>>>>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
>>>>>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>>
>>>>>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
>>>>>> freedom.
>>
>>>>> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
>>>>> business
>>>>> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
>>>>> what
>>>>> his "customers" want.
>>
>>>>> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
>>>>> not the
>>>>> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
>>>>> make
>>>>> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
>>>>> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>>
>>>>> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
>>>>> who
>>>>> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
>>>>> could
>>>>> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
>>>>> one
>>>>> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
>>>>> nuisance.
>>
>>>>> ********
>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
>>>>> speak
>>>>> English and won't serve people who don't.
>>
>>>> Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
>>>> for
>>>> "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
>>>> unnecessary.
>>
>>>>> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
>>>>> way.
>>>>> If
>>>>> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
>>>>> or
>>>>> for
>>>>> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
>>>>> not
>>>>> the
>>>>> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
>>>>> lose
>>>>> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
>>>>> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
>>>>> with
>>>>> multi-culturalism.
>>
>>>> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
>>>> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
>>>> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
>>>> order;
>>>> not for barring redheads.
>>
>>> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>>> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
>>> decide
>>> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>>> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
>>> This
>>> is
>>> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>>> re-engineer society.
>>
>> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
>> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
>> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
>> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
>> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
>> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>>
>> ******
>>
>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>
>> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
>> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>
> Society should only deal with safety?
> Shouldn't it inforce private property rights?
> What does property rights have to do with safety?
>
> *******
>
> CLUE: He brought up a safety issue, I addressed it. Stop jumping all over
> the place and I won't have to.
>
> CLUE: This is about property rights.....MY right to allow or NOT allow
> whoever I want in my PRIVATELY owned business.
>
> CLUE: Stop playing the "I'll ask a silly question in hopes of tripping up
> the other debater" game. I'm on to it, and won't answer any more silly
> questions. Support your side with a valid argument, like I'm doing.

What you are discussing is more like a private club with membership
rules. Once you start a real business that deals with the general
public, things changes.


--
Robert Bannister

[topcat]

"Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:***@mid.individual.net...
> On 25/05/11 8:45 PM, topcat wrote:
>> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:579eeae6-0c6a-4a1f-8125-***@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 25, 4:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>> "Duggy"<***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Robert Bannister"<***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>>> On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
>>>>>> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>>>
>>>>>>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
>>>>>>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>>>
>>>>>>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
>>>>>>> freedom.
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
>>>>>> business
>>>>>> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> his "customers" want.
>>>
>>>>>> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
>>>>>> not the
>>>>>> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
>>>>>> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>>>
>>>>>> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
>>>>>> who
>>>>>> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
>>>>>> could
>>>>>> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
>>>>>> nuisance.
>>>
>>>>>> ********
>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
>>>>>> speak
>>>>>> English and won't serve people who don't.
>>>
>>>>> Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
>>>>> for
>>>>> "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
>>>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>>>>> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
>>>>>> way.
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
>>>>>> lose
>>>>>> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
>>>>>> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> multi-culturalism.
>>>
>>>>> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
>>>>> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
>>>>> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
>>>>> order;
>>>>> not for barring redheads.
>>>
>>>> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>>>> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
>>>> decide
>>>> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>>>> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
>>>> This
>>>> is
>>>> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>>>> re-engineer society.
>>>
>>> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
>>> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
>>> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
>>> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
>>> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
>>> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>>>
>>> ******
>>>
>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>>
>>> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
>>> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>>
>> Society should only deal with safety?
>> Shouldn't it inforce private property rights?
>> What does property rights have to do with safety?
>>
>> *******
>>
>> CLUE: He brought up a safety issue, I addressed it. Stop jumping all over
>> the place and I won't have to.
>>
>> CLUE: This is about property rights.....MY right to allow or NOT allow
>> whoever I want in my PRIVATELY owned business.
>>
>> CLUE: Stop playing the "I'll ask a silly question in hopes of tripping up
>> the other debater" game. I'm on to it, and won't answer any more silly
>> questions. Support your side with a valid argument, like I'm doing.
>
> What you are discussing is more like a private club with membership rules.
> Once you start a real business that deals with the general public, things
> changes.
>


And that's my point - they SHOULDN'T. I believe in FREEDOM of association.
Liberals don't.

TC

[Gary Forbis]

On May 26, 4:25 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 25/05/11 8:45 PM, topcat wrote:
> >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:579eeae6-0c6a-4a1f-8125-***@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 25, 4:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
> >>> "Duggy"<***@jcu.edu.au>  wrote in message
>
> >>>news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
>
> >>>> "Robert Bannister"<***@bigpond.com>  wrote in message
>
> >>>>news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>>> On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> >>>>>> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com>  wrote in message
> >>>>>>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)>  wrote
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> >>>>>>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> >>>>>>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> >>>>>>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> >>>>>>> freedom.
>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> >>>>>> business
> >>>>>> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> >>>>>> what
> >>>>>> his "customers" want.
>
> >>>>>> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> >>>>>> not the
> >>>>>> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> >>>>>> make
> >>>>>> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> >>>>>> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> >>>>>> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> >>>>>> who
> >>>>>> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> >>>>>> could
> >>>>>> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> >>>>>> one
> >>>>>> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> >>>>>> nuisance.
>
> >>>>>> ********
>
> >>>>>> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> >>>>>> speak
> >>>>>> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> >>>>> Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> >>>>> for
> >>>>> "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> >>>>> unnecessary.
>
> >>>>>> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> >>>>>> way.
> >>>>>> If
> >>>>>> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
> >>>>>> not
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
> >>>>>> lose
> >>>>>> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> >>>>>> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> >>>>>> with
> >>>>>> multi-culturalism.
>
> >>>>> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> >>>>> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> >>>>> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> >>>>> order;
> >>>>> not for barring redheads.
>
> >>>> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> >>>> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
> >>>> decide
> >>>> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> >>>> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
> >>>> This
> >>>> is
> >>>> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> >>>> re-engineer society.
>
> >>> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> >>> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> >>> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
> >>> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
> >>> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> >>> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> >>> ******
>
> >>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> >>> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> >>> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>
> >> Society should only deal with safety?
> >> Shouldn't it inforce private property rights?
> >> What does property rights have to do with safety?
>
> >> *******
>
> >> CLUE: He brought up a safety issue, I addressed it. Stop jumping all over
> >> the place and I won't have to.
>
> >> CLUE: This is about property rights.....MY right to allow or NOT allow
> >> whoever I want in my PRIVATELY owned business.
>
> >> CLUE: Stop playing the "I'll ask a silly question in hopes of tripping up
> >> the other debater" game. I'm on to it, and won't answer any more silly
> >> questions. Support your side with a valid argument, like I'm doing.
>
> > What you are discussing is more like a private club with membership rules.
> > Once you start a real business that deals with the general public, things
> > changes.
>
> And that's my point - they SHOULDN'T. I believe in FREEDOM of association.
> Liberals don't.

Freedom of association, free associate all you want, doesn't include
commerce.
Commerce is controlled for the good of the nation. The control of
interstate
commerce is mentioned in the constitution. The right to freedom of
association
is appended in the bill of rights. The founding fathers saw no
conflict between
controlling commerce and freedom of association.

[Uno Hu]

No retriction has been placed upon any illiterate customer.
He is free to order what he wishes. If he can.

But there is no requirement to teach english to illiterates.

[and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)]

Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
restaurant's sales TRIPLING

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-service-sign-leads-Reedy-Creek-Diner-restaurants-sales-TRIPLING.html

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

[Duggy]

On May 25, 9:16 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force me
> to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
> tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
> restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?

You check voter registry before they can order?

===
= DUG.
===

[topcat]

"Duggy" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:61a23d5d-4f3c-41f9-9c6c-***@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 9:16 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force
> me
> to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
> tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
> restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?

You check voter registry before they can order?

*****

Stupid question ignored.

TC

[Duggy]

On May 25, 9:16 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen
> in the food he serves, PERIOD.
 That's why it's

> ******
> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.

So you think it's OK to put semen in the food as long as it doesn't
endanger the public.

===
= DUG.
===

[robw]

On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> > >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> > >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> > >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> > >>> freedom.
>
> > >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> > >> business
> > >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> > >> what
> > >> his "customers" want.
>
> > >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> > >> not the
> > >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> > >> make
> > >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> > >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> > >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> > >> who
> > >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> > >> could
> > >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> > >> one
> > >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> > >> nuisance.
>
> > >> ********
>
> > >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> > >> speak
> > >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > > for
> > > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > > unnecessary.
>
> > >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> > >> way.
> > >> If
> > >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> > >> or
> > >> for
> > >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business, not
> > >> the
> > >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially lose
> > >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> > >> in
> > >> the
> > >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> > >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> > >> with
> > >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > > order;
> > > not for barring redheads.
>
> > Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> > people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> > who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> > enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This
> > is
> > one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> > re-engineer society.
>
> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> food.  The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD.  That's why it's
> called PRIVATE enterprise.  The government has no business making laws
> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> ******
>
> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>
> I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force me
> to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
> tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
> restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?
>
> TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the pockets of
liberals."

How???
If you go to a movie theatre do you ask if the owner(s) are liberals?
What about sporting events?
What about shopping at a grocery store?

It's impossible to purchase anything without money going to people
with all sorts of ideas.

You're an idiot to think otherwise.

[topcat]

"robw" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> > >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> > >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> > >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
> > >>> in
> > >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> > >>> freedom.
>
> > >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> > >> business
> > >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> > >> what
> > >> his "customers" want.
>
> > >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> > >> not the
> > >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> > >> make
> > >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> > >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> > >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> > >> who
> > >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> > >> could
> > >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> > >> one
> > >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> > >> nuisance.
>
> > >> ********
>
> > >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> > >> speak
> > >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > > for
> > > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > > unnecessary.
>
> > >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> > >> way.
> > >> If
> > >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> > >> or
> > >> for
> > >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
> > >> not
> > >> the
> > >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
> > >> lose
> > >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> > >> in
> > >> the
> > >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> > >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> > >> with
> > >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > > order;
> > > not for barring redheads.
>
> > Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> > people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
> > decide
> > who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> > enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
> > This
> > is
> > one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> > re-engineer society.
>
> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> ******
>
> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>
> I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force
> me
> to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
> tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
> restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?
>
> TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the pockets of
liberals."

How???
If you go to a movie theatre do you ask if the owner(s) are liberals?
What about sporting events?
What about shopping at a grocery store?

It's impossible to purchase anything without money going to people
with all sorts of ideas.

You're an idiot to think otherwise.

*******

I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
line. Now you can FUCK OFF.

HAND

TC

[robw]

On May 27, 5:26 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "robw" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Duggy" <***@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>
> >news:5bd69c33-e061-452e-bf34-***@j13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> > On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:***@mid.individual.net...
>
> > > > On 24/05/11 2:22 AM, topcat wrote:
> > > >> "Gary Forbis"<***@msn.com> wrote in message
> > > >>news:d2500b44-10c1-4c31-8f01-***@k27g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > > >> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
> > > >>> <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
> > > >>> in
> > > >>> messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > > >>>> Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > > >>>> restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > > >>>>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > > >>> Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in
> > > >>> freedom.
>
> > > >> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case. Clearly the
> > > >> business
> > > >> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service. I guess that's
> > > >> what
> > > >> his "customers" want.
>
> > > >> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> > > >> not the
> > > >> same as descrimination on the basis of language. While one should
> > > >> make
> > > >> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> > > >> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> > > >> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> > > >> who
> > > >> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar. I
> > > >> could
> > > >> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> > > >> one
> > > >> wanted excluded. Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> > > >> nuisance.
>
> > > >> ********
>
> > > >> I'm not sure if you are mis-reading it or being obtuse. The owner CAN
> > > >> speak
> > > >> English and won't serve people who don't.
>
> > > > Depends on how you read it. "No English" looks like shorthand English
> > > > for
> > > > "I don't speak English". I also think his "God Bless America..." is
> > > > unnecessary.
>
> > > >> My point is the government should not be legislating thought in any
> > > >> way.
> > > >> If
> > > >> a restaurant owner doesn't want to serve someone for speaking Spanish
> > > >> or
> > > >> for
> > > >> having red hair and freckles, thats should be his or her business,
> > > >> not
> > > >> the
> > > >> governments business. If the restaurant owner wants to potentially
> > > >> lose
> > > >> business due to these policies, that is his or her choice. Of course,
> > > >> in
> > > >> the
> > > >> example cited here, business BOOMED when the owner excluded those who
> > > >> couldn't speak English. That goes to show how much people are FED UP
> > > >> with
> > > >> multi-culturalism.
>
> > > > I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> > > > Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> > > > reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their
> > > > order;
> > > > not for barring redheads.
>
> > > Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> > > people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to
> > > decide
> > > who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> > > enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area.
> > > This
> > > is
> > > one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> > > re-engineer society.
>
> > The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> > food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> > put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
> > called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
> > in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> > reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> > ******
>
> > Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> > CLUE: Not serving a person in a wheel chair doesn't endanger the public
> > safety...hopefully you can figure out the rest from there.
>
> > I'm sorry you liberals HATE REAL freedom. The government shouldn't force
> > me
> > to associate with anyone with whom I don't want to associate. I don't buy
> > tickets to events that put money in the pockets of liberals. If I owned a
> > restaurant, why should I be forced to serve them?
>
> > TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> "I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the pockets of
> liberals."
>
> How???
> If you go to a movie theatre do you ask if the owner(s) are liberals?
> What about sporting events?
> What about shopping at a grocery store?
>
> It's impossible to purchase anything without money going to people
> with all sorts of ideas.
>
> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>
> *******
>
> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>
> HAND
>
> TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, you weren't.
Mainly because you have no answer.

As I said, it's virtually impossible to make a purchase or use a
service without
there being varying ideals. And if you go to the movies and don't ask
if the owner(s),
management, food concessions, etc. are liberals then you just told a
rather large and
dramatic lie.

[P. Rajah]

On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:

> "robw"<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>
>> [...]
>
> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>
> *******
>
> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.

So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that
was already obvious before.....

--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

[topcat]

"P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote in message
news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
> On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>
>> "robw"<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
>> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>
> So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
> reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that was
> already obvious before.....
>


Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots. My statements were
very clear. If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
would not have been idiotic.

And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.

TC

[P. Rajah]

On 5/27/2011 5:45 PM, topcat wrote:

> "P. Rajah"<***@this.com> wrote in message
> news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
>> On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>>
>>> "robw"<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
>>> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>>
>> So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
>> reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that was
>> already obvious before.....
>>
>
>
> Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots.

Other people call people who make idiotic statements idiots. You began
the name-calling, now man up.


> My statements were very clear.


Yes, they clearly expressed your mindset, and they invited requests for
explanation. You said "I don't buy tickets to events that put money in
the pockets of liberals." And a very pertinent question was put to you,
which you failed to answer:
How would you/do you know if the owner of a theater/store/sporting arena
is a liberal or a conservative before you purchase anything from there?


> If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
> your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
> would not have been idiotic.
>
> And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
> written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.

You called the other party an idiot, and he called you an idiot back. If
you had an iota of commonsense, you would see that you began the attacks.

As far as businesses being free to serve _only_ the people they want to
serve, regardless of whether the type of people rejected(red-headed,
freckled, black, brown, blue, bald, wheelchair-bound, tattooed etc.)
materially affect the business or not, that is called illegal
discrimination, and there are laws that prohibit that, quite rightly. In
this particular instance, if the business owner cannot serve customers
who do not speak in English because he cannot process their order, that
has a material impact on his business, and he is well within his rights
to do so. Other businesses, such as law firms, car dealerships,
insurance companies, etc., proudly proclaim their multi-lingual
capabilities. No doubt people such as yourself would move to have them
restricted.

Btw, have you ever been to the movies or rented a video? Just askin'.....


--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

[topcat]

"P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote in message
news:4de03fa0$0$9084$***@cv.net...
> On 5/27/2011 5:45 PM, topcat wrote:
>
>> "P. Rajah"<***@this.com> wrote in message
>> news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
>>> On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>>>
>>>> "robw"<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the
>>>> last
>>>> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>>>
>>> So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
>>> reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that
>>> was
>>> already obvious before.....
>>>
>>
>>
>> Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots.
>
> Other people call people who make idiotic statements idiots. You began the
> name-calling, now man up.
>
>
>> My statements were very clear.
>
>
> Yes, they clearly expressed your mindset, and they invited requests for
> explanation. You said "I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the
> pockets of liberals." And a very pertinent question was put to you, which
> you failed to answer:
> How would you/do you know if the owner of a theater/store/sporting arena
> is a liberal or a conservative before you purchase anything from there?
>
>
>> If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
>> your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
>> would not have been idiotic.
>>
>> And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
>> written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.
>
> You called the other party an idiot, and he called you an idiot back. If
> you had an iota of commonsense, you would see that you began the attacks.
>
> As far as businesses being free to serve _only_ the people they want to
> serve, regardless of whether the type of people rejected(red-headed,
> freckled, black, brown, blue, bald, wheelchair-bound, tattooed etc.)
> materially affect the business or not, that is called illegal
> discrimination, and there are laws that prohibit that, quite rightly. In
> this particular instance, if the business owner cannot serve customers who
> do not speak in English because he cannot process their order, that has a
> material impact on his business, and he is well within his rights to do
> so. Other businesses, such as law firms, car dealerships, insurance
> companies, etc., proudly proclaim their multi-lingual capabilities. No
> doubt people such as yourself would move to have them restricted.
>
> Btw, have you ever been to the movies or rented a video? Just askin'.....
>
>

It's only called "illegal discrimination" because people like YOU allow the
government to RESTRICT our freedoms. That's the whole point here. Just
because you're STUPID enough to accept it doesn't mean I should be.

The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.

TC

[Peter Brooks]

On May 29, 3:08 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> .
>
> The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.
>
Good Lord, the whole continent? Is this bullshit a type of continental
drift then, or the name of a very big volcano?

[topcat]

"Peter Brooks" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117d151-f46a-4f1e-89b0-***@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
On May 29, 3:08 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> .
>
> The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.
>
Good Lord, the whole continent? Is this bullshit a type of continental
drift then, or the name of a very big volcano?

*******

And people wonder why I call them idiots...sigh.

TC

[Peter Brooks]

On May 29, 3:39 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "Peter Brooks" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1117d151-f46a-4f1e-89b0-***@u19g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On May 29, 3:08 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:> .
>
> > The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.
>
> Good Lord, the whole continent? Is this bullshit a type of continental
> drift then, or the name of a very big volcano?
>
> *******
>
> And people wonder why I call them idiots...sigh.
>
What makes you think that they wonder that? I rather liked the idea of
this huge continent destroying volcano - but it now looks as if there
might be no such thing.

[yangg]

On May 29, 3:08 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4de03fa0$0$9084$***@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/2011 5:45 PM, topcat wrote:
>
> >> "P. Rajah"<***@this.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
> >>> On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>
> >>>> "robw"<***@comcast.net>   wrote in message
> >>>>news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >>>> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>   wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
>
> >>>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> >>>>> [...]
>
> >>>> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>
> >>>> *******
>
> >>>> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the
> >>>> last
> >>>> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>
> >>> So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
> >>> reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that
> >>> was
> >>> already obvious before.....
>
> >> Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots.
>
> > Other people call people who make idiotic statements idiots. You began the
> > name-calling, now man up.
>
> >>  My statements were  very clear.
>
> > Yes, they clearly expressed your mindset, and they invited requests for
> > explanation. You said "I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the
> > pockets of liberals." And a very pertinent question was put to you, which
> > you failed to answer:
> > How would you/do you know if the owner of a theater/store/sporting arena
> > is a liberal or a conservative before you purchase anything from there?
>
> >>  If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
> >> your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
> >> would not have been idiotic.
>
> >> And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
> >> written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.
>
> > You called the other party an idiot, and he called you an idiot back. If
> > you had an iota of commonsense, you would see that you began the attacks.
>
> > As far as businesses being free to serve _only_ the people they want to
> > serve, regardless of whether the type of people rejected(red-headed,
> > freckled, black, brown, blue, bald, wheelchair-bound, tattooed etc.)
> > materially affect the business or not, that is called illegal
> > discrimination, and there are laws that prohibit that, quite rightly. In
> > this particular instance, if the business owner cannot serve customers who
> > do not speak in English because he cannot process their order, that has a
> > material impact on his business, and he is well within his rights to do
> > so. Other businesses, such as law firms, car dealerships, insurance
> > companies, etc., proudly proclaim their multi-lingual capabilities. No
> > doubt people such as yourself would move to have them restricted.
>
> > Btw, have you ever been to the movies or rented a video? Just askin'.....
>
> It's only called "illegal discrimination" because people like YOU allow the
> government to RESTRICT our freedoms. That's the whole point here. Just
> because you're STUPID enough to accept it doesn't mean I should be.
>
> The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.
>
> TC-
***

Yeah

I love that thread.

A.

[P. Rajah]

On 5/29/2011 9:08 AM, topcat wrote:

> "P. Rajah"<***@this.com> wrote in message
> news:4de03fa0$0$9084$***@cv.net...
>> On 5/27/2011 5:45 PM, topcat wrote:
>>
>>> "P. Rajah"<***@this.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
>>>> On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "robw"<***@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> *******
>>>>>
>>>>> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the
>>>>> last
>>>>> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>>>>
>>>> So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
>>>> reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that
>>>> was
>>>> already obvious before.....
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots.
>>
>> Other people call people who make idiotic statements idiots. You began the
>> name-calling, now man up.
>>
>>
>>> My statements were very clear.
>>
>>
>> Yes, they clearly expressed your mindset, and they invited requests for
>> explanation. You said "I don't buy tickets to events that put money in the
>> pockets of liberals." And a very pertinent question was put to you, which
>> you failed to answer:
>> How would you/do you know if the owner of a theater/store/sporting arena
>> is a liberal or a conservative before you purchase anything from there?
>>
>>
>>> If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
>>> your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
>>> would not have been idiotic.
>>>
>>> And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
>>> written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.
>>
>> You called the other party an idiot, and he called you an idiot back. If
>> you had an iota of commonsense, you would see that you began the attacks.
>>
>> As far as businesses being free to serve _only_ the people they want to
>> serve, regardless of whether the type of people rejected(red-headed,
>> freckled, black, brown, blue, bald, wheelchair-bound, tattooed etc.)
>> materially affect the business or not, that is called illegal
>> discrimination, and there are laws that prohibit that, quite rightly. In
>> this particular instance, if the business owner cannot serve customers who
>> do not speak in English because he cannot process their order, that has a
>> material impact on his business, and he is well within his rights to do
>> so. Other businesses, such as law firms, car dealerships, insurance
>> companies, etc., proudly proclaim their multi-lingual capabilities. No
>> doubt people such as yourself would move to have them restricted.
>>
>> Btw, have you ever been to the movies or rented a video? Just askin'.....
>>
>>
>
> It's only called "illegal discrimination" because people like YOU allow the
> government to RESTRICT our freedoms. That's the whole point here. Just
> because you're STUPID enough to accept it doesn't mean I should be.
>
> The multi-lingual, multi-cultural bullshit is DESTROYING America.

Let's see: The US was built by Polish engineers, Italian craftsmen,
German scientists, Chinese railroad workers, Irish miners, African
slaves, Russian physicists, British financiers, French tradesmen,
Indian Silicon Valley technologists, and on and on. Over the years, the
US expanded its borders to include territories that were predominantly
French- and Spanish-speaking. More than half of doctoral level
engineering students in the US are foreign-born, and many of them go on
to bridge the gap in science and engineering talent because people like
you don't have the intelligence or the drive. No doubt this
"multi-cultural bullshit" should never have happened.

http://tinyurl.com/3ujdjbn

Funny how people like you define "freedoms" as being at liberty to do
whatever _you_ want, and denying the same to others. Who did you say was
STUPID?

Btw, how would you/do you know if the owner of a theater/store/sporting
arena is a liberal or a conservative before you purchase anything from
there? Have you ever been to the movies or rented a video? Just
askin'(again).....


--
Astrology: Fraud or Superstition?
http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html

[robw]

On May 27, 5:45 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> "P. Rajah" <***@this.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4de01988$0$7937$***@cv.net...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 5/27/2011 5:26 PM, topcat wrote:
>
> >> "robw"<***@comcast.net>  wrote in message
> >>news:75c40a30-991a-4a31-8f97-***@g24g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> >> On May 25, 7:16 am, "topcat"<***@aboy.com>  wrote:
> >>> [...]
>
> >>> Sigh. Now I'm going to have to deal with the idiots, I guess.
>
> >>> [...]
>
> >> You're an idiot to think otherwise.
>
> >> *******
>
> >> I was actually going to answer your question...uh...until I read the last
> >> line. Now you can FUCK OFF.
>
> > So its okay for you to call others idiots first, but when they
> > reciprocate, you have an issue with that? You _are_ an idiot! But that was
> > already obvious before.....
>
> Uh...no. I call people who ask idiot questions idiots. My statements were
> very clear. If he would have just said "how do you avoid giving liberals
> your money", I would have answered the question...because that question
> would not have been idiotic.
>
> And, of course, I haven't seen a decent argument contradicting what I've
> written....SOOO...like good liberals, its time to attack me personally.
>
> TC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Bollocks, I gave you a very good arguement and you had no answer
because
what you said was idiotic.
There is absolutley no way you can do business, use services, etc. and
not end
up giving money to someone with a liberal bent.

[Peter Moylan]

Duggy wrote:
> On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
>>> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
>>> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their order;
>>> not for barring redheads.
>> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
>> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
>> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
>> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
>> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
>> re-engineer society.
>
> The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> food. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD. That's why it's
> called PRIVATE enterprise. The government has no business making laws
> in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.

Careful what you say, Dug. In this very thread a tongue-in-cheek
comment from Cheryl attracted the response "Cheryl's problem is her
denial of reality." Not everyone can read between the lines.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

[Gary Forbis]

On May 25, 7:18 am, Peter Moylan <***@peter.pmoylan.org.invalid>
wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
> > On May 24, 9:31 pm, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
> >> "Robert Bannister" <***@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >>> I think you spoil your argument by bringing in red hair and freckles.
> >>> Perhaps you meant to include dark skin as well. There is a legitimate
> >>> reason for being unable to serve people who can't communicate their order;
> >>> not for barring redheads.
> >> Uh...no. The argument is the same whether its red hair and freckles or
> >> people in wheelchairs. The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide
> >> who he or she wants to serve, PERIOD. That's why its called PRIVATE
> >> enterprise. The government has no business making laws in this area. This is
> >> one of the prime examples of government over-reach as it attempts to
> >> re-engineer society.
>
> > The argument is the same when it comes to what the owner puts in the
> > food.  The owner of the business SHOULD be able to decide if he was to
> > put semen or cyanide in the food he serves, PERIOD.  That's why it's
> > called PRIVATE enterprise.  The government has no business making laws
> > in this area. This is one of the prime examples of government over-
> > reach as it attempts to re-engineer society.
>
> Careful what you say, Dug.  In this very thread a tongue-in-cheek
> comment from Cheryl attracted the response "Cheryl's problem is her
> denial of reality."  Not everyone can read between the lines.

I'm sorry if I misread Cheryl's response. Usually I can spot sarcasm.
Sometimes it's hard to spot when dealing with interspersed articles
from right-wingers. I have to accept what they write as representing
what they believe even when I'm pretty sure no rational person could
believe what they write.

My humble appologies if I misread her. I'll go back and see what
clues exist.

[robw]

On May 23, 8:53 am, Gary Forbis <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On May 23, 4:56 am, "topcat" <***@aboy.com> wrote:
>
> > <***@mantra.com and/orwww.mantra.com/jai(Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> > messagenews:***@KnuEr...
>
> > > Good for business: 'No speak English - no service' sign leads to
> > > restaurant's sales TRIPLING
>
> > >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389319/No-speak-English-No-s...
>
> > Some law will be passed to stop this. Liberals don't believe in freedom.
>
> I'm not sure there's a need for a law in this case.  Clearly the
> business
> owner doesn't speak English and provides no service.  I guess that's
> what
> his "customers" want.
>
> Here's the thing, descrimination on the basis of national origin is
> not the
> same as descrimination on the basis of language.  While one should
> make
> appropriate accomodations a business must be able to make a contract.
> The time to achieve a meeting of the minds could be cost prohibitive.
>
> However, I'm pretty sure that a sign in English wouldn't stop people
> who
> don't read English from entering no matter how bad the grammar.  I
> could
> see passing a law saying one had to publish the sign in the languages
> one
> wanted excluded.  Otherwise the police could see the altercations as a
> nuisance.

This is nothing new.
Philly went through this a few years ago when Geno's owner Joey Vento
put up a sign. The city had to let it stay because it was never proven
that
the establishment had ever refused service.

And I can tell you thank first hand because my wife and I went in and
she ordered in French.

It's a publicity stunt.
In N.C. it appears to have worked.

[Duggy]

On May 23, 7:15 pm, ***@mantra.com and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr.
Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> Good for business: 'NospeakEnglish-noservice' sign leads to
> restaurant's sales TRIPLING

Wow. Why does the owner hate the mute?

===
= DUG.
===