On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 20:29:33 +0000, Bryan wrote:


I find public displays of the f word extremely offensive. She didn't "think
it would bother anyone." What f-ing planet does she live on!

So... "f-ing" is OK, but "****" is not? LOL!

Lloyd

PocoLoco wrote:
On 9 Oct 2005 12:25:42 -0700, wrote:


JIMinFL wrote:
"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 13:18:54 GMT, "JIMinFL" wrote:

Bush basher kicked off plane.
http://www.wesh.com/irresistible/5066135/detail.html


Maybe she'd have been kicked off if she were wearing the same shirt with
Kerry/Edwards on it? Ever think of that?

I'll bet she would have, but it wouldn't happen. Trash talk is a liberal
Democrat thing.


It's easy enough to see evidence of that in this NG. All the right
wingers are so polite, well mannered, unconfrontational. None of them
would ever troll a thread like this through a boating NG, just to get
his/her rocks off on dissing
a "Bush Basher"......

I think none of the conservatives were as crude as your comment above. But,
you've had some good examples with another name caller in the group.

--

Yeah, Fritz IS pretty annoying.

On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:35 -0400, DSK wrote:

Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and
cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying
'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression
regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish
partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our
gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple.

DSK

Why don't you take a poll, Doug?

I wouldn't cheer at your T-shirt. Or, were you referring to the liberals who
seem to think any behavior or speech should be tolerated by everyone anywhere?

--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

"PocoLoco" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:18:35 -0400, DSK wrote:

Many of the regular political posters here would have stood up and
cheered if 6 ~ 14 years ago they saw a person wearing a T-shirt saying
'F**K CLINTON' and now they are insisting that a similar expression
regarding our current President cannot be allowed. That's childish
partisan malarkey, pure & simple. And if this sentiment prevails in our
gov't then we have lost the freedom of speech, pure and simple.

DSK

Why don't you take a poll, Doug?

I wouldn't cheer at your T-shirt. Or, were you referring to the liberals
who
seem to think any behavior or speech should be tolerated by everyone
anywhere?

Nobody was talking about the guvmint restricting free speech........only a
private corporation. The constitution is a document that limits guvmint,
not private entities.


--
John H

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant: It's
just that they know so much that isn't so."

Ronald Reagan

wrote in message

Good God, here we go again.


Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.

The government does not subsidize them.

Also, if
the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property,
that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc?

well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is
apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance


I'll bet that while still on
private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!!

what does private property have to do with miranda?

Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.


John Gaquin wrote:
The government does not subsidize them.


Excuse me?
Did you just say the U.S. gov't does not subsidize the airline industry?

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message

Lying a country into a war is important.

when will you start lambasting the memory of FDR?

Kevin is once again showing the world why he still holds the title of "King
of the NG idiots"

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

wrote in message

Good God, here we go again.


Then, if someones rights disappear when they enter someone elses
private property, our government should quit subsidizing them.

The government does not subsidize them.

Also, if
the above is true, would it mean that if someone enters my property,
that they have instantly 100% lost all of their rights as afforded by
the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc?

well, as usual, your interpretation is dead wrong; but in any event it is
apples and oranges; private property v. public conveyance


I'll bet that while still on
private property, she was read her Miranda RIGHTS!!!!!

what does private property have to do with miranda?

As a private business, the airline has the right to set standards for its
passengers.


Yes. But some limits are, uh, off limits. i.e. Illegal


If the airline want to say, "We won't sell you a ticket unless you
swear you'll vote a straight
Republican ballot in the next election", that would be its right and
privilege to do so.


Ah, no.

"Gary" wrote in message
eenews.net...


As a private business, the airline has the right to set standards for its
passengers.


Yes. But some limits are, uh, off limits. i.e. Illegal

Such as?

If the airline want to say, "We won't sell you a ticket unless you
swear you'll vote a straight
Republican ballot in the next election", that would be its right and
privilege to do so.


Ah, no.

Why not?