Your Money Is No Good Here: How Our Upside Down Flag Caused Local Business Owner to Turn Us Away!

daryllyn


I never said it was only about American Citizens. I know its not the first, and I was definitely bothered by it before.

No, you just call him hypocrite because he dared to say that guns should be better controlled. Note, he did not say to outlaw guns, but to make sure agencies can cooperate and prevent people who should not have gun from getting one.

You used that as argument in his gun control call after sad event where kids got killed.

That is what really hypocracy means.

ps. Just place flag as it should be and find party that will promote your views. Do democracy the way it should be done - don't call for unreasonable changes without single good evidence to back it up.

reply to post by daryllyn

The topic was the care salesman's reneging of a previously made deal because of his differing political ideology.

You don't know that, in fact you said you didn't even talk to the guy yourself. And unless you had a signed offer, he didn't do anything wrong...that is your fault for not getting it in writing.

You are the one that included the fact that you have an "Impeach Obama" sign outside of your house, I think that is pretty on topic...just because facts have turned against you doesn't mean you can just declare that "off topic" now and ignore it.

My replies are based off what I would have done if I was in the situation of the salesman...and I would have done exactly the same thing because I don't do business with...let's say...people who aren't in tune with reality. It's dangerous to get involved with people who are willing to put out these sort of signs and signals...they may just be one step away from declaring ME and enemy because I don't share their radical opinions.

I wouldn't do business with the KKK, I wouldn't do business with the black panthers...and for a similar reason, I wouldn't do business with you or your husband once I saw the flag and those signs.

reply to post by SuperFrog


There were a whole lot more large protests when Bush was POTUS. But nothing really came of them. Lot's of calls for impeachment and even a film depicting his assassination.

Obama had what...Occupy? That's pretty much it. Just another fizzled protest that didn't accomplish a damn thing.

I wonder what would happen if those filmmakers depicted the current POTUS being assassinated. I guarantee that it would be in the headlines a lot longer than the previous film.

Back on topic though, I have already suggested that the OP sue the dealership. Take the idiot for all he is worth. Let's just call it a redistribution of wealth.

daryllyn
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

And what party would that be?

Read this: www.nytimes.com...

daryllyn
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Please tell me that you don't see OPs post politically motivated with one party behind it...

And what party would that be?

This is the new tactic for Republicans.

They claim they don't have a party affiliation, yet all they do is praise the Right and attempt to demonize Democrats to ridiculous lengths...all the while claiming they are "neutral".

In short, they are embarrassed to call themselves Republicans, but they still support them and will go out and pull that lever for them. Their actions speak louder than their words...but they think they are sneaky.

reply to post by SuperFrog

No, you just call him hypocrite because he dared to say that guns should be better controlled. Note, he did not say to outlaw guns, but to make sure agencies can cooperate and prevent people who should not have gun from getting one.

Not that this thread has anything to do with guns... but.. my argument for more gun laws would be that if the laws already in place aren't working (or aren't being enforced), why would MORE laws make a difference?

Gun laws are working really well in Chicago, no?

The laws don't prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and they don't prevent bad people from hurting others with them.

Its akin to how prohibition failed to prevent people from using/selling/making/buying alcohol.

TDawgRex
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

There were a whole lot more large protests when Bush was POTUS. But nothing really came of them. Lot's of calls for impeachment and even a film depicting his assassination.

Obama had what...Occupy? That's pretty much it. Just another fizzled protest that didn't accomplish a damn thing.

I wonder what would happen if those filmmakers depicted the current POTUS being assassinated. I guarantee that it would be in the headlines a lot longer than the previous film.

Back on topic though, I have already suggested that the OP sue the dealership. Take the idiot for all he is worth. Let's just call it a redistribution of wealth.

Without wanting to derail discussion, but still it is somewhat connected - should Bush be called for crimes against USA for lying about weapons of mass destruction and after acknowledging that he followed voices in his head that told him to attack Iraq?

It still amuses me that he managed to get second term... and kind of worries me at the same time.

As for dealer - according to law they might take him to court, but only if they can present sufficient proof.

HomerinNC
reply to post by Iamschist

 

I find it amusing that perceived ultra right wing conservatives are the new communists.

How do you figure???

I was born so as to miss the McCarthy era, but close enough to have it still be strong in peoples minds. So many lives were ruined, destroyed really over ideology. Communism became an anathema. Later of course it became associated with our 'enemies' in Soviet Russia.

In that man's mind 'tea party' has the same connotation as 'communist' did during McCarthy. Something to be feared and reviled. That is all I meant.

reply to post by SuperFrog


Here is some good evidence. Just one acronym. NSA

Nixon was impeached over wiretapping a hotel. But I guess that since it is this admin is wiretapping the entire world, it must be OK.

Oh wait...here are some more reasons.

alineofsight.com...

But I've said it before, no one wants their name attached to the first mixed race POTUS being impeached so it will never happen. ever. It should happen, but it won't. Many are to scared of what would happen if it came to pass.

Most divisive POTUS ever. I'm starting to think that maybe we do need another revolution/civil war. And I once again guarantee that it will be the left that starts it.

SuperFrog

daryllyn
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

And what party would that be?

Read this: www.nytimes.com...

There's a reputable rag. All it's good for is potty training puppies and lining bird cages.

Really? You used the NYT as a source? That's about as valid as beforeitsnews.

reply to post by daryllyn

Gun laws are working really well in Chicago, no?

Gun laws don't work well in Chicago, or any other single city, because they are not closed systems. This is such a simple concept that it seems like most on the Right just don't understand.

If I am the mayor of a small town that is neighbored by two other towns, and I outlaw the sale of pizza and the other two towns don't...how effective do you think my law will be from preventing the residents of my town from eating pizza?


Do you support the NRA being the huge lobby that they are and that they are one of the biggest causes for our current laws not being able to be enforced?

daryllyn
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

Not that this thread has anything to do with guns... but.. my argument for more gun laws would be that if the laws already in place aren't working (or aren't being enforced), why would MORE laws make a difference?

Gun laws are working really well in Chicago, no?

The laws don't prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, and they don't prevent bad people from hurting others with them.

Its akin to how well prohibition failed to work to prevent people from using/selling/making/buying alcohol.

You called guns first and gave your clear stance.

After years of gun manufacturers selling guns to everyone thanks to high lobbying efforts to destroy all gun control laws, you can't expect that current law will make city known for its violence safe, especially if its laws are local. On the other hand, if laws are nationwide and guns get under control, I expect crime rate to go down. Not right away, but with time.

Latest study shows that more guns don't make us safer, it was released about month ago. You should look into this before making statements like this. (there goes gun lovers favorite argument)

I never said guns should be prohibited, but well controlled. In this country cars are better controlled then guns. That does not seem to bother you...

And argument - guns failing into wrong hands - it is kind of hard to tell how they get into wrong hand if you can't control sales very well, don't you agree? I am sure if we ever get good control, that guns will stop getting into wrong hands as soon as first sellers end up behind bar if they sold to criminals and/or to people who should never be allowed to own a gun.

reply to post by TDawgRex

But I guess that since it is this admin is wiretapping the entire world, it must be OK.

Yeah, because Obama started the NSA and started them spying /sarcasm


People who try to make claims like this are surprised why they aren't taken seriously. You make a ridiculous claim that Obama started the NSA spying on people...and you are surprised when people write you off???

Wait...it gets better.

You complain about the New York Times and then turn around and post a link to a Conservative Activist blog for evidence of Obama's "crimes"....are you fricken kidding? Do you honestly not see your hypocrisy???

reply to post by TDawgRex

Here is some good evidence. Just one acronym. NSA

Nixon was impeached over wiretapping a hotel. But I guess that since it is this admin is wiretapping the entire world, it must be OK.

But that was tapping other US political figures. Politicians aren't concerned about other countries or citizens being spied upon. They were basically taking care of their own.

did it ever occur to some that having such a constant negative mindset against the government, is going to elicit the type of sentiments that the car dealer had? the majority of people want to get through what happened in 2008, and want our government to work together to fix problems, not to bitch, year after year about how bad it is...has anyone had that relative that every time you see them, all they do is complain about how bad their life is? and yet, never take positive steps to improve or get the help to improve.

reply to post by AlienScience


Oh good hell.

Who is in charge right now, and for the last 5 years?

I guess that poor little 0bama can't make the changes he promised so many years ago.

So, you are either willfully ignorant, or just a good backer of your guy.

0bama is either the biggest doofus to every grace the presidency, or just the impotent liar that everyone has stated he is.

reply to post by AlienScience


I support the NRA as it is funded almost entirely by the citizens of this country.

According to FactCheck.org, nearly half of the funding for the NRA comes from membership dues alone. Voluntary donations to the NRA, however, still account for a majority portion of the remaining funding.

Link

reply to post by jimmyx


Think Positive.

I am positive that 0bama and his buddies are the worst "leaders" we have ever had.
I am positive that the US gets worse as 0bama pushes through his crap.


There, that makes me feel better.


Now, to tackle the positive change. That would be bouncing every Progressive out of office.

reply to post by AlienScience


Why are you so obsessed with who started it? I'm much more interested in who will stop it.

reply to post by TDawgRex



Ahhh, sorry, just for you: Fox News: www.foxnews.com...

Seems that we are in distress for a long... ever since Obama took office...