Additional security
The British seem to have a problem hiring security for the Olympic Games ("Security chief issues an apology," July 15). Perhaps we could draw from our unemployment roles or China could provide additional security. Everything else seems to come from China.
WAYNE MOOSE
Lewisville
Results
Please don't misunderstand this letter.
When I was about 10 years old, I was taken to see the movie "A Tale of Two Cities." I can still remember a member of the French nobility driving too fast and killing a young child in the street. Later, when the child's father had the opportunity, he drove his knife deep into the nobleman and said, "Drive him fast to his tomb." As a result, I had nightmares for two weeks.
What is a mother doing taking a 6-year-old to a violent movie called "The Dark Knight Rises" — at midnight?
GORDON MELLISH
Clemmons
Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think America needs tighter gun-control laws?
* * * * *
Since when do criminals pay attention to laws? Owning the guns is not the crime, anyway. Pulling the trigger and killing an innocent person is the crime. Guns don't kill. Criminals kill.
The more of us who carry guns so we can defend ourselves, the sooner we'll rid our world of trash like the Colorado movie murderer. True justice. An eye for an eye.
I have been held up at gunpoint twice in Winston-Salem. Both times I was helpless to defend myself. Is it time for a change in the way we look at things? I think so. All gun-control laws do is render more law-abiding, innocent people helpless to defend themselves when attacked. Duh!
WES PATTERSON
* * * * *
The question of whether we need stricter gun laws is inane and is asked each time there is a tragedy like Aurora. A typical hand-wringing exercise after a tragedy that shows people care and "want to do something." They can't.
The only gun-control program that actually works at getting guns away from criminals is New York's controversial stop-and-frisk program. It does not, however, do anything to stop the mentally unstable.
Confiscate all the guns and the nuts will make bombs.
Pray for the families of the victims, that is what you can do.
KEN HOGLUND
* * * * *
The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." As understood by our Founding Fathers, that meant flintlocks and muskets, weapons that could be fired, at best, four times a minute. If Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes had flintlocks, they could have killed maybe one person before being disarmed by the crowd. Instead, we allow people to have what are basically weapons of mass destruction under the guise of a constitutional right. Yes, we need tighter gun control.
SAM FERGUSON
* * * * *
When I answer yes, I'm not talking about shotguns for hunting, or guns collected as a hobby. I am speaking of assault weapons. It seems the NRA is more powerful than our government because of the billions the NRA spends each year lobbying. The politicians don't have the guts to stand up to them.
NAOMI J. DAVIS
* * * * *
Yes.
On an average day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns. Our youth homicide rate is more than 10 times the rate in other leading industrial countries.
CHARLES E. WILSON
* * * * *
Are the 40,000-plus gun laws and regulations not sufficient? If the Colorado shooter had not lied on his federal application to purchase those weapons, they would never have been sold to him by the dealer where he got them.
John Railey's thoughtful column ("I'm sticking to my (reasonable) guns, but ...," July 29) omitted one aspect of the gun violence: the lack of stiff, mandatory sentences for the criminal use of firearms, including possession by those not qualified to possess them.
CHARLIE WEAVER
* * * * *
Absolutely! Last year, worldwide, there were 15 Americans killed by terrorists. In the U.S., there were more than 31,500 people killed with guns. Anyone who doesn't think we need serious reform isn't looking at the facts. The framers of the Constitution definitely didn't think an individual needed assault weapons and/or 100 magazine clips to have a well regulated militia.
NANCY WRIGHT
* * * * *
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. The police would still have guns.
It's not like there are a bunch of gun-totin' citizens out there keeping criminals at bay — nor would there be any more criminal activity if even fewer citizens had guns.
Criminal gun activity is lower than gun advocates imagine because we have an active, effective police force and because "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
And those few criminals who do like guns get them from somewhere. Tighter gun-control laws would keep them out of criminal hands.
JANE FREEMONT GIBSON
* * * * *
Tighter gun-control laws? Why? Gun-control laws don't apply to criminals and don't stop people bent on gun violence. There were plenty of anti-gun laws in Aurora, Colo., and we see what good it did there. New laws, no. Quit selling guns and destroy the ones we have, yes. But that isn't going to happen, is it?
KAM BENFIELD
* * * * *
No. Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia and cities like Chicago have such "controls." Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent crime and keep government in check. Criminals will always flout gun controls, and despots love them. Remember Tiananmen Square?
LLOYD V. EVANS II
* * * * *
As a legal gun owner, I have to dance and jump through enough hoops and several layers of paperwork between purchasing, carrying and my insurance company, which wants and demands to know everything but my shoe, ring and underwear sizes. What we have in place is sufficient. But we do need more mental-health funding, seeing how poorly many feel due to the economy. But government would rather spend/waste money than bother legal and lawful gun owners because of a few bad apples.
STEVE HENDERSON
* * * * *
Statistics show that there is a correlation between stricter control of guns and less gun violence and gun death; the United States has lenient gun-control laws and the highest number of gun deaths in the world. Common sense would dictate that the U.S. needs to tighten its gun-control laws. However, common sense is not something in abundance in the leadership of the NRA.
Until there is a change of heart or a change of leadership in the NRA, and our legislators resist and desist kowtowing to the money god of the NRA, the question of tightening gun-control laws is moot.
BOON T. LEE
The British seem to have a problem hiring security for the Olympic Games ("Security chief issues an apology," July 15). Perhaps we could draw from our unemployment roles or China could provide additional security. Everything else seems to come from China.
WAYNE MOOSE
Lewisville
Results
Please don't misunderstand this letter.
When I was about 10 years old, I was taken to see the movie "A Tale of Two Cities." I can still remember a member of the French nobility driving too fast and killing a young child in the street. Later, when the child's father had the opportunity, he drove his knife deep into the nobleman and said, "Drive him fast to his tomb." As a result, I had nightmares for two weeks.
What is a mother doing taking a 6-year-old to a violent movie called "The Dark Knight Rises" — at midnight?
GORDON MELLISH
Clemmons
Sum It Up
The Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think America needs tighter gun-control laws?
Since when do criminals pay attention to laws? Owning the guns is not the crime, anyway. Pulling the trigger and killing an innocent person is the crime. Guns don't kill. Criminals kill.
The more of us who carry guns so we can defend ourselves, the sooner we'll rid our world of trash like the Colorado movie murderer. True justice. An eye for an eye.
I have been held up at gunpoint twice in Winston-Salem. Both times I was helpless to defend myself. Is it time for a change in the way we look at things? I think so. All gun-control laws do is render more law-abiding, innocent people helpless to defend themselves when attacked. Duh!
WES PATTERSON
The question of whether we need stricter gun laws is inane and is asked each time there is a tragedy like Aurora. A typical hand-wringing exercise after a tragedy that shows people care and "want to do something." They can't.
The only gun-control program that actually works at getting guns away from criminals is New York's controversial stop-and-frisk program. It does not, however, do anything to stop the mentally unstable.
Confiscate all the guns and the nuts will make bombs.
Pray for the families of the victims, that is what you can do.
KEN HOGLUND
The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." As understood by our Founding Fathers, that meant flintlocks and muskets, weapons that could be fired, at best, four times a minute. If Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes had flintlocks, they could have killed maybe one person before being disarmed by the crowd. Instead, we allow people to have what are basically weapons of mass destruction under the guise of a constitutional right. Yes, we need tighter gun control.
SAM FERGUSON
When I answer yes, I'm not talking about shotguns for hunting, or guns collected as a hobby. I am speaking of assault weapons. It seems the NRA is more powerful than our government because of the billions the NRA spends each year lobbying. The politicians don't have the guts to stand up to them.
NAOMI J. DAVIS
Yes.
On an average day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns. Our youth homicide rate is more than 10 times the rate in other leading industrial countries.
CHARLES E. WILSON
Are the 40,000-plus gun laws and regulations not sufficient? If the Colorado shooter had not lied on his federal application to purchase those weapons, they would never have been sold to him by the dealer where he got them.
John Railey's thoughtful column ("I'm sticking to my (reasonable) guns, but ...," July 29) omitted one aspect of the gun violence: the lack of stiff, mandatory sentences for the criminal use of firearms, including possession by those not qualified to possess them.
CHARLIE WEAVER
Absolutely! Last year, worldwide, there were 15 Americans killed by terrorists. In the U.S., there were more than 31,500 people killed with guns. Anyone who doesn't think we need serious reform isn't looking at the facts. The framers of the Constitution definitely didn't think an individual needed assault weapons and/or 100 magazine clips to have a well regulated militia.
NANCY WRIGHT
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. The police would still have guns.
It's not like there are a bunch of gun-totin' citizens out there keeping criminals at bay — nor would there be any more criminal activity if even fewer citizens had guns.
Criminal gun activity is lower than gun advocates imagine because we have an active, effective police force and because "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
And those few criminals who do like guns get them from somewhere. Tighter gun-control laws would keep them out of criminal hands.
JANE FREEMONT GIBSON
Tighter gun-control laws? Why? Gun-control laws don't apply to criminals and don't stop people bent on gun violence. There were plenty of anti-gun laws in Aurora, Colo., and we see what good it did there. New laws, no. Quit selling guns and destroy the ones we have, yes. But that isn't going to happen, is it?
KAM BENFIELD
No. Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia and cities like Chicago have such "controls." Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent crime and keep government in check. Criminals will always flout gun controls, and despots love them. Remember Tiananmen Square?
LLOYD V. EVANS II
As a legal gun owner, I have to dance and jump through enough hoops and several layers of paperwork between purchasing, carrying and my insurance company, which wants and demands to know everything but my shoe, ring and underwear sizes. What we have in place is sufficient. But we do need more mental-health funding, seeing how poorly many feel due to the economy. But government would rather spend/waste money than bother legal and lawful gun owners because of a few bad apples.
STEVE HENDERSON
Statistics show that there is a correlation between stricter control of guns and less gun violence and gun death; the United States has lenient gun-control laws and the highest number of gun deaths in the world. Common sense would dictate that the U.S. needs to tighten its gun-control laws. However, common sense is not something in abundance in the leadership of the NRA.
Until there is a change of heart or a change of leadership in the NRA, and our legislators resist and desist kowtowing to the money god of the NRA, the question of tightening gun-control laws is moot.
BOON T. LEE
Additional security
ReplyDeleteThe British seem to have a problem hiring security for the Olympic Games ("Security chief issues an apology," July 15). Perhaps we could draw from our unemployment roles or China could provide additional security. Everything else seems to come from China.
WAYNE MOOSE
Lewisville
Results
Please don't misunderstand this letter.
When I was about 10 years old, I was taken to see the movie "A Tale of Two Cities." I can still remember a member of the French nobility driving too fast and killing a young child in the street. Later, when the child's father had the opportunity, he drove his knife deep into the nobleman and said, "Drive him fast to his tomb." As a result, I had nightmares for two weeks.
What is a mother doing taking a 6-year-old to a violent movie called "The Dark Knight Rises" — at midnight?
GORDON MELLISH
Clemmons
Sum It Up
ReplyDeleteThe Sum It Up question from Sunday was: Do you think America needs tighter gun-control laws?
* * * * *
Since when do criminals pay attention to laws? Owning the guns is not the crime, anyway. Pulling the trigger and killing an innocent person is the crime. Guns don't kill. Criminals kill.
The more of us who carry guns so we can defend ourselves, the sooner we'll rid our world of trash like the Colorado movie murderer. True justice. An eye for an eye.
I have been held up at gunpoint twice in Winston-Salem. Both times I was helpless to defend myself. Is it time for a change in the way we look at things? I think so. All gun-control laws do is render more law-abiding, innocent people helpless to defend themselves when attacked. Duh!
WES PATTERSON
The question of whether we need stricter gun laws is inane and is asked each time there is a tragedy like Aurora. A typical hand-wringing exercise after a tragedy that shows people care and "want to do something." They can't.
ReplyDeleteThe only gun-control program that actually works at getting guns away from criminals is New York's controversial stop-and-frisk program. It does not, however, do anything to stop the mentally unstable.
Confiscate all the guns and the nuts will make bombs.
Pray for the families of the victims, that is what you can do.
KEN HOGLUND
* * * * *
The Second Amendment guarantees "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." As understood by our Founding Fathers, that meant flintlocks and muskets, weapons that could be fired, at best, four times a minute. If Jared Lee Loughner or James Holmes had flintlocks, they could have killed maybe one person before being disarmed by the crowd. Instead, we allow people to have what are basically weapons of mass destruction under the guise of a constitutional right. Yes, we need tighter gun control.
SAM FERGUSON
When I answer yes, I'm not talking about shotguns for hunting, or guns collected as a hobby. I am speaking of assault weapons. It seems the NRA is more powerful than our government because of the billions the NRA spends each year lobbying. The politicians don't have the guts to stand up to them.
ReplyDeleteNAOMI J. DAVIS
* * * * *
Yes.
On an average day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns. Our youth homicide rate is more than 10 times the rate in other leading industrial countries.
CHARLES E. WILSON
Are the 40,000-plus gun laws and regulations not sufficient? If the Colorado shooter had not lied on his federal application to purchase those weapons, they would never have been sold to him by the dealer where he got them.
ReplyDeleteJohn Railey's thoughtful column ("I'm sticking to my (reasonable) guns, but ...," July 29) omitted one aspect of the gun violence: the lack of stiff, mandatory sentences for the criminal use of firearms, including possession by those not qualified to possess them.
CHARLIE WEAVER
* * * * *
Absolutely! Last year, worldwide, there were 15 Americans killed by terrorists. In the U.S., there were more than 31,500 people killed with guns. Anyone who doesn't think we need serious reform isn't looking at the facts. The framers of the Constitution definitely didn't think an individual needed assault weapons and/or 100 magazine clips to have a well regulated militia.
NANCY WRIGHT
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." That's the dumbest thing I ever heard. The police would still have guns.
ReplyDeleteIt's not like there are a bunch of gun-totin' citizens out there keeping criminals at bay — nor would there be any more criminal activity if even fewer citizens had guns.
Criminal gun activity is lower than gun advocates imagine because we have an active, effective police force and because "don't do the crime if you can't do the time."
And those few criminals who do like guns get them from somewhere. Tighter gun-control laws would keep them out of criminal hands.
JANE FREEMONT GIBSON
* * * * *
Tighter gun-control laws? Why? Gun-control laws don't apply to criminals and don't stop people bent on gun violence. There were plenty of anti-gun laws in Aurora, Colo., and we see what good it did there. New laws, no. Quit selling guns and destroy the ones we have, yes. But that isn't going to happen, is it?
KAM BENFIELD
No. Red China, North Korea, Cuba, Russia and cities like Chicago have such "controls." Weapons in the hands of law-abiding citizens prevent crime and keep government in check. Criminals will always flout gun controls, and despots love them. Remember Tiananmen Square?
ReplyDeleteLLOYD V. EVANS II
* * * * *
As a legal gun owner, I have to dance and jump through enough hoops and several layers of paperwork between purchasing, carrying and my insurance company, which wants and demands to know everything but my shoe, ring and underwear sizes. What we have in place is sufficient. But we do need more mental-health funding, seeing how poorly many feel due to the economy. But government would rather spend/waste money than bother legal and lawful gun owners because of a few bad apples.
STEVE HENDERSON
Statistics show that there is a correlation between stricter control of guns and less gun violence and gun death; the United States has lenient gun-control laws and the highest number of gun deaths in the world. Common sense would dictate that the U.S. needs to tighten its gun-control laws. However, common sense is not something in abundance in the leadership of the NRA.
ReplyDeleteUntil there is a change of heart or a change of leadership in the NRA, and our legislators resist and desist kowtowing to the money god of the NRA, the question of tightening gun-control laws is moot.
BOON T. LEE
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSame 'ol, same 'ol liberals with their same 'ol tried, and ineffectual thinking on gun control. It's much like reading Rush's daily rant about all things liberal, or a distorted perception of reality-a psychotic snap shot of how things are, if you will.
ReplyDeleteStupid ideas, no matter how many times you repeat them, are still stupid. We've got laws against illegal immigrants coming here-yet we have 11,000,000 illegals in our country that Obama refuses to deport. We've got hundreads of laws regarding drug use and possession-yet tons of illicit drugs get imported and used in our country on a yearly basis. We've got laws against voting illegally-yet people register and vote every election that are ineligible to vote.
As we've seen in recent days, crime is going up because Obama has failed to lead on the economy. Let's don't 'restrict' law abiding citizens from getting guns, yet continue to allow criminals to run rampant.
We've tried many of the irrational, and ill conceived ideas of liberal law makers, and look where we are today?
Anybody planning on going over to Chick-fil-A today?
ReplyDeleteI'll probably drop by with my 'ACORN' hat on if anybody wants to check me out.
DeleteThanks Wordly for putting up the letters today. I know you don't like me, but I appreciate you filling in for Bob.
ReplyDeleteHe'll be back. I hope.
We both just feel strongly about certain things. I know Bob is smart enough to know it's nothing personal between he and I.
Rush, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. I just hope Rush is getting medical treatment for his psychosis. He may 'completely' snap one day.
It is bad form to steal other people's insults, especially when the other person is actually a psychiatric professional and you are not. If you cannot come up with some original insults of your own, please let us know and we will provide you with a few for free.
DeleteOh, and we see that there continues to be a mighty struggle with the official language of Yadkin County, NC.
"Psychosis" is a dangerous word, especially when used by dunces who don't have a clue what it means. Accusing someone of suffering from the same mental illness that you suffer from is called "transference", a typical effluence of one suffering from psychosis.
And then there is this:
"Rush, on the other hand, is a horse of a different color. I just hope Rush is getting medical treatment for his psychosis. He may 'completely' snap one day."
A couple of problems here. The first sentence contains a redundancy, since saying that something is a horse of a different color is just another way of saying on the other hand. Just drop the on the other hand and go with the horse.
Why 'completely' is in single quotes is a question that not even god could answer. If one puts a word in quotes, it must be in full quotes unless it itself is part of a quotation. If one wished to put any word in this sentence into quotes, it might be better to select "snap", although there is actually no need for any word in the sentence to be in quotes.
This is a subtle matter, best left alone by rank amateurs and beginners.
"We both just feel strongly about certain things." ALL of us on this forum feel strongly about certain things. This statement sounds more like an EXCUSE for your behavior.
Delete"I know Bob is smart enough to know it's nothing personal between he and I." This statement ALSO sounds more like an EXCUSE for your behavior.
I figured you were locked up somewhere, Rush. Most people in those institutions think they are 'professionals'. Are you in a federal or state facility?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe right to bear arms is right up there with freedom of religion and speech. The real test for the right to "bear" arms is in the definition of the word. Does "bear" arms mean...
ReplyDelete1. to have, possess, carry, be equipped with, sustain, display, exhibit, show, or COLLECT?
or does it mean...
2. to defend (self, property, neighbors, country, etc.), keep safe, guard, protect, fend off?
It'll be be interesting to hear what the "Constitutional Conservatives" (aka 'neo-cons') have to say in response.
Also, what is the definition of "arms"? Is it, as I've heard suggested only weapons capable of being carried by hand or does it extend beyond that?
DeleteReply by name:
ReplyDeleteWES PATTERSON – Wes has the same problem as Dunce and zillions of other idiots…if a guy is pointing a gun at you, are you going to do your Billy the Kid (b 1859-d 1881, 21 years old) flash draw and kill the guy. If you think so, you are a major league all star level fool, but you will never know, because you will be dead.
I also don’t believe for a second that Wes has ever been the victim of an armed robbery. His truth level is roughly the same as Dunces.
SAM FERGUSON – Sam does not mean to, but he parrots the NRA line. The amendment should always be quoted in full: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment pertains to militias and has nothing to do with individual rights. The NRA, by quoting only the second part of the amendment over and over ad infinitum, has managed to change the meaning in the minds of non-thinkers. Dr. Goebbels would be proud.
NAOMI DAVIS – 87% of all children killed by guns worldwide are killed in the USA.
CHARLIE WEAVER – Charlie repeats Dunce’s bullshit about federal gun law. The law forbids gun sales under two conditions:
1. Declared by a court to be insane
2. Involuntarily committed to a mental institution.
Since neither applies to our shooter, Charlie and Dunce are dunces.
KAM BENFIELD – There are no gun laws in Aurora, CO. Aurora laws conform to CO laws, which are among the laxest in the land. Kam and Charlie and Dunce are so brainwashed by the NRA that they repeat NRA lies in their sleep.
CANIAC STEVE – His usual garbled language and exaggerated bullshit. Just buy online Stevie boy…no hassle, no hoops…it’s easier to buy a gun in the US than it is to buy medicine.
The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald V. City of Chicago in 2010 that an individual DOES have a right to bear arms. In its ruling, it cited both the 2nd and 14th amendments.
Delete"The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago
Why don't you stop lying, Rush? People can actually think and read in here. They're not like your foolish, liberal friends who listen every word of your fabricated, jibber jabber.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: There doesn't appear to be any issues with security so far. I rather doubt the British would be interested in using unemployed Americans for a highly trained position such as security, much less reveal security secrets to the Chinese.
LTE 2: I remember being taken to a drive-in when I was very young to see a movie and slept through most of it. I recall being quite upset when I woke up and realized I had missed most of the movie and wouldn't be able to see it again. I can't imagine a 6 year old staying awake long enough for a midnight showing (unless heavily caffeinated in which case God help you). I personally would not take a 6 y.o. to see a PG-13 movie, especially one that starts at midnight.
Sum it up: It should be noted that the guns and ammo used in the CO massacre were all purchased legally. I find WP's response rather amusing first for choosing Moses over Jesus who totally refuted the notion of "an eye for an eye", and second for thinking a gun would have made any difference when someone already had a gun pulled on him. Well, there would one difference: he would most likely be dead, since the robber would have shot WP the moment he saw WP reaach for a gun. No possession is worth your life. I also found Mr. Evans' post about using guns to "keep government in check" laughable as well. This isn't the 18th century where my musket is as good as your musket which matches anything the govt has. How well did OBL and his heavily armed guards fare against the US govt? How well did the heavily armed Branch Davidians fare against the govt? How well would a man with a gun in Tiananmen Square have fared against the highly visible Chinese tanks?
There are way too many guns out there for a gun-control law to be effective. The only viable solution is to tack on a significant tax on ammo to make the cost of purchasing mass quantities prohibitive. The proceeds from the tax could be applied to offset the cost of treating the 100,000 people a year who are sent to the hospital with gunshot wounds.
Dotnet brings up an excellent point that I missed…the business about keeping government in check…and it is most assuredly laughable.
DeleteOnly a person who has not been in a combat zone would think that their pitiful toys would stand a chance against the US military. Over a third of all the guns in private hands are handguns, virtually useless in combat. The same can be said for the hefty number of shotguns in the mix.
Maybe they are encouraged by the fact that since WW II, the US record in wars of any significance is no wins, one tie and three losses. But what they don’t understand is that all those wars have been limited wars, fought far from home, where there was no actual threat to the US government.
So let the gun nuts start their own revolution, and you will see a very different approach. Threaten to overthrow the US government and watch how quickly the Democrats and the Tea Party join hands against the rebels. Put their power on the line and watch how quickly the government will move to bomb Lewisville back into the stone age.
The rebels will soon learn just how effective their AR-15s are against A-10 Warthogs, M-2 Bradleys, AH-64D Apache Longbows, and Tomahawk cruise missiles. And they will also learn that the restraint employed in all those overseas wars is gone once the body politic is threatened. The result…massacre.
"So let the gun nuts start their own revolution, and you will see a very different approach. Threaten to overthrow the US government and watch how quickly the Democrats and the Tea Party join hands against the rebels. Put their power on the line and watch how quickly the government will move to bomb Lewisville back into the stone age."
DeleteRush
_____
Rush, you have a very 'sick' mind. You should get in touch with your doctor. I guess you do that by beating your lunch plate against the bars. At any rate, get in touch with him.
"We are very grateful and humbled by the incredible turnout of loyal Chick-fil-A customers on August 1 at Chick-fil-A restaurants around the country," said Steve Robinson, executive vice president of marketing, in the statement. "While we don't release exact sales numbers, we can confirm reports that it was a record-setting day."
ReplyDeleteSteve is a liar. He cannot confirm anything, because Chik-fil-A does not compile daily sales data. All reports are filed monthly.
Since Chick-fil-A is supposedly a very christian organization, I wonder if Steve forgot that it is a sin to tell a lie.
When I worked for Pizza Hut, our numbers had to be called into the district office on a daily basis although our reports were for the week. My current company compiles sales for reports (which I built :)) for all of our convenience stores on a monthly basis as well, but our database does have the capability of producing what any store did on any particular day. I wouldn't be surprised if CFA also had that capability. Having daily sales figures at hand internally was very important at PH because we staffed based on those numbers.
DeleteA couple of colleagues just returned from CFA and reported there were no kiss-ins taking place there. Looks like I'll have to resort to the internet for my girl on girl fix.
ReplyDeletedotnet, I don't believe I would have told that one?
DeleteYeah, I guess that was a little TMI. BTW...I wonder if women find 2 guys going at it as big a turn on as guys find 2 women going at it.
DeleteI don't know. When Mrs WW gets back from the Transformers place I'll ask her.
DeleteYeah, I tried to go over to Chick-fil-A at lunch, and it was jammed again. I couldn't even get near the intersection to turn in. I guess straight people were still demonstrating their displeasure with Mayor Rahm Emanuel's (D) bigoted comment.
DeleteI went back later, with my ACORN hat on, and one lady in line asked one of the attendants where all the 'kissing' homosexuals were. And the attendants said, 'you all must have scared them off.'
I guess people really are tired of liberals trying to ram their beliefs down everybody's throats, and up other bodily locations.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteJust stopping by to see if anything had changed on the Forum, it hasn't. I was sorry to see that Bob has left, maybe if you all are lucky, he will return.
Bucky and Rush, try not to be so harsh with your comments. You two are the reason that I left and probably the reason that others don't stick around.
Stab, e-mail me sometime, I would love to hear from you.
Whitewall, I read some of your posts from the last week (looking to see why Bob left), you still make me smile.
dotnet, I am not sure what Ms WW will say but speaking just for myself, the answer is no, two guys is not a turn on.
I truly hope that all of you are healthy and happy, if not happy, at least content, in your lives. If any of you pray, then please pray for me. My youngest daughter leaves for her first year of college in a couple of weeks and even though I am excited for her, I am already mourning her absence. This is the beginning of a new chapter for my husband and I, an empty nest and I am starting two new businesses, so wish us luck.
I'll check back in another 6 months or so and see if the blog is still around.
Kim (missellieg)
Glad you stopped by Misselieg. My youngest leaves for college too next Friday, so life will definitely be different. Hope your business endeavors are successful. It would be great to have your prospective back on the blog, but I understand why you choose not to participate.
DeleteThanks, Wordly, and good luck to you in your "empty nest".
DeleteFunny how somebody that hasn't participated in the forum in who knows how long, and she drops in and starts lecturing people?
DeleteShe's got to be a liberal. But I don't know everything, I'm not like Rush.
Miss Ellie is welcome to drop in and lecture any time. We have missed her. Glad to see you, Miss Ellie. I sent a brief email. Come back soon.
DeleteBucky, you are a sourpuss.
missellieg! Great to hear from you! Thanks for the info. I've found it interesting how men and women view life from different angles. It may seem odd, but I've been a little curious about my question.
Delete