Now there's no free speech on airplanes.

[22lcidw]

What death knell? Your party hasn't won the popular vote since 2004. You are decidedly a minority.

Your agendas are the destruction of the west and the United States. Arguing about wages as an example means nothing if we are selling our future away to foreign nations.

 

[Chillicothe]

Poster Beautress we have a bingo!
'Agreeance', as some say.
I'm relieved, as I once thought that that twain-shall-never-meet.
Anyway, I agree with both of your postings that I quote below (and a little more, too).

First:

.....'listening to your posts on this thread seemed more smug and condescending

Oh, I quite agree.

• Smug? ..... check.
• Condescending?.....check.

But, trust me, poster beautress....it is intentional. It is an affectation.
After all, my nature is more Spicoli, surfer dude....than Nurse Ratched, wardroom terror.

So, here's the deal, poster 'beautress', rather than go all 'f-bomby', or 'douchebaggy', or Socialist/Commie/Nazi, or homoerotic fellatio-thingy, ........like so many of the MAGA-Q's do ---I adopt condescension.
It seems less aggressive, and a bit more accommodating and sympathetic (vs. 'f'-you-you-Commie-Nazie-Douchebag').....in my opinion.

-------------------------------------------------

OK, with that behind us --- let me give you a hat-tip for bringing into the conversation Sam Grant. A fav of mine.
I would recommend to every single reader here to go get a copy of his 'Memoirs'. It is American Literature. With capital A and a capital L. It is a wonderful read. Sam Grant could flat out write. (Amazon reviewer: " Easy to read, it’s like your listening to him talk.)

Sure, we all know him as the implacable dogged 'butcher-of-men' (as Mrs. Lincoln called him) but he won us the peace within and amongst Americans for the next 157 years.

And as long as your are reading Grant's 'Memoirs'....well, maybe before that try reading Chernow's 2017 biography "Grant" (see link below).

It will offer you some behind-the-scenes perspective that can be informative for reading 'Memoirs'.

• Amazon product ASIN 1438297076
• Amazon product ASIN 159420487X

So, a hat-tip to poster 'beautress'.

Grant wrote “I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had sufferedso much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse.”That cause, maintaining the “peculiar institution” of slavery,

 

[Chillicothe]

Well, well, well......it appears my links to Amazon didn't migrate to this site.

That's OK. You have google. You can find Amazon in a nano-second.

 

[beautress]

Well, well, well......it appears my links to Amazon didn't migrate to this site.

That's OK. You have google. You can find Amazon in a nano-second.

I loved Amazon but I don't go there any more because the bank said I got hacked there by people from foreign countries. I took my credit card to the bank and requested that they destroy it. They did. I'm free now from cyber thieves. There is life outside of Amazon and it's quite okay. <giggle> I doubt that I'll ever ride in an airplane again with no credit card. I did want to see the Iguazu Falls, but I can go there vicariously online now.

​

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Because they are both medical conditions? What difference does it make if it affects others? Most everything other people do affects other people, ever see a person in a wheelchair not affect others? So now what--- you want to kick them out of your way? Honk your horn and race you engine at blind people crossing the street too slowly? Steal their cane? It isn't like these people WANT to be obese or INTEND to screw you out of your precious seat! Last I checked, most everyone gets old and usually sick. Where is your Christian compassion and understanding for others, huh?

Yeah, just as I thought--- God bless you too.

You do realize that the Christian compassion and understanding thing that you speak of here is not a one-way street, right? Those who have health and mental issues are not the only people to consider in any situation especially if them people end up being outnumbered by everyone else in the picture. The point that I am trying to make is that if the person in question becomes a big enough problem for more than one person, the person in question is who should be transitioned in whatever way makes the better difference for everyone involved. If I were to find myself at a party where everyone else there was jacked up on nothing but things that I have absolutely no interest in like liquor and drugs for example, would I continue to stay there and be the residential party pooper for the other people? No. I would only pack up my own things and leave. If I was invited to a gathering that included food that I just happened to be allergic to, how much of a right would I have to ask that the food that I can't come into contact with be thrown away? In other words, why should them people be punished in any way over things that they don't have anything to do with?

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. At the end of the day, if people who have issues are not going to have any considerateness for everyone else, what is the point of expecting any considerateness for themselves from everyone else? In other words, if those who have the issues are not going to take good enough responsibility for whatever their problems happen to be, what right do they have to go dumping those problems on everyone else's plate? And for the record, I don't have any food allergies that I am aware of.

 

[toobfreak]

You do realize that the Christian compassion and understanding thing that you speak of here is not a one-way street, right? Those who have health and mental issues are not the only people to consider in any situation especially if them people end up being outnumbered by everyone else in the picture. The point that I am trying to make is that if the person in question becomes a big enough problem for more than one person, the person in question is who should be transitioned in whatever way makes the better difference for everyone involved. If I were to find myself at a party where everyone else there was jacked up on nothing but things that I have absolutely no interest in like liquor and drugs for example, would I continue to stay there and be the residential party pooper for the other people? No. I would only pack up my own things and leave. If I was invited to a gathering that included food that I just happened to be allergic to, how much of a right would I have to ask that the food that I can't come into contact with be thrown away? In other words, why should them people be punished in any way over things that they don't have anything to do with? God bless you always!!! Holly P.S. At the end of the day, if people who have issues are not going to have any considerateness for everyone else, what is the point of expecting any considerateness for themselves from everyone else? In other words, if those who have the issues are not going to take good enough responsibility for whatever their problems happen to be, what right do they have to go dumping those problems on everyone else's plate? And for the record, I don't have any food allergies that I am aware of. You do realize that the Christian compassion and understanding thing that you speak of here is not a one-way street, right? Those who have health and mental issues are not the only people to consider in any situation especially if them people end up being outnumbered by everyone else in the picture. The point that I am trying to make is that if the person in question becomes a big enough problem for more than one person, the person in question is who should be transitioned in whatever way makes the better difference for everyone involved. If I were to find myself at a party where everyone else there was jacked up on nothing but things that I have absolutely no interest in like liquor and drugs for example, would I continue to stay there and be the residential party pooper for the other people? No. I would only pack up my own things and leave. If I was invited to a gathering that included food that I just happened to be allergic to, how much of a right would I have to ask that the food that I can't come into contact with be thrown away? In other words, why should them people be punished in any way over things that they don't have anything to do with? God bless you always!!! Holly P.S. At the end of the day, if people who have issues are not going to have any considerateness for everyone else, what is the point of expecting any considerateness for themselves from everyone else? In other words, if those who have the issues are not going to take good enough responsibility for whatever their problems happen to be, what right do they have to go dumping those problems on everyone else's plate? And for the record, I don't have any food allergies that I am aware of.

Wow. It's true. It's always the ones who make the biggest show of being Christian who end up really having the smallest hearts.

 

[JOSweetHeart]

^^^ Forgive me for trying to show some considerateness for everyone and not just myself unlike other people that I could obviously name which is the point that I am trying to make. People with health issues are unfortunately going to be outnumbered and if they are not going to have at least some considerateness for everyone else out there in public, they will be lucky if they get any from everyone else in return at all.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

P.S. Like I said in my previous message, it all comes down to how much personal responsibility a person decides to put on display for everyone else. Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but if you have ever taken personal responsibility for anything concerning yourself, in what way did you do it?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

So now they won't allow free speech on planes.

---Woman Gets Kicked Off Plane---

MSN

Acting like a dickhead is not free speech. People like that should not be allowed on flights.

 

[cnm]

Never really thought much about Chile except to rue the earthquakes they get when I go to Latest Earthquakes page at the USGS. You'll have to soldier on to catch me up about the dictator Pinochet. My sources say two different things. (1) He improved the economy of Chile (2) He didn't improve life in Chile for the poor. I regret my utter failure at being perspicacious about a country I know so little of.

You may have heard of that dude who had people thrown from helicopters.

Augusto Pinochet Facts | Britannica​

Augusto Pinochet, leader of the military junta that overthrew the socialist government of President Salvador Allende of Chile in 1973. Pinochet was head of Chile's military government (1974-90). During his dictatorial reign tens of thousands of opponents of his regime were tortured.​

 

[cnm]

Many of the northern founders intentionally put equality into the Constitution yet tolerating slave states to be left to choose

How to have one's cake and eat it too.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are pushing the wrong agenda. I realize you may be from the other side of the planet, but the Founders intentionally gave all states a place around the decision-making votes through the College of Electors so that all men created equally can truly be enjoyed by each state as an individual whether the state is populous or not. And you're welcome to read the Constitution and history of voting any time you like. The founders were dedicated to ensure that each state's voice was worth listening to. Hurrah for the College of Electors! Big fat toadies have to listen to itty bitty froggies.

The founders were trying to create a balance. The House seats are conferred by state population to give populous states a voice, Senate states were appointed by state governors to give all states an equal voice and the Presidency was determined by the electoral college where it’s a hybrid of the two. The members are one for each senator and representative and three for D.C.. Like most decisions they made they were seeking to balance a government fairly between states with massively different populations.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are pushing the wrong agenda. I realize you may be from the other side of the planet, but the Founders intentionally gave all states a place around the decision-making votes through the College of Electors so that all men created equally can truly be enjoyed by each state as an individual whether the state is populous or not. And you're welcome to read the Constitution and history of voting any time you like. The founders were dedicated to ensure that each state's voice was worth listening to. Hurrah for the College of Electors! Big fat toadies have to listen to itty bitty froggies.

The founders were trying to create a balance. The House seats are conferred by state population to give populous states a voice, Senate states were appointed by state governors to give all states an equal voice and the Presidency was determined by the electoral college where it’s a hybrid of the two. The members are one for each senator and representative and three for D.C.. Like most decisions they made they were seeking to balance a government fairly between states with massively different populations.I challangy you to find a government anywhere on the planet

 

[frigidweirdo]

So now they won't allow free speech on planes.

---Woman Gets Kicked Off Plane---

MSN

You do realize free speech is a limit on government power, right?
Airlines are not governments, usually.

 

[busybee01]

So now they won't allow free speech on planes.

---Woman Gets Kicked Off Plane---

MSN

There is no free speech on airplanes. The airplane is not your property.

 

[cnm]

The House seats are conferred by state population to give populous states a voice, Senate states were appointed by state governors to give all states an equal voice

You don't even see the contradiction, do you?