On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 12:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:14:08 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-07-11 4:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> But people think you shouldn't have to provide ID to vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think people need to show ID and a HS diploma to vote.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have people here who think it is important not to have to uncover
>>>> their face in order to vote. Hell, we had one who insisted on having her
>>>> face covered while taking the oath of citizenship.
>>>
>>> No, that is not exactly how it went, the judge knew exactly who she
>>> was.
>>
>> Did she flash the judge?
>>
>
>As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
>female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
>bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
>refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.

The judge had seen her sans hajib. You can denounce it as you like,
back in 1968 when we decided to stay because we were white, spoke
English, etc etc they moved heaven and earth to accomodate us. We did
not want to leave the country for three weeks because it was mid-term
so we went to Pier 21 on the designated day and they chopped us out
and chopped us back in as having arrived on the Cristoforo Colombo.
Our names are there today lol The curious thing is, we were there
with five Polish seamen who jumped ship. They were going to deport
them back to Poland but there was an outcry and they were allowed to
stay.

Moving forward 49 years, I live in a condo along with another person
in the condos who was the wife of one of those Polish seamen. We have
all been good, taxpaying, solid citizens of Canada since. I have no
doubt the woman you scorn will be too.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:

> >As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for
a
> >female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
> >bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
> >refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
>
> The judge had seen her sans hajib. You can denounce it as you like,
> back in 1968 when we decided to stay because we were white, spoke
> English, etc etc they moved heaven and earth to accomodate us. We did
> not want to leave the country for three weeks because it was mid-term
> so we went to Pier 21 on the designated day and they chopped us out
> and chopped us back in as having arrived on the Cristoforo Colombo.
> Our names are there today lol The curious thing is, we were there
> with five Polish seamen who jumped ship. They were going to deport
> them back to Poland but there was an outcry and they were allowed to
> stay.
>
> Moving forward 49 years, I live in a condo along with another person
> in the condos who was the wife of one of those Polish seamen. We have
> all been good, taxpaying, solid citizens of Canada since. I have no
> doubt the woman you scorn will be too.

Maybe she's even 4 taxpaying citizens. Whoever leaves the house wears
the mailbox.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:20:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 7/12/2016 2:09 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-07-12 12:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Jul 2016 18:14:08 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-07-11 4:53 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But people think you shouldn't have to provide ID to vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think people need to show ID and a HS diploma to vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have people here who think it is important not to have to uncover
>>>>>> their face in order to vote. Hell, we had one who insisted on having her
>>>>>> face covered while taking the oath of citizenship.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that is not exactly how it went, the judge knew exactly who she
>>>>> was.
>>>>
>>>> Did she flash the judge?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
>>> female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
>>> bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
>>> refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
>>
>> Her children will have a more modern attitude and she might loosen up
>> over time.
>>
>
>Her children will have a more modern attitude, and she just might kill
>them for it.

No, I doubt it. She was a perfectly reasonable person with religious
beliefs that might not be ours but I am betting she will make a good
Canadian citizen, even if he doesn't think so!!

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:49:36 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:29:53 +1000, Bruce >
>wrote:
>
>> And if she doesn't, she has a husband and might have uncles.
>
>Odds are that she wouldn't, but men are crazy, controlling and
>arrogant enough to do that. In fact, it's highly likely that she's
>all covered up because that's the way her husband wants her to dress.

No, it was her choice.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>>
>A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>born and raised in the faith.
>All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>wear a face veil.

Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:56:59 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 5:09 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>
>>>> Did she flash the judge?
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
>>> female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
>>> bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
>>> refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
>>
>> Her children will have a more modern attitude and she might loosen up
>> over time.
>>
>
>
>Nuts to that. She moved her from some Muslim country, some of which
>force women to cover up. Call me old fashioned, by I expect immigrants
>to a society to adopt some of the basic ideas of that society. The
>niqab is hardly the symbol of freedom and tolerance. For many, it is
>more a symbol of intolerance and impression. She would not ever take if
>off for the few minutes it took to take the oath.
>
You know NOTHING of what immigrants think, say or do! You are
complacent and bigoted.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:00:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 5:34 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:28:45 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/12/2016 2:23 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:20:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Her children will have a more modern attitude, and she just might kill
>>>>> them for it.
>>>>
>>>> My, my - aren't you a ray of glorious sunshine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just the facts, Jack!
>>
>> It's only conjecture based on bigotry coming from you.
>
>It is not conjecture when there have been honour<?> killings here.
>>
>>
One as far as I know!

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
> > wrote:
>
> >On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >
> >> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
> >> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
> >> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
> >> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
> >>
> >A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
> >voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
> >born and raised in the faith.
> >All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
> >wear a face veil.
>
> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.

Here we go! To quote myself:

"And then the politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how
she wants!" And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women
but about a woman's right to look like a mailbox."

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:01:45 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 5:49 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:29:53 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And if she doesn't, she has a husband and might have uncles.
>>
>> Odds are that she wouldn't, but men are crazy, controlling and
>> arrogant enough to do that. In fact, it's highly likely that she's
>> all covered up because that's the way her husband wants her to dress.
>>
>
>Only a whore would dress immodestly. If some other guy looks at his
>wife in an appreciative way he might have to kill her.

You really are a pervert!

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:26:47 -0400, S Viemeister
> wrote:

>On 7/12/2016 7:46 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-07-12 7:03 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>>>> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>>>> born and raised in the faith.
>>>> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>>>> wear a face veil.
>>>
>>> For her, it's a choice, not a requirement.
>>
>> Converts often go a little overboard.
>>
>Yes, many do.

So what ?

In article >,
says...
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:26:47 -0400, S Viemeister
> > wrote:
>
> >On 7/12/2016 7:46 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2016-07-12 7:03 PM, sf wrote:
> >>
> >>>> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
> >>>> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
> >>>> born and raised in the faith.
> >>>> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
> >>>> wear a face veil.
> >>>
> >>> For her, it's a choice, not a requirement.
> >>
> >> Converts often go a little overboard.
> >>
> >Yes, many do.
>
> So what ?

A person with (organised) religion is like a wine that has cork.
Sometimes you can still vaguely detect that it was a good wine, but it's
ruined nevertheless.

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:06:55 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> >
>> >> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>> >> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>> >> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>> >> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>> >>
>> >A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>> >voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>> >born and raised in the faith.
>> >All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>> >wear a face veil.
>>
>> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
>> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
>
>Here we go! To quote myself:
>
>"And then the politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how
>she wants!" And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women
>but about a woman's right to look like a mailbox."

Why are you so sure it's suppression? How many women have told you
they were suppressed and that is why they wore the niqab ?

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:02:20 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

> Why would you
> begrudge law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves and the
> community?

As it is now, they are outgunned.

--

sf

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:14:15 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 20:26:47 -0400, S Viemeister
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On 7/12/2016 7:46 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> >> On 2016-07-12 7:03 PM, sf wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>> >>>> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>> >>>> born and raised in the faith.
>> >>>> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>> >>>> wear a face veil.
>> >>>
>> >>> For her, it's a choice, not a requirement.
>> >>
>> >> Converts often go a little overboard.
>> >>
>> >Yes, many do.
>>
>> So what ?
>
>A person with (organised) religion is like a wine that has cork.
>Sometimes you can still vaguely detect that it was a good wine, but it's
>ruined nevertheless.

I am an atheist but I would defend the right of a Christian to be a
Christian - even though I feel they are totally misguided. I don't
feel they are 'ruined' - they have their way, I have mine.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:47:59 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

> On 7/12/2016 3:58 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 15:31:24 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/12/2016 2:34 PM, sf wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:28:45 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/12/2016 2:23 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 14:20:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Her children will have a more modern attitude, and she just might kill
> >>>>>> them for it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My, my - aren't you a ray of glorious sunshine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Just the facts, Jack!
> >>>
> >>> It's only conjecture based on bigotry coming from you.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> No, it is not. Do you live in a vacuum?
> >
> > Nope, but it's obvious what's influencing you.
> >
>
> What is influencing me is the FACT that honor killings are occurring
> here in the USA.

Lots of people murder family members, why aren't you talking about
that?

--

sf

In article >,
says...
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:06:55 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
> >> >> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
> >> >> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
> >> >> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
> >> >>
> >> >A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
> >> >voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
> >> >born and raised in the faith.
> >> >All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
> >> >wear a face veil.
> >>
> >> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
> >> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
> >
> >Here we go! To quote myself:
> >
> >"And then the politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how
> >she wants!" And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women
> >but about a woman's right to look like a mailbox."
>
> Why are you so sure it's suppression? How many women have told you
> they were suppressed and that is why they wore the niqab ?

It's weird how modern, open-minded people, via the U-turn of political
correctness, defend the niqab. What if these women are so brainwashed
that they also defend female circumcision. Would you support that too?

On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:18:49 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:06:55 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> says...
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>> >> >> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>> >> >> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>> >> >> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>> >> >>
>> >> >A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>> >> >voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>> >> >born and raised in the faith.
>> >> >All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>> >> >wear a face veil.
>> >>
>> >> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
>> >> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
>> >
>> >Here we go! To quote myself:
>> >
>> >"And then the politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how
>> >she wants!" And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women
>> >but about a woman's right to look like a mailbox."
>>
>> Why are you so sure it's suppression? How many women have told you
>> they were suppressed and that is why they wore the niqab ?
>
>It's weird how modern, open-minded people, via the U-turn of political
>correctness, defend the niqab. What if these women are so brainwashed
>that they also defend female circumcision. Would you support that too?

That has nothing to do with dressing! No I do not defend female
genital mutilation, that is definitely done at the command of males!
Call it by its real name, not female circumcisiion.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:46:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> At
> one point they were in a neighbourhood of ultra conservative Jews and
> the parents were cracking jokes about them.

Probably the ones with dreadlocks. NYC has a large Hasidic community
and they look as misplaced in time as our Amish do. Too bad the
parents acted like rubes. I would expect more of people from
Montreal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payot

--

sf

On 2016-07-12 9:03 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
> > wrote:

> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
>
There are places, like the one she came from, where you could get your wish.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:18:49 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:06:55 +1000, Bruce >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> says...
> >> >>
> >> >> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or
hajib, but
> >> >> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
> >> >
> >> >Here we go! To quote myself:
> >> >
> >> >"And then the politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how
> >> >she wants!" And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women
> >> >but about a woman's right to look like a mailbox."
> >>
> >> Why are you so sure it's suppression? How many women have told you
> >> they were suppressed and that is why they wore the niqab ?
> >
> >It's weird how modern, open-minded people, via the U-turn of political
> >correctness, defend the niqab. What if these women are so brainwashed
> >that they also defend female circumcision. Would you support that too?
>
> That has nothing to do with dressing! No I do not defend female
> genital mutilation, that is definitely done at the command of males!
> Call it by its real name, not female circumcisiion.

Yes, mutilation. I would also not defend the niqab. Even if that's in a
lesser barbaric league, it's still barbaric.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:01:45 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-07-12 5:49 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 07:29:53 +1000, Bruce >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> And if she doesn't, she has a husband and might have uncles.
> >
> > Odds are that she wouldn't, but men are crazy, controlling and
> > arrogant enough to do that. In fact, it's highly likely that she's
> > all covered up because that's the way her husband wants her to dress.
> >
>
> Only a whore would dress immodestly. If some other guy looks at his
> wife in an appreciative way he might have to kill her.

You went off the rails at killing the wife, he'd just beat her into
submission. Daughters are the ones who end up being the victims of
honor killings.

--

sf

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:56:59 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-07-12 5:09 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
>
> >>> Did she flash the judge?
> >>>
> >>
> >> As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
> >> female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
> >> bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
> >> refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
> >
> > Her children will have a more modern attitude and she might loosen up
> > over time.
> >
>
>
> Nuts to that. She moved her from some Muslim country, some of which
> force women to cover up. Call me old fashioned, by I expect immigrants
> to a society to adopt some of the basic ideas of that society. The
> niqab is hardly the symbol of freedom and tolerance. For many, it is
> more a symbol of intolerance and impression. She would not ever take if
> off for the few minutes it took to take the oath.
>
Tell that to the husband and make sure he understands your Western
values.

--

sf

On 7/12/2016 6:15 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 17:02:20 -0700, Taxed and Spent
> > wrote:
>
>> Why would you
>> begrudge law abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves and the
>> community?
>
> As it is now, they are outgunned.
>


Some are, some aren't. I am pro choice.

On 2016-07-12 9:21 PM, wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:18:49 +1000, Bruce >

>> It's weird how modern, open-minded people, via the U-turn of political
>> correctness, defend the niqab. What if these women are so brainwashed
>> that they also defend female circumcision. Would you support that too?
>
> That has nothing to do with dressing! No I do not defend female
> genital mutilation, that is definitely done at the command of males!
> Call it by its real name, not female circumcisiion.
>
Bullshit. It most definitely is not done at the command of males. It
is being done by women.

On 2016-07-12 9:32 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:46:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> At
>> one point they were in a neighbourhood of ultra conservative Jews and
>> the parents were cracking jokes about them.
>
> Probably the ones with dreadlocks. NYC has a large Hasidic community
> and they look as misplaced in time as our Amish do. Too bad the
> parents acted like rubes. I would expect more of people from
> Montreal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payot
>


The parents were from NYC.

"Sqwertz" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:15:50 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> When was the last time you were in SC? All the stores have signs on the
>> door stating ID is required by law. A few years ago the Exxon station
>> near my house was caught in a sting. For a year there was a big sign on
>> the door "Absolutely no alcohol sold here". That's how long they were
>> penalized for selling beer to an undercover minor.
>
> It's been 13 years since I've lived in SC and I know some of the laws
> have changed. When I lived there, there was no beer above 5% and
> stores could not sell airplane bottles without a liquor resale permit.
> And bar drinks had to be poured from airplane bottles - not from
> fifths or liters. I don't even think they'd pour them come to think
> of it - just give you a glass and an unopened bottle.
>
> But I know some of the laws regarding all that have changed since
> then. I think the nearest liquor store was like 6 miles away(*) so I
> didn't go there too often.
>
> (*) Okay, 5.5 miles
> https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Crestmont+at+Thornblade+Apartments,+75+Crestmont+W ,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x8858299e70fa4f 69:0xb065a0fdfdf7b6e5!2m2!1d-82.255507!2d34.863978!1m5!1m1!1s0x88582ee5e5028417 :0x9cbca9ca38ed98c0!2m2!1d-82.329364!2d34.8507227
>
> In California there's a liquor store every mile or less.
>
> -sw

You can get liquor pretty much anywhere now. Even pharmacies.

On 07/07/16, Sqwertz said the following...

Sq> Now all the homeless without vehicles have set up camps in the
Sq> outskirts of the parking lots and on the islands between the parking
Sq> aisles. Now the Walmart looks even more like Hell. It was always
Sq> Hell inside, but now outside, too.

The police here would not tolerate this... however Louisville, KY is known as
the "Mecca for the Homeless" We have a homeless shelter that had both an old
hospital and the old "Holiday Inn Downtown" together that has over 250 rooms.
The old hospital used to be a nursing home and they use it as a mixed
facility to feed them, clothe them, and house some of them in it. It's
called the Wayside Christian mission. It's been a center of controversy for
a long time.

The old hotel was unable to be zoned as a "homeless shelter" so they kept the
"hotel" license and renamed it "hotel louisville" they operate it as a hotel
for the homeless and it only costs a penny a night to stay there. So that
they could keep it as a regulated hotel anyone could stay there... and we
have some cheap travelers who do. The meals cost a penny in the "restaraunt"
and they even have a nice coffee shop there for the public and the homeless
to. Serving just regular and decaf w/ artifical creamer sugar or sweet and
low for you guessed it a penny a cup.

If the homeless can't afford a penny there are bowls with penny's in
strategic places... so it operates as a legitimate hotel. The old hotel also
has big convention spaces in it that they use as emergency shelters when the
weather gets cold and the rooms fill out. They then have an overnight
"Lock-In Convention" with a Christian theme. It's simply called Hotel
Louisville. The Penny rate is not advertised... and if you didn't known any
better you would think it was a "need a penny take a penny" bowl. They serve
the general public and give them rooms at $49 a night which is a steal for
the area... but it's located at the edge of a very high crime part of town
known for panhandling. They even have a webste on tripadvisor... and book
through some of the travel websites... the only thing they do not post is
that 1/2 of the facility is an operational homeless shelter and a
transitional drug treatment facility.

Their conference centers are rented out quite a bit too... They are still
very nice and have hosted wedding receptions and etc for those who want a
nice reception but can't afford one of the prime venues downtown.

I don't fault them for what they do, but at last count we have more beds for
the homeless than many larger well known cities. (Don't want to shame any of
them with the exception of <cough> Chicago who busses their homeless to
Louisville).

Allen

Allen Prunty _\\|//_ telnet://livewirebbs.com
SysOp: LiveWire BBS ///|\\\ FidoNet / Usenet and More
------ #alllivesmatter -----oOO--(_)---OOo----------------------------
Our Thoughts and Prayers are with the police and citizens of Dallas

On 2016-07-13, Dave Smith > wrote:


> is being done by women.

Cuz "women" know what men want.

nb

On 7/12/2016 5:08 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:45:57 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/12/2016 3:09 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:29:45 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 7/11/2016 6:21 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be worse. There is a small grocery store in Thorold where I get
>>>>> most of my meat. There are three checkouts, and almost always all
>>>>> running. They are right by the exit door. Seriously. There are two
>>>>> together just a few feet from the door and the third is right at the
>>>>> door. When we are in the deep freeze those cashiers are exposed to a
>>>>> lot of cold air every time someone walks out.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmmm. All of the grocery stores around here have a vestibule (I don't
>>>> know what else to call it) where the shopping carts are stashed. There
>>>> are doors from the outside to where the carts are, another set of doors
>>>> to actually enter or exit the store. Such a design provides some buffer
>>>> from extreme heat & cold outside.
>>>>
>>> Not here and not where Dave lives either.
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe not, but the design makes sense. Employees and customers benefit
>> from having a buffer such as that.
>>
> It would certainly make sense here just from an employee health
> standpoint, but your weather is mild.
>
>
Mildly HOT.

Jill

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:29:30 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-07-12 9:32 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 19:46:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> At
> >> one point they were in a neighbourhood of ultra conservative Jews and
> >> the parents were cracking jokes about them.
> >
> > Probably the ones with dreadlocks. NYC has a large Hasidic community
> > and they look as misplaced in time as our Amish do. Too bad the
> > parents acted like rubes. I would expect more of people from
> > Montreal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payot
> >
>
>
> The parents were from NYC.

OK, in that case they were clearly jerks.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 12 Jul 2016 21:28:37 GMT, notbob > wrote:
>
>> As I recall it, most places --Lowe's, Safeway, HD, Target, etc, have
>> indoor cart storage, regardless. This in "never snows" SFBA.
>
> Every Safeway I shop at keeps their carts outside.
>
> --
>
> sf

Where I am too, Raley's is about the only store around here that keeps them
inside.

Cheri

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 11:15:50 -0400, jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>> When was the last time you were in SC? All the stores have signs on the
>>> door stating ID is required by law. A few years ago the Exxon station
>>> near my house was caught in a sting. For a year there was a big sign on
>>> the door "Absolutely no alcohol sold here". That's how long they were
>>> penalized for selling beer to an undercover minor.
>>
>> It's been 13 years since I've lived in SC and I know some of the laws
>> have changed. When I lived there, there was no beer above 5% and
>> stores could not sell airplane bottles without a liquor resale permit.
>> And bar drinks had to be poured from airplane bottles - not from
>> fifths or liters. I don't even think they'd pour them come to think
>> of it - just give you a glass and an unopened bottle.
>>
>> But I know some of the laws regarding all that have changed since
>> then. I think the nearest liquor store was like 6 miles away(*) so I
>> didn't go there too often.
>>
>> (*) Okay, 5.5 miles
>> https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Crestmont+at+Thornblade+Apartments,+75+Crestmont+W ,13z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0x8858299e70fa4f 69:0xb065a0fdfdf7b6e5!2m2!1d-82.255507!2d34.863978!1m5!1m1!1s0x88582ee5e5028417 :0x9cbca9ca38ed98c0!2m2!1d-82.329364!2d34.8507227
>>
>> In California there's a liquor store every mile or less.
>>
>> -sw
>
> You can get liquor pretty much anywhere now. Even pharmacies.

There are no stores that are strictly pharmacies anymore where I live, they
are all Rite-Aids, CVS, Walgreen's etc. which are more like medium sized box
stores with a pharmacy inside.

Cheri

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 2016-07-12 12:00 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > says...
>> >>
>> >> No, that is not exactly how it went, the judge knew exactly who she
>> >> was.
>> >
>> > Did she flash the judge?
>> >
>>
>> As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
>> female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
>> bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
>> refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
>
> If you don't want to give up even the most extreme traits of your
> culture, don't move to another country. That includes dressing like a
> mailbox.

Agreed!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>
>> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>>
> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
> born and raised in the faith.
> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
> wear a face veil.

Religious converts are always very strict.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Allen Prunty" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/07/16, Sqwertz said the following...
>
> Sq> Now all the homeless without vehicles have set up camps in the
> Sq> outskirts of the parking lots and on the islands between the parking
> Sq> aisles. Now the Walmart looks even more like Hell. It was always
> Sq> Hell inside, but now outside, too.
>
> The police here would not tolerate this... however Louisville, KY is known
> as
> the "Mecca for the Homeless" We have a homeless shelter that had both an
> old
> hospital and the old "Holiday Inn Downtown" together that has over 250
> rooms.
> The old hospital used to be a nursing home and they use it as a mixed
> facility to feed them, clothe them, and house some of them in it. It's
> called the Wayside Christian mission. It's been a center of controversy
> for
> a long time.
>
> The old hotel was unable to be zoned as a "homeless shelter" so they kept
> the
> "hotel" license and renamed it "hotel louisville" they operate it as a
> hotel
> for the homeless and it only costs a penny a night to stay there. So that
> they could keep it as a regulated hotel anyone could stay there... and we
> have some cheap travelers who do. The meals cost a penny in the
> "restaraunt"
> and they even have a nice coffee shop there for the public and the
> homeless
> to. Serving just regular and decaf w/ artifical creamer sugar or sweet
> and
> low for you guessed it a penny a cup.
>
> If the homeless can't afford a penny there are bowls with penny's in
> strategic places... so it operates as a legitimate hotel. The old hotel
> also
> has big convention spaces in it that they use as emergency shelters when
> the
> weather gets cold and the rooms fill out. They then have an overnight
> "Lock-In Convention" with a Christian theme. It's simply called Hotel
> Louisville. The Penny rate is not advertised... and if you didn't known
> any
> better you would think it was a "need a penny take a penny" bowl. They
> serve
> the general public and give them rooms at $49 a night which is a steal for
> the area... but it's located at the edge of a very high crime part of town
> known for panhandling. They even have a webste on tripadvisor... and book
> through some of the travel websites... the only thing they do not post is
> that 1/2 of the facility is an operational homeless shelter and a
> transitional drug treatment facility.
>
> Their conference centers are rented out quite a bit too... They are still
> very nice and have hosted wedding receptions and etc for those who want a
> nice reception but can't afford one of the prime venues downtown.
>
> I don't fault them for what they do, but at last count we have more beds
> for
> the homeless than many larger well known cities. (Don't want to shame any
> of
> them with the exception of <cough> Chicago who busses their homeless to
> Louisville).

Well that certainly is much better than having the homeless setting up camp
in supermarket car parks.

It sounds like a wonderful operation and any homeless who end up there are
very lucky in comparison to many others I read about.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 7/13/2016 3:02 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>> On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>>> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>>> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>>> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>>>
>> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>> born and raised in the faith.
>> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>> wear a face veil.
>
> Religious converts are always very strict.
>
Indeed.
And she looks _very_ Scottish without all the black drapery.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 21:32:47 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 9:03 PM, wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:51:42 -0400, S Viemeister
>> > wrote:
>
>> Personally, as a woman, I wouldn't/couldn't wear a veil or hajib, but
>> I would die for the right for any woman to do as she pleases.
>>
>There are places, like the one she came from, where you could get your wish.

I could wear one right here, if I chose to do so.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:36:33 -0700, sf > wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 18:56:59 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>> On 2016-07-12 5:09 PM, sf wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 16:08:38 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > > wrote:
>>
>> >>> Did she flash the judge?
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> As I recall, she had to go into another room and remove her mask for a
>> >> female to check her, or some similarly ridiculously accommodating
>> >> bullshit. I can't imagine anyone even trying to defend someone who
>> >> refuses to uncover their face to take an oath of citizenship.
>> >
>> > Her children will have a more modern attitude and she might loosen up
>> > over time.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Nuts to that. She moved her from some Muslim country, some of which
>> force women to cover up. Call me old fashioned, by I expect immigrants
>> to a society to adopt some of the basic ideas of that society. The
>> niqab is hardly the symbol of freedom and tolerance. For many, it is
>> more a symbol of intolerance and impression. She would not ever take if
>> off for the few minutes it took to take the oath.
>>
>Tell that to the husband and make sure he understands your Western
>values.

Dave is only telling the bits that suit him - nobody else in her
family wears it, it is her personal choice.

On Tue, 12 Jul 2016 22:28:48 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-07-12 9:21 PM, wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 11:18:49 +1000, Bruce >
>
>>> It's weird how modern, open-minded people, via the U-turn of political
>>> correctness, defend the niqab. What if these women are so brainwashed
>>> that they also defend female circumcision. Would you support that too?
>>
>> That has nothing to do with dressing! No I do not defend female
>> genital mutilation, that is definitely done at the command of males!
>> Call it by its real name, not female circumcisiion.
>>
> Bullshit. It most definitely is not done at the command of males. It
>is being done by women.

Don't know much about it do you? The men will not marry a woman who
has not been mutilated and in most cases it is done by a man. True,
sometimes women perform the task in an effort to make it less
terrible.

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/13/2016 3:02 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "S Viemeister" > wrote
>>> On 7/12/2016 6:26 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>> When asked, they often say they want it themselves. And then the
>>>> politically correct go "It's a woman's right to dress how she wants!"
>>>> And then it's suddenly no longer about suppression of women but about a
>>>> woman's right to look like a mailbox.
>>>>
>>> A relative of mine married into a Muslim family, converted, and
>>> voluntarily covers up _much_ more than does her mother-in-law, who was
>>> born and raised in the faith.
>>> All you can see of her is her hands and most of her face - she doesn't
>>> wear a face veil.
>>
>> Religious converts are always very strict.
>>
> Indeed.
> And she looks _very_ Scottish without all the black drapery.

Aww!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/