wingnut-

Worthy Watchman
  • Content count

    2,510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

wingnut- last won the day on May 19

wingnut- had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,451 Excellent

6 Followers

About wingnut-

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday September 19

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Michigan, USA
  • Interests
    Reading, writing, music, eschatology.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,459 profile views
  1. I don't take pills I am off to work now, so behave yourselves
  2. If it makes you feel any better I would never question it
  3. noob has some pills for that i think
  4. you ignore yourself often then eh?
  5. logan has spoken
  6. Perhaps not, but I would offer this for your consideration. Recently on another thread on this forum, you argued the very position I am arguing now in regards to what words are or are not curse words. I was one of the few people that agreed with you on that argument, because it is in fact the same issue just under a different light. I am being consistent in regards to this, so I am curious if maybe your take in this instance doesn't have to do with your allegiance to Walmart? Just something to think on. God bless
  7. No, it's a solution that diffuses the situation and hopefully she learns how to behave properly in public from it. The main issue here is that no one will blink an eye about this, because most of us understand that her behavior isn't what anyone wants to see or hear in public. The problem is, this is all being done slyly to lead to what is eventually coming, a complete halt to freedom for all, and I don't wish to assist in ushering in that world. You mentioned before about the workplace, and without getting into detail I will provide you an example of why this is all a sham. There are certain words that are not allowed to be uttered by all ethnic groups but one, so how can an employer punish one employee for what it allows another one to say? And the irony is that the one allowed to say it is the one that would lodge the complaint against others. Freedom of speech is just that, freedom, or it is tyranny decided by someone else as to what is acceptable. I don't say things that I think would hurt others because I know it is wrong, not everyone agrees with me as to my interpretation, so who is right? And who gets to decide?
  8. I think they should have escorted her out and told her that behavior is not tolerated, not ban her from the place.
  9. I'm not a fan of Walmart, but I assure you this is about freedom of speech. If Best Buy or Home Depot had done this I would be saying the same thing except I wouldn't be able to point to all the same past transgressions that Walmart has against them. If she said something they didn't like inside their stores it would be a permissible action according to your position. So where does it stop? And when does it become applied to something you might feel you have the right to say? And as I pointed out in the last post, the government has already set a precedent in regards to private places and their rights under law. Do you expect them to speak on this woman's behalf?
  10. praying
  11. They are in such a rush to be "first" to break a story, that they neglect to make sure they are right or factual.
  12. Well, I am not really seeing the two in the same light. For one, this forum specifically tells those who join what the expectations are, and if someone does not like them they can easily go start their own website and spout whatever nonsense they want to there. Walmart is a public business that provides food, clothes, and prescription medications amongst other things to the public. They have put smaller competitors and locally owned stores out of business, severely limiting the options for many people across this country. I am not familiar with the area this woman lives in, but what if there is nothing else close for her to fill her prescriptions? Wouldn't it be more prudent for Walmart to give someone a warning as to the expectations considering they don't provide any such disclaimer to the public? They have a long history of questionable and even illegal behavior in regards to others. For instance, several years ago they were guilty of locking employees inside of a store intentionally. They have caused harm to shoppers by not providing proper safety measures during black Friday events which have led to people being trampled to death. Now they are trying to legislate morality? A bit hypocritical if you ask me. It's always easy to dismiss freedom of speech when the individual in question says something we don't agree with, but if those who provide things people need to survive can simply refuse someone service because they don't like what they say, wouldn't that be the same as denying one the right to life? If all grocery stores and pharmacies follow suit, what becomes of this woman? It's a slippery slope isn't it? Also, let's not forget that the government has stepped in on such things already, telling private clubs that they must change their membership requirements to accommodate for those previously excluded. What is the difference here? God bless
  13. Hi

    You're welcome