Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NYC Restaurant refuses to serve Bush twins.
Gawker.com ^ | 11.19.04 | Gawker.com

Posted on 11/19/2004 2:32:58 PM PST by conserv13

Edited on 11/22/2004 4:12:18 PM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]

...Freemans tuesday night the 16th of nov. the bush twins along with 2 massive secret service men tried to have dinner they were told by the maitre 'd that they were full and would be for the next 4 years upon hearing the entire restaurant cheered and did a round of shots it was amazing!!! [Ed: We're hearing that this is actually true.]...


Admin Note:

Received forwarded message from info@freemansrestaurant.com 11/22/2004

Regarding the Internet rumors, no member of Freeman's staff made any derogatory or discriminating comments towards Jenna or Barbara Bush. We are a non-partisan establishment and pride ourselves on having a diverse clientele. The Bush twins or any member of the first family are welcome to join us for dinner anytime.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: bogustale; bushtwins; bushwa; fabrication; freemans; lyingdemlosers; rudenyers; totallybogus; urbanlegend
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 421-435 next last
To: temporarily_drawn_in

The Bush twins are desperately trying to be cool.>>

NO theyre not DESPERATELY trying to be cool >:<

Theyre already COOL confident young women in their own right.

Theyre young still and just trying to have a little glamour and fun.

I m young and still like to have some excitement.

Lighten up on them Dont be so stuffy !


361 posted on 11/19/2004 11:32:20 PM PST by Selkie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: KingNo155

Another good one is to bring along a date who's a shrieker. Pinch her on the butt and, right after she hits a high note, point at the floor and yell, "That's the biggest damn rat I've ever seen!"


362 posted on 11/19/2004 11:48:43 PM PST by Prime Choice (STFU ACLU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet
The party of "tolerance and diversity" demonstrates the true condition of its heart once again

I know.. isn't that a shame, I am a party pooper.. awe shucks..

This is the reason I had to find out the truth. I just knew that one of those DESPOTS WITH THE BLUES, conjured up this story and did so to get some cruel comic relief from the drumming that they got from the BIG RED WON.. LOLOL

I just couldn't let that happen without flippin over the rocks to shed a little sunlight on those slimy, shriveled creeps.. oh well. . HAPPY THANKSGIVING. :)

363 posted on 11/20/2004 4:16:40 AM PST by carlo3b (http://www.CookingWithCarlo.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 360 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

Dear TexasGreg,

I think that if folks discriminate, and say its because of political affiliation, it might be hard to assert a cause of action based on religious discrimination.

The fact is that large numbers of Methodists (probably an absolute majority) voted Dem. The Bush twins, as far as I know, are Methodists.

Even if they were part of some group that did vote majority Republican, it would be tough to make out a case, perhaps, of disparate impact. You'd have to find a group that went, say, 3 - 1 or 4 - 1 for Bush.


sitetest


364 posted on 11/20/2004 6:12:32 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: Imaverygooddriver
I hear our local talk show host, Ron Kuby, commie, complaining bitterly tht Mayor Bloomberg lied when he promised the convention would bring revenue to the city.

All the while Kuby is encouraging lawlessness from the protesters........

These idiots get what they deserve.

365 posted on 11/20/2004 7:06:29 AM PST by OldFriend (PRAY FOR POWERS EQUAL TO THE TASKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: Selkie

You are wrong - it is real.


366 posted on 11/20/2004 7:40:59 AM PST by FightinFederalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 359 | View Replies]

To: Hildy

I still don't think it's true. Jenna lived in New York two summers ago and she was seen at a lot of watering holes. No one denied her admission.


367 posted on 11/20/2004 7:41:17 AM PST by somerville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Great plan!


368 posted on 11/20/2004 8:21:26 AM PST by Conspiracy Guy (Kevin Sites is a coward and a terrorist sympathizer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: phxaz

Unlike the majority on this board, I totally believe it happened and I believe some in the restaurant, probably not all, cheered it. But it's yesterday's news...the girls will go on.


369 posted on 11/20/2004 10:15:33 AM PST by Hildy (The really great men are always simple and true)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]

To: carlo3b

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, my friend! Are you cooking this year? ; )


370 posted on 11/20/2004 10:18:35 AM PST by DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet (Not now. I'm working the room.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 363 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

Perhaps Barry Goldwater was right when he said that the northeast should be cut off and let float our to sea.


371 posted on 11/20/2004 10:31:00 AM PST by joybelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: llevrok

One former restuarant worker said never to send food back to reheat, etc. as you never know what might have been done to it!


372 posted on 11/20/2004 10:33:12 AM PST by joybelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Paperdoll

Always check out the rest rooms. I don't care how good a restuarant looks; if these rooms are like the picture, what can the kitchen be like. Get the health dept. I once asked a worker in a resturant in Penn. if the said dept. ever came around after seeing the resturant. If you know someone who works for the health dept., they will tell you who has the cleanest kitchens.


373 posted on 11/20/2004 10:39:12 AM PST by joybelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious0

Makes me think of Harry Truman's reaction when a critic was hard on Margaret's singing. He took it to the press. What a field day!


374 posted on 11/20/2004 10:50:17 AM PST by joybelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: vrwcagent0498
So, what did you do?

32 hours of rescue work on the 12th and 13th.

375 posted on 11/20/2004 11:03:47 AM PST by wtc911 (W (will win) WON because God still loves America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: conserv13
The difference between the Bush twins and the twits that applauded them being turned away? The Bush Twins can eat in the WHITEHOUSE!
376 posted on 11/20/2004 11:09:23 AM PST by politicalmerc (Kerry/Edwards rejected not elected http://www.tdowc.com/store/catalog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
The fact is that large numbers of Methodists (probably an absolute majority) voted Dem. The Bush twins, as far as I know, are Methodists.

You really must be careful with how you stereotype various groups. The United Methodist Church tends to be a somewhat more liberal denomination because of the influence of the North-Eastern and Western Conferences. In the Southeastern and Southcentral Jurisdictions (where Bush and his Twins are from) the UMC tends to be significantly more conservative to evangelical. Looking at the delegations and their votes at General Conference will reflect this: if the Northeastern and Western Jurisdictions didn't have votes, and it was just the Southeastern, Southcentral, and Northcentral Jurisdictions, the UMC would be considered -- politically -- a fairly evangelical conservative church. Our social principles would be far less socialist, we would be unambiguously anti-abortion and our stand on gun ownership would be either neutral or pro. Given that the Southeastern and Southcentral portions of the church are the parts that are growing, while the Northeastern and Western parts continue to shrink in numbers, I suspect we will continue to see the UMC drift more and more conservative with each General Conference session.

While some of our clergy here in the South are definitely liberal, many of us are conservatives, evangelicals, and we vote Republican like most of our church members. Case in point: I have served as pastor of 5 different UMCs in Texas, and I don't believe that any of them are unusual -- either for Texas, or for the South (early in my ministry I pastored a church in North Carolina): while we had Democrats in all 5 of these churches, the overwhelming political orientation of each of my congregations would have to be moderate-to-conservative and Republican. My current congregation typifies this: I know of no more than 15-20 families (out of 150+ families) that are politically liberal and voted Democrat. The overwhelming majority of my congregation voted Republican, as did President Bush's home church -- Highland Park UMC (at 15,000+ members, the largest congregation in the denomination) -- and, I would suspect, a very large number of the Churches in the 5 Texas Conferences. I have a lot of friends among the UM Clergy here in Texas, many of whom ARE liberal. One of their biggest complaints during the last election was the degree to which their congregations were conservative Bush-supporters. When I asked how they knew they would say "you can tell it from what they say over coffee and donuts, and the stickers on the back of their cars!" And, they were right. I could count a few dozen Bush04 stickers in the parking lot last Sunday, but I've only seen one Kerry sticker.

In short, be careful about how you stereotype the UMC, or it's members, or the Bush Twins. They may be members of what, in the NORTH, is a very liberal and Democrat-voting denomination, but they're from the SOUTH ... and the UMC in the South is a VERY different animal.
377 posted on 11/20/2004 11:19:46 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 364 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg

Dear TexasGreg,

That's a very nice analysis of Methodist political affiliation. It helps us to understand why both President Bush and Hitlery can both be Methodists. It shows significant understanding of the complexities and subtleties involved.

Which would further undermine any effort to cite religious discrimination in a case that overtly appears to be political discrimination.


sitetest


378 posted on 11/20/2004 11:28:08 AM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Thank you for the compliment. I'm a UM clergyman ... so, UM demographic distribution and politics are something with which I am familiar.

Which would further undermine any effort to cite religious discrimination in a case that overtly appears to be political discrimination.

Not at all ... it substantiates the central point: any political discrimination is predicated upon a liberal bias against religious southerners, regardless of denomination. The brand "Evangelical" is NOT so much a denominational factor as it is a theological and social-orientation one. What the arrogant Northeastern Liberals hate are us ignorant louts in the south who refuse to listen to their betters in the north; and we refuse to follow their lead because our minds are infected with a conservative/evangelical religious agenda which is locked in the "stone-age" of Biblical morality. Witness their attempt to brand us with the "Slave-State" iron. Oh, sure, they also hate those Roman Catholics who dared to oppose Kerry on religious grounds ... and there, too, it was predicated upon the "primitive" notions of traditional and biblical standards that any enlightened people would have long ago jettisoned.

Gee, I'm frightening myself ... I know their rhetoric too well.
379 posted on 11/20/2004 11:46:54 AM PST by TexasGreg ("Democrats Piss Me Off")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 378 | View Replies]

To: TexasGreg; Steve_Seattle

Dear TexasGreg,

Well, I could go on with you about this, and get into involved explanations about whether "southern" or "conservative" would buy you anything in terms of developing a rationale for a protected class, and whether a suit for religious discrimination can even be based on disparate impact. The way you're citing "evangelical" cites real definitonal problems, and if you can't accurately define your class, you're gonna have a tough time protecting it. There are a number of weaknesses to the general idea that could be explored.

But I won't.

It is minutiae that bores even me.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe some lawyer might disagree with me, but I'm pretty comfortable that what may have been done to the Bush twins is not covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or other federal laws.

Steve_Seattle makes a good point that this might be covered under state or local law.

But I don't think there are any federal laws that apply.


sitetest


380 posted on 11/20/2004 12:02:08 PM PST by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 341-360361-380381-400 ... 421-435 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson