Posts by bigLusr

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 8:50:16 AM PDT · 28 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna

    Please ping me if you do decide to pursue this.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 8:48:34 AM PDT · 27 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna

    The Google cache I linked to earlier is actually stronger evidence that Chick-fil-A is telling the truth. As the author of the examiner article noted, businesses can actually backdate posts on FB. However, since Google happened to catch the SC page between the recall and Henson decision it can’t be denied (just ignored).

    I guess Google caches aren’t sexy. So feel free to spread all the evidence we have. I’ve written to several individuals, blogs, news sites, and individuals and succeeded only in convincing people who won’t take the next step to spread the truth. I doubt if I start another post here I’ll make significant progress. Maybe you’ll have more luck. The torch is yours.

    If the world is just this evidence will go viral and several reporters will publicly apologize. For that to happen I can’t be the only one calling attention to it.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 5:37:16 AM PDT · 22 of 30
    bigLusr to bigLusr

    Another notice posted July 19th - This one’s still up. https://www.facebook.com/cfaramsey/timeline

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 5:05:57 AM PDT · 21 of 30
    bigLusr to listenhillary

    Don’t feed the trolls.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/29/2012 4:45:00 AM PDT · 19 of 30
    bigLusr to Dianna; Politicalmom
    The Columbiana Centre Chick-fil-A removed the post from their Facebook page. However, it was there on the 19th, as evidenced by this Google cache of their page.

    I can't say with absolute certainty why it's not there anymore but I can say that I saw a notice for a franchise in Virginia while it was still up. It had attracted lots of nasty comments (from people who apparently didn't realize 19 < 20).

    It's reasonable to assume Columbiana Centre either also had nasty comments on that post (after the 23rd when news of Henson's decision went viral) or that they thought it, too, would be inundated with criticism.
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:56:28 PM PDT · 10 of 30
    bigLusr to bigLusr
    Please help spread the word that Chick-fil-A was telling the truth about the recall. Send a message to examiner.com, call out the author (@SquirrelChatter) on twitter, post the evidence on Facebook, etc.

    Thanks.
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:47:02 PM PDT · 9 of 30
    bigLusr to yldstrk

    I don’t believe Henson Co’s decision to break off future parterships with Chick-fil-A was in retaliation for a recall. They make kids toys and have for decades. They’d never have survived this long if they tried to get back at anyone who recalled one of their toys. Still, I think it’s pretty rotten that, when questioned about the recall, didn’t set the record straight immediately. To allow everyone to assume that Chick-fil-A was lying was petty and vindictive.

  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:44:01 PM PDT · 7 of 30
    bigLusr to Paved Paradise
    Their 990 is here. It's quite a stretch to call most of these groups anti-gay. The major recipient, Marriage & Family Legacy Fund/Marriage & Family Foundation, is a retreat for heterosexual married couples. It's clearly a group that works to save heterosexual marriages but since they won't accept gay couples, are described as anti-gay. The best case for an actual anti-gay group is Exodus International... and they received a whopping $1,000 in 2010. Really, the gay activists are concerned that Chick-fil-A donates to Christian groups and Christian groups are not, by and large, pro-gay marriage.
  • Newsflash. Chick-fil-A run by businessmen, not 7 year old children

    07/28/2012 6:25:59 PM PDT · 1 of 30
    bigLusr
    I called out Cheryl Phillips in the comments section of her post on examiner.com. I pointed her to conclusive evidence that Chick-fil-A actually did issue a recall of the Jim Henson toys on July 19th, as they have claimed all along. Faced with the realization that her entire premise was false, Cheryl simply decided to continue spreading the lie.

    Apparently her idea of journalistic ethics is it's okay to libel someone as long as the victim ignores you while you do it. I disagree.

    I know I'm not Buckhead and I know Cheryl Phillips isn't Dan Rather but this still isn't right. We shouldn't allow citizen journalists to knowingly spread a lie. Chick-fil-A deserves a retraction. I can't get it on my own but if enough FReepers call her out we might be able to call attention to the truth.

  • What should the next Congress force Democrats to buy?

    03/24/2010 5:32:07 PM PDT · 5 of 48
    bigLusr to redbaiter

    A telescreen, naturally.

  • The real way Democrats believe they'll retain power in November...

    03/21/2010 6:14:01 PM PDT · 20 of 95
    bigLusr to freespirited

    Obama could care less about the midterms. He cares only about his own job security.

  • If I hear ONE more sob story from a Dem... (VANITY)

    03/21/2010 4:48:42 PM PDT · 14 of 30
    bigLusr to mnehring
    I have yet to hear one of these Dems say they actually pulled the money out of their own pockets to help these people.
    We so need another Davy Crockett.
  • If I hear ONE more sob story from a Dem... (VANITY)

    03/21/2010 4:47:02 PM PDT · 13 of 30
    bigLusr to TigerBait

    Can you imagine a government so large, so powerful that nobody could ever fall through the cracks? Terrifying.

  • If Obama Loses racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. (liberal insanity alert!)

    08/23/2008 7:25:43 AM PDT · 43 of 61
    bigLusr to milwguy
    It's just too easy to rewrite this article.

    What with the Clintonite sulkiness, Obama’s inability to defend his relationships with the terrorist Ayers, the felon Rezko, or even his wife, and the obvious realization that Obama is too young, too inexperienced, and too smooth-talking to be elected. Yet Barack Obama, for all his inexperience and shortcomings, is running neck-and-neck against John McCain, a centrist Republican nominee with a list of accomplishments longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a political operation using anti-semites, reneged on his promise to use public finance, and has made major gaffes in front of millions. McCain, on the other hand, has conducted his campaign with the character and wisdom that can only be described as presidential. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

    If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize McCain's missing 10-point lead on the basis of war weariness or the mental recession. But let's be honest: if you break the numbers down the reason Obama isn't behind right now is that he leads overwhelmingly in two groups: minorities, and the young. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

  • If Obama Loses racism is the only reason McCain might beat him. (liberal insanity alert!)

    08/23/2008 7:00:40 AM PDT · 35 of 61
    bigLusr to airborne
    His skin color really doesn’t matter to most people. It does to the 98% of the black voters who will be voting for Obama simply because he is black.

    ... and the 98% of those suffering from white guilt.

  • Nutritional "Boost" Making Westerners Taller, Healthier, Expert Says

    10/03/2006 3:45:00 PM PDT · 17 of 49
    bigLusr to MeanWestTexan

    Dang... I'm only 5'2". Guess it's time to check on that life insurance policy.

    My sister and I are both shorter than both of our parents. :-/

  • Some Lifelines Can Kill

    08/26/2006 3:23:17 PM PDT · 44 of 44
    bigLusr to Question_Assumptions

    It's amazing how quickly scientific advances are made. It now appears that this entire argument is moot.

    http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=63690

  • Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

    08/26/2006 2:42:26 PM PDT · 586 of 586
    bigLusr to Truth-The Anti Spin
    The 'undisputedly' comes from the fact that the government lawyers didnt bother to dispute that particular claim in before this particular court. It's a legal term when used in this context.... they argued that AUMF gives the president the authority to ignore FISA, which the judge rejected.

    The executive did not argue that AUMF gave the president the right to ignore/violate FISA. That is a horrible and deliberate misrepresentation adopted by the left and this judge (but I repeat myself). Rather, the executive argues that AUMF satisfies FISA.

    From Wikipedia:

    The administration argues instead that the authority to perform warrantless domestic wiretapping was implicit in the authorization to use force in the AUMF. FISA provides that intentional surveillance without authority is a felony "except as authorized by statute." The argument, in this case, is that "all necessary force" includes "foreign surveillance", and that the AUMF is therefore a statute that otherwise authorizes the surveillance, satisfying FISA's conditions for not constituting a felony. (italics mine)

    The executive does not get to violate the law because we are at war. This President has never claimed that it can violate the law because we are at war. The word "undisputedly" comes from the left's oft-repeated mischaracterization, not from the executive's failure to argue its case.

    Is FISA unconstitutional? Has the executive even made that claim?

    Repeatedly. See Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President

    Indeed, were FISA and Title III interpreted to impede the President’s ability to use the traditional tool of electronic surveillance to detect and prevent future attacks by a declared enemy that has already struck at the homeland and is engaged in ongoing operations against the United States, the constitutionality of FISA, as applied to that situation, would be called into very serious doubt. In fact, if this difficult constitutional question had to be addressed, FISA would be unconstitutional as applied to this narrow context.

    Or the decision itself.

    Finally, although the Defendants have suggested the unconstitutionality of FISA...

    If they think FISA is unconstitutional, they need to get the Judiciary to agree with them.

    They tried. The judiciary (strangely) wouldn't even consider the question.

    It's that whole checks and balances thing.

    Funny... from where I sit I can't see anybody who's checking the courts.

  • Federal Judge rules NSA surveillance unconstitutional!

    08/18/2006 5:51:49 PM PDT · 577 of 586
    bigLusr to Truth-The Anti Spin
    Justify it to me....Why on earth should the executive not have to comply with the law? The libertarian in me cringes even to think of it.

    If the Congress passed a law saying "nobody can ever write anything negative about anyone who holds federal office", I could (and would) break that law early and often. Wouldn't you? If a law is unconstitutional, it can (and in most cases probably should) be broken.

    There are only three interesting questions in this case. Did the President violate FISA? If so, is FISA Constitutional? And if the answer to either of those is no, then did the President violate the Fourth Amendment?

    The decision says the executive "undisputedly" violated FISA... (but then a few paragraphs later goes on to say that the executive does dispute the claim and points to the AUMF). Did the POTUS indeed violate FISA? Maybe.... eh... probably. I think resting on AUMF is colorable... but weak.

    But that is meaningful only if FISA is Constitutional. Is it? Probably not. Could the President sign an executive order requiring Congress to submit all proposed laws to a judge before they could be voted on? No. Such an order would have a seemingly Constitutional purpose (to prevent Congress from writing potentially harmful laws that don't pass Constitutional muster) but would violate the Separation of Powers. This decision doesn't even comment on the constitutionality of FISA... saying since the President violated the Fourth Amendment it doesn't matter one way or another.

    But how did the court come to the conclusion that the President violated the Fourth Amendment? According to the decision, the POTUS violated the Fourth Amendment by violating FISA (circular reasoning alert!) and... get this... "Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment... requires prior warrants for any reasonable search...

    The fourth amendment requires warrants for any reasonable search? What? Since When? So no more exigent circumstances? No more Terry stops? What about 'plain sight'? What about people on parole? When I'm at an airport can I refuse to go through the metal detector? There are plenty of warrantless searches found to pass Constitutional muster. The cases she sites all acknowledge that there are times when warrants aren't required. She's dismissed them all.

    (She also claims that the President violated the First Amendment. Can you explain to me how the president could possibly have violated the clause that begins "Congress shall make no law..."? )

  • DFU SONG: Oh Donna (Oh Anna Diggs Taylor...hurting our nation one NSA intercept at a time)

    08/18/2006 4:29:48 PM PDT · 7 of 11
    bigLusr to ChinaThreat
    The scary part is... she claims that standing shouldn't matter.

    Although this court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient injury to establish standing, it is important to note that if the court were to deny standing..., the President’s actions...would be immunized from judicial scrutiny. It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control...

    Seriously, what was the point of that paragraph? There are only two reasonable interpretations -- she hopes some lower court will hear a case where the plantiff sues the president without standing and use her as precedent... or she hopes when some higher court finds that the plantiffs don't have standing they'll be persuaded to try the case anyways.

    Scary.