Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

He's gone Hogg wild!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

If I ran a company I would avoid making any kind of political contributions in the name of that company. We're way too politically divided. You'll always piss someone off

 

And often the boycotts backfire as in the case of Chick-fil-A. Hope it does here. I'm not an NRA member nor am I a gun nut but I dislike the idea of anybody of bending over to attention Seekers. And there are more groups and shills than just him.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

And often the boycotts backfire as in the case of Chick-fil-A. Hope it does here. I'm not an NRA member nor am I a gun nut but I dislike the idea of anybody of bending over to attention Seekers. And there are more groups and shills than just him.

WSS

I don't think it backfired. I just don't think enough people cared. I disagree with the CEO of Chic filet a's stance on gays, but I still eat there. The chicken is too damn good.

On the flip side, anti gay rights people were going to boycott Oreos for having rainbow colors or whatever. That did nothing. Many clothing companies were going to be boycotted for showing families with gay couples. That did nothing.

I think at the end of the day we need to remember it is a minority of people at both extremes making the most noise. 

I also think you can't just classify every protest you see as being full of "attention seekers", as if none if them have an actual purpose or goal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't think it backfired. I just don't think enough people cared. I disagree with the CEO of Chic filet a's stance on gays, but I still eat there. The chicken is too damn good.

On the flip side, anti gay rights people were going to boycott Oreos for having rainbow colors or whatever. That did nothing. Many clothing companies were going to be boycotted for showing families with gay couples. That did nothing.

I think at the end of the day we need to remember it is a minority of people at both extremes making the most noise. 

I also think you can't just classify every protest you see as being full of "attention seekers", as if none if them have an actual purpose or goal

Probably correct in your last statement but remember that's why I don't use words like every. At least I try not to.

As far as your first statement it back fired like a bitch. After the uproar there were lines in front of Chick-fil-A all the way down the block.

Unfortunately it doesn't always backfire, the Negroes who caused a scene at Starbucks are laughing all the way to the bank.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Westside Steve said:

Everything about Chick-fil-A is it I have never ever had surly serviced there. For what it's worth. Can't say the same about any other fast food joints.

WSS

Yep, great service. Sometimes very young kids working there. I guess there are different rules if you're working with your parents or something? But I've had my order taken by a 14 year old before. Maybe 14

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

A few days if people eating at chik fill a then everyone forgetting isn't a big deal. 

just saying the proposed boycott failed. Most times people don't remember this shitt after a couple weeks. See below.

I also don't think you have the story of the "Negroes who caused a scene at Starbucks" correctly, but I'm not surprised.

 if there's something beyond bathrooms are for customers I refuse to leave police politely asked me to then I got a big pile of money let me know..

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The police were called because they sat down at a table, without ordering, while waiting for a business meeting. They never made a scene. People sit down at Starbucks all of the time without ordering anything. Starbucks CEO apologized about what happened. They weren't at fault in anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

The police were called because they sat down at a table, without ordering, while waiting for a business meeting. They never made a scene. People sit down at Starbucks all of the time without ordering anything. Starbucks CEO apologized about what happened. They weren't at fault in anyway. 

Of course they apologized there are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and you just waiting to, what's the word, oh yes... Throw a fit.

And I don't care about any other Starbucks or any other situation or how many people come in and loiter or don't or how many of them are told that you can't hang out here unless you buy some coffee.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

They settled with the city for $1. What a money grab. Though I'm sure they got money from Starbucks.

 

Why the broken English? I think you're desperately trying to characterize these guys as something they're not, or at the very least haven't shown. They were there to meet a business manager about a real estate deal. 

 

Not quite sure why you're trying so hard to push a narrative here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

They settled with the city for $1. What a money grab. Though I'm sure they got money from Starbucks.

 

 

No doubt they did and even less doubt that they shouldn't have gotten a penny from the police who did absolutely nothing wrong.

For the narrative? Most likely any other person would have just ordered a cup of Joe and been done with it.

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Westside Steve said:

No doubt they did and even less doubt that they shouldn't have gotten a penny from the police who did absolutely nothing wrong.

For the narrative? Most likely any other person would have just ordered a cup of Joe and been done with it.

WSS

No Steve. That's objectively not true. A lot of people use Starbucks as a meeting place and don't order. That's what you're missing here.

And they said the cops were just doing their job. They never resisted arrest or anything. They're now working alongside the city on some things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

No Steve. That's objectively not true. A lot of people use Starbucks as a meeting place and don't order. That's what you're missing here.

And they said the cops were just doing their job. They never resisted arrest or anything. They're now working alongside the city on some things.

I guess if somebody could prove there wereother people in Starbucks just loitering then fine. Can you? And even if so it's a "they were doing it too" defense ?? Or you just guessing that it probably happens? Also if the cops are just doing their job why should there be any settlement of even $1?

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, you must feel backed into a corner now. That's what leads to the posts asking 27 questions. Hoping you can find something to latch on to in my response. From answers or non answers. 

No, I clearly cannot prove what other people were doing at that Starbucks on that day.

No, it's not a "they were doing it too" defense by any means...

Starbucks has strived to be a "Third Place" for people. A meeting, hangout place. Many people meet there without ordering. This isn't some groundbreaking thing. Hell, Starbucks now made that an official policy to clear up any confusion. Non paying customers can use the bathroom too. 

I'm not guessing. I've seen it. I lived in a college town for 4 years. This happens a lot. 

I have no idea why the settlement was $1. I'm not a lawyer. But if they did think the cops were at fault it would have been a lot more than $1....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Ah, you must feel backed into a corner now. That's what leads to the posts asking 27 questions. Hoping you can find something to latch on to in my response. From answers or non answers. 

No, I clearly cannot prove what other people were doing at that Starbucks on that day.

No, it's not a "they were doing it too" defense by any means...

Starbucks has strived to be a "Third Place" for people. A meeting, hangout place. Many people meet there without ordering. This isn't some groundbreaking thing. Hell, Starbucks now made that an official policy to clear up any confusion. Non paying customers can use the bathroom too. 

I'm not guessing. I've seen it. I lived in a college town for 4 years. This happens a lot. 

I have no idea why the settlement was $1. I'm not a lawyer. But if they did think the cops were at fault it would have been a lot more than $1....

Stuart

Um no Woodley you moron. Starbucks policy was always "buy something or get the fuuck out"...a policy in which the manager acted upon.

Starbucks has announced it would no longer require purchases for people to use the bathroom or sit in their cafes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

Ah, you must feel backed into a corner now. That's what leads to the posts asking 27 questions. Hoping you can find something to latch on to in my response. From answers or non answers. 

No, I clearly cannot prove what other people were doing at that Starbucks on that day.

No, it's not a "they were doing it too" defense by any means...

Starbucks has strived to be a "Third Place" for people. A meeting, hangout place. Many people meet there without ordering. This isn't some groundbreaking thing. Hell, Starbucks now made that an official policy to clear up any confusion. Non paying customers can use the bathroom too. 

I'm not guessing. I've seen it. I lived in a college town for 4 years. This happens a lot. 

I have no idea why the settlement was $1. I'm not a lawyer. But if they did think the cops were at fault it would have been a lot more than $1....

Actually I don't think you have much idea about anything that went on except for the fact that you believe that Negroes deserve special treatment because of who knows slavery Jim Crow racism whatever it might be.

Among the things we do know is that these guys were loitering and management asked them to leave if they weren't customers. We also know that apparently they refused to do it and the police were called. We do know that nothing the Starbucks manager did and asking them to leave was against the law or likely any store policy.

And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't care if it were old white men taking up space when there's a line of customers. At least it wouldn't have made the news.

What we don't know is the level of animosity they showed when asked to leave. We also don't know how busy this particular Starbucks was. It is in Philadelphia so I'm assuming it could have been crowded and these two guys are taking up space or customers could be seated. We don't know if the store manager was in any way disrespectful or rude oh, no reason to think he was anything less than polite when he asked them to move along.

So talk about back into a corner? Seems like you've made all sorts of assumptions with no proof. 

WSS

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, StinkHole said:

Stuart

Um no Woodley you moron. Starbucks policy was always "buy something or get the fuuck out"...a policy in which the manager acted upon.

Starbucks has announced it would no longer require purchases for people to use the bathroom or sit in their cafes.

Kinda makes you wonder if the sidewalk dwellers will be taking advantage of Starbucks new corporate policy?

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

.

So talk about back into a corner? Seems like you've made all sorts of assumptions with no proof. 

WSS

 

 

 

After you LITERALLY just made a post full of assumptions....

 

I'm done man. Not worth my time any more. The point is very clear. If you or others on here refuse to acknowledge it, there's nothing else I can do. 

Go take the last word

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...