The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ironweed
You've eaten Domino's? I mean, since you were old enough to order pizza yourself?

That, along with Coors, is one of the easiest boycotts I've ever had the pleasure of participating in. If someone could find a reason to boycott Red Bull I'd have a trifecta going.

2 and 2. The Target boycott (pharmacists who won't give morning-after-pills) is one that I still can't make myself be a part of.

I mean, what's the alternative, Wal-Mart? *shudder*

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ironweed
You've eaten Domino's? I mean, since you were old enough to order pizza yourself?

That, along with Coors, is one of the easiest boycotts I've ever had the pleasure of participating in. If someone could find a reason to boycott Red Bull I'd have a trifecta going.

I don't eat Domino's (though I have no problem with their pizza - I'm no pizza snob). I tend to go for the greasy faux-NY-style pizza joints around my house. I'm so far removed for the chain pizza experience, I could not tell you where the closest Domino's or Papa John's is. Not sure I've seen any since I've been in LA. I pass a Pizza Hut on my way home from work (old skool, sit down joint with the red roof and a sign outside with the removable letters on it that just says "PIZZA" on one side) and there is a Little Caeser's in the strip mall next to my apartment, but I haven't tested those out yet either.

I have so much pizza cred, it is un-fucking-believable.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I have so much pizza cred, it is un-fucking-believable.

I will never question your pizza cred again. Much respect.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Nutcase founder is now trying to build a sin-free town with our pizza money.

Not that it impacts my ongoing boycott of Dominos for selling crappy pizza, but the article does note that the guy sold the company in 1998.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Not that it impacts my ongoing boycott of Dominos for selling crappy pizza, but the article does note that the guy sold the company in 1998.

I think a boycott still makes sense. Punish the new owners for giving that guy heaps of cash. Bastards.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Not that it impacts my ongoing boycott of Dominos for selling crappy pizza, but the article does note that the guy sold the company in 1998.

Kind of raises an interesting question about private government, too. Nothing wrong with having your beliefs. Nothing wrong with living only with people who share those beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that guarantee your neighbors will share your beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that mutually limit your exercise of constitutional rights. Right?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Kind of raises an interesting question about private government, too. Nothing wrong with having your beliefs. Nothing wrong with living only with people who share those beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that guarantee your neighbors will share your beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that mutually limit your exercise of constitutional rights. Right?

What is this, the bar exam?

Of course there's a problem with having restrictive covenants that guarantee your neighbors will share your beliefs. I've tried to forget as much of my Property class as possible, but somehow that stuck. Can't tell you the name of the case, but I do remember it being surprisingly (to me) early, like the late 40s.

ETNote that the article seems to indicate there would be no restrictive covenants in the residential properties, but the commercial properties would be all leased, presumably with restrictions as to the type of business that can be conducted in each location. That seems to much less settled.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Kind of raises an interesting question about private government, too. Nothing wrong with having your beliefs. Nothing wrong with living only with people who share those beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that guarantee your neighbors will share your beliefs. Nothing wrong with having restrictive covenants that mutually limit your exercise of constitutional rights. Right?

I think it's okay as long as they just prevent property owners from selling to black people.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think it's okay as long as they just prevent property owners from selling to black people.

Or Italians.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by baltassoc
What is this, the bar exam?

Of course there's a problem with having restrictive covenants that guarantee your neighbors will share your beliefs. I've tried to forget as much of my Property class as possible, but somehow that stuck. Can't tell you the name of the case, but I do remember it being surprisingly (to me) early, like the late 40s.

ETNote that the article seems to indicate there would be no restrictive covenants in the residential properties, but the commercial properties would be all leased, presumably with restrictions as to the type of business that can be conducted in each location. That seems to much less settled.

he should open an abortion clinic so people can go protest on the weekends. they won't be the sort that goes to bars, and they'll need someting to do.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Or Italians.

Or the Irish.

(Spree: sound. Click on the "Irish" button and you'll get more sound. Make sure the door to your office is closed).

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
he should open an abortion clinic so people can go protest on the weekends. they won't be the sort that goes to bars, and they'll need someting to do.

Anyone ever been to Loma Linda, CA? It's outside San Berdoo, and it's for all intensive purposes run by (I think) the 7th Day Adventists. There's no liquor in the town, but they make up for it with these killer bakeries. I mean, I think they had frosting in the streets. To compensate, they have a top-notch university hospital in town.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Anyone ever been to Loma Linda, CA? It's outside San Berdoo, and it's for all intensive purposes run by (I think) the 7th Day Adventists. There's no liquor in the town, but they make up for it with these killer bakeries. I mean, I think they had frosting in the streets. To compensate, they have a top-notch university hospital in town.

Interesting approach. Texans seem to make up for their dry areas by having lots and lots of guns around. And barbeque. And, now that I think about it, Baptist churches.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I think they had frosting in the streets.

How does that compare to living in the land of chocolate?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Anyone ever been to Loma Linda, CA? It's outside San Berdoo, and it's for all intensive purposes run by (I think) the 7th Day Adventists. There's no liquor in the town, but they make up for it with these killer bakeries. I mean, I think they had frosting in the streets. To compensate, they have a top-notch university hospital in town.

Ouachita Baptist University in Arkadelphia Arkansas, dry town, had alcohol parties. The frats have to put a cutain around the perimeter of the yard then they can booze it up-

So here are these knuckleheads who preached the county into banning alcohol sales and they're drinking- I'd be one pissed off alcoholic living there. No word on consent issues in at the parties.