Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
20 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The box of worms is that "emotional support animals" are protected by the Fair Housing Act: if you have a registered ESA, a landlord cannot deny you residence for having a pet, even in an otherwise pet-free apartment.

But they can bill the **** out of you for supposed damage done, etc. And if the dog is a nuisance

 

A friend of mine tried it. Landowner got on case so much that she moved out, he let her break lease early no penalty. Then !@#$ed her with damage to the place by the dog which was exaggerated but she didn't feel like fighting him and paid $1200 for it.

Posted

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville has agreed to pay $10,000 to settle a First Amendment lawsuit filed by the school’s College Republicans chapter.

 

As previously reported by Campus Reform, conservative students at the university were confronted in September by a campus police officer, who told them that their free speech ball was “scaring” classmates and that they had failed to secure the proper permission to hold the demonstration.

 

When the students objected that they were simply exercising their First Amendment right to express themselves in a public place, the officer rejected their contention, arguing that the state university campus is not public.

 

 

 

 

 

This sort of thing is so clearly wrong, it shouldn’t even get qualified immunity.

Posted

More PC Culture..............

 

 

"Our film should not have made light of Peter Rabbit’s archnemesis, Mr. McGregor, being allergic to blackberries, even in a cartoonish, slapstick way."

 
Apology of the day, from "Sony Apologizes After ‘Peter Rabbit’ Movie Exploits a Food Allergy, Upsetting Parents" (NYT). The rabbits attack a man by slingshooting a blackberry into a man's mouth. 
When the rabbits fire a blackberry into Mr. McGregor’s mouth, [said Kenneth Mendez, president and chief executive of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America], “there’s a close-up of his face, and it’s him holding his neck like he’s choking.” When Mr. McGregor collapses and appears to be dead for a moment, the rabbits cheer....
“Making light of this condition hurts our members because it encourages the public not to take the risk of allergic reactions seriously, and this cavalier attitude may make them act in ways that could put an allergic person in danger.” 
 
:wallbash:
 
 
o0480028514129366367.jpg?caw=800
Posted
1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Oh, good grief...

speaking of good grief, isn't it time to admit that society should stop faulting Lucy for pulling away the football?  She is clearly frustrated with Charlies' white hetero cis-male privilege

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, B-Man said:

More PC Culture..............

 

 

"Our film should not have made light of Peter Rabbit’s archnemesis, Mr. McGregor, being allergic to blackberries, even in a cartoonish, slapstick way."

 
Apology of the day, from "Sony Apologizes After ‘Peter Rabbit’ Movie Exploits a Food Allergy, Upsetting Parents" (NYT). The rabbits attack a man by slingshooting a blackberry into a man's mouth. 
When the rabbits fire a blackberry into Mr. McGregor’s mouth, [said Kenneth Mendez, president and chief executive of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America], “there’s a close-up of his face, and it’s him holding his neck like he’s choking.” When Mr. McGregor collapses and appears to be dead for a moment, the rabbits cheer....
“Making light of this condition hurts our members because it encourages the public not to take the risk of allergic reactions seriously, and this cavalier attitude may make them act in ways that could put an allergic person in danger.” 
 
:wallbash:
 
 
o0480028514129366367.jpg?caw=800

 

I do not understand this.  

 

Seriously.  Usually, I can see where, in the closed world-view these people have, these sorts of things proceed from the initial assumptions and lemmas via a self-consistent logic.  

 

But I do not understand the internal logic by which the AAFA criticizes animated rabbits.  

Posted
3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

But I do not understand the internal logic by which the AAFA criticizes animated rabbits.  

 

What is their stance on Bugs Bunny continual torment of a white guy with a gun?

Posted
42 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Oh, good grief...

 

Hey now, rabbits have been a menace to humanity since medieval days.....

 

 

 

  • Haha (+1) 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

Hey now, rabbits have been a menace to humanity since medieval days.....

 

 

 

 

The Anglo-American Association of Decapitated Knights to lodge a complaint in 3...2...1...

 

Cugalbanana to lodge a complaint with the AAADK for use of the term "Anglo-American" in 6...5...4...

  • Haha (+1) 4
Posted
9 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Hey now, rabbits have been a menace to humanity since medieval days.....

 

 

 

 

look at all those snowflakes running back to their "Safe Space"

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
9 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

What is their stance on Bugs Bunny continual torment of a white guy with a gun?

That's perfectly ok. He may have lost his dignity but he still has his white privilege card!

Posted
16 hours ago, DC Tom said:

As good a place as any:  people complain because whites don't portray an Egyptian queen as black.  :wallbash:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/5558205/egypt-queen-nefertiti-face-race-row/

 

Back in 1984 Egypt complained about Hollywood casting a black actor (Louis Gossett Jr) to play Anwar Sadat

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/02/movies/upset-by-sadat-egypt-bars-columbia-films.html?pagewanted=all

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Just do a google image search on Egyptian Women, and look look what comes up. Not too many “Blackity, black, black, black” women show up. 

:huh:

 

This is one of my all time favorite nerd quotes.  But some the SJW crew have corrupted it and taken it way too far

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...