<< LANGUISHER TO SWAY ELECTIONS ~ MAIN ~ RELIABLE JUDGES REQUIRED >>
DECADE OF DRINK DEFIANCE
The latest on those alcohol-averse Minneapolis taxi drivers:
Cab drivers said some have refused two fares in a day, which can burn up nearly half a 12-hour shift. Cab drivers said they’d rather wait for another fare than risk punishment in the afterlife.
"It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol,” Mursal said. “Therefore, I don’t carry alcohol” ...
[Airport spokesman Pat] Hogan said refusals to carry alcohol began 10 years ago but came from just a handful of drivers. Now, though, he estimates that three-quarters of the 900 airport cabdrivers are Somali, most of them Muslim. Hogan said drunken passengers haven’t had trouble getting a cab, just the ones who let on that they’re carrying a bottle.
Ponder the media outrage if drivers refused service to anybody carrying the Koran.
If each rider claimed to have alcohol, then Muzzie cabbies would have to find a new profession in about two weeks. Riders are inconvenienced for a while, but what price liberty, eh?
Or, the chaos options: leave a slice of TVP soy-based bacon in a sandwich bag on the floor as you leave. Only Allah knows what chaos would reign as the cabbie consulted the mullahs as to how he and the cab could ever be cleansed of this filthification.
Or, carry a half pint of whiskey, to be shown to the cabbie upon leaving.
Of course these solutions will inflame the passions, but hey, passions are already inflamed ! There’s a war on, you know…
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 10 02 at 02:51 PM • permalinkEvery cloud has a silver lining.
If the follower of the religion of (blow them all to) pieces are this crazy when they’re all dead sober, just imagine what they would have been like if they were allowed to get pissed into the bargain!!
See - there is a G-d after all!
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 02 at 02:51 PM • permalink#9
>So if I down a barbeque pork sandwich and a brewski, then get into a Muzzie’s cab and belch with enough force that he can’t help inhaling some of my gastric breeze, he goes to Hell?
In November after 9/11/2001, I attended a pre-season hockey game in Hartford, CT with my wife’s family. The game was at 2 p.m. pm a Saturday, so we went off first for lunch. It was also the first day of Ramadan. I celebrated it having a ham and cheese melt for lunch, washed down by some micro-brew, followed by a cigar. All the while, showing public displays of affection with my wife.
The state will just have to bring in concealed carry laws then! The National Rummies Association will support that, too, I’m sure.
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 10 02 at 04:09 PM • permalinkSo much fuss over so little drink!
There’s one answer and it’s simple and courteous too.
We need more drink. Passengers should offer their taxi drivers celebratory drinks (from booze in their hip flasks or luggage) when they arrive at their destinations, just as a measure of understanding.
I’m sure paco could devise a suitable Driver Drinks Thanks (DDT) kit that could be purchased immediately on arrival at Minneapolis St Paul airport to be secreted away for the taxi journey.
[Say what happened to all the comments on the earlier thread? Last night I was reading through over a hundred comments when suddenly the thread refreshed to about 20 or so ... weird ]
Deflecting the Zulu Spear Of Punishment...now.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 10 02 at 05:13 PM • permalinkI’m in Minneapolis, and fly frequently. (Gold Elite, as my creds.) This taxi-driver issue has caused me problems in the past. (I drink. I buy drink. I transport drink.) My initial reaction was, if you can’t carry everyone, find another job.
But someone raised a point to me that I have to admit has validity.
Some months ago, the controversy concerned whether pro-life pharmacists could refuse to provide the morning-after abortifactant (sp?). My initial impulse was to say, why not - you can go elsewhere to buy it.
But, in this context, (which is, admittedly, analagous), I’m given pause. Where do we draw the line for allowing sincere personal belief? I’m thinking that we should allow for this, but the problem really is, the Somalis have taken over the cab business here, and so almost all the cabs are driven by the alcohol-unfriendly.
(Why do they blow themselves up when someone draws a picture of their prophet? It’s because they DON’T DRINK, and so all of life’s tensions and stresses just build and build and build . . .)
Some months ago, the controversy concerned whether pro-life pharmacists could refuse to provide the morning-after abortifactant (sp?). My initial impulse was to say, why not - you can go elsewhere to buy it.
Since the “regular” pill often works the same way as the morning-after pill - preventing the implantation of an embryo - I’d say the pharmacist in question must either also refuse to sell the Pill, or educate himself. Or get another line of work where he’s not put in a position of morally vetoing his customer’s legal requests.
bobby B, I agree with Piglito, who Tim linked to on an earlier thread. Just let market forces decide. I’m a follower of the ‘think what you like, just don’t force it on me’ philosophy. In this case, the taxi drivers have the privilege of refusing anyone they please, unless their employment contract states otherwise. But they must also take the consequences.
I don’t really see a problem. This is not as critical, but along the lines of Catholic hospitals not performing abortions. I have no prob with a guy not wanting to drive someone with an openly displayed bottle of booze. In fact, it seems somewhat sensible. And its their financial loss, so they are sticking with their convictions over monetary gain.
Really, I have little sympathy or time for drunks. You lost me on this one Blair (although I agree with you 90% of the time.
19 - Bobby, the point is that cabbies are licensed, and a condition of that license is that they transport all passengers who present themselves, barring only those who constitute a danger to the driver. The conditions of their license do not allow them to pick and choose. The licensing authority appears to have rolled over with all paws in the air on this, when in fact they should have just yanked the refusers’ licenses. If cab companies created the problem by hiring exclusively among the Somali Muslim community, that suggests they need to start hiring elsewhere. And the authorities have expanded an absurd problem by pandering to the problem-makers, who in turn have manufactured a faux controversy that exists nowhere else on earth.
The ‘regular’ contraceptive pill (containing oestrogen and progesterone) usually inhibits ovulation; it is only occasionally that fails and an early abortion is induced when the progesterone levels drop (once the sugar pills start) and a period ensues. The mini-pill (progesterone only), certainly causes abortion, either through denying the fertilized ovum implantation in the lining of the womb, or inducing a period.
Start a boycott.
Whenever a taxi turns up, the patential passenger asks if the driver is a muslim, if yes, then state I do not want yopu to be my driver. It’s simple. They will start hurting financially.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 10 02 at 06:13 PM • permalinkUh, docweasel, neither the occasional drink of wine nor the carrying of a bottle of wine home from a store means a person is a “drunk.” Sounds to me like you have a little problem there. But you’re in luck—there’s a religion whose followers apparently think just like you!
By the way, could those who are trying to jerry-rig an analogy between this situation and the abortion pill situation drop it? You’re getting bad logical debris all over this comment thread. (The only analogy that might come close to fitting would be if a Christian taxi cab driver refused to drive someone carrying a bottle of birth control pills.)
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 10 02 at 06:32 PM • permalink...and furthermore docweasel, the issue arose not through a bottle of booze being “displayed openly” (where did you get that idea?) but because it was in the passenger’s case and she made the aweful mistake of asking the driver to be careful with the bags because it had bottle(s) of wine in it.
Where would be your position if certain taxi drivers, because of their beliefs, refused to carry female passengers unaccompanied by their husbands, Jews or homosexuals? Still admiring their putting their faith before profit?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 10 02 at 06:40 PM • permalinkMight have been Humphrey Bogart (correct me if alcohol has adled my memory) who once said he couldn’t trust a man who didn’t drink.
Bogey also said life’s a party and the rest of the world was three drinks behind. In the case of Jihadis, that’s three triple, extra-dry martinis behind . . . waayy behind.
Inshillah! The Five Pillars will replace the Twelve Steps under Sharia.
I give it 10 years before the sale of alcohol in Fwance is prohibited. Maybe a lot sooner in Minneapolis, the USA having had wide experience in prohibiting alcohol, and caving in to the demented demands of religious cults.
God, imagine waking up in the morning and knowing that this will be the best you will feel all day. Almost makes you want to strap on the Semtex underwear.....
Winnie would have had a good comeback
“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.
Winston Churchill”Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 10 02 at 07:35 PM • permalink#31 O/T Cosmo, you reminded me of a story: my mother and my grandmother were travelling in Germany with me and my older sister (we were very young) and stopped off for a bite and a drink. My grandmother spoke no German, and only a little English. She ordered a dry martini. Without batting an eyelash the waiter placed 3 martinis in front of my 70-yr-old grandma!
OK, carry on with the more serious conversation about alcohol, cabbies and abortion pills…
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 10 02 at 07:39 PM • permalinkRemember the good old days, when cabbies were gin-blossomed scruffs named Gus or Ernie?
If we had some diversity among cabbies here in Minneapolis, I would surely hail my cabs with a pint Jack, just as a way of avoiding a ride with the surly SOBs who seem to believe the painted line between lanes is there to center the cab on.
Hear, hear, Thomas.
Past generations not only had more backbone and common sense—they could outdrink most of us, as well.
Cocktails of beers at lunch—then back to work building the modern world as we know it—then home for a martini before dinner and a nightcap before bed.
Saw an old photo recently of Apollo astronauts relaxing at a backyard barbeque some time in the 60’s. A few of them sported cigarettes and every one of them held a tumbler with ice cubes and something I just knew wasn’t lemonade.
Bicycle helmuts, no-smoking cities and anti-bacterial asswipes. We’re such pussies.
#26 I agree they should start a boycott of any taxi displaying the light that indicates they won’t carry alcohol. But what’s the bet that the dispatchers and other authorities won’t allow it? They only cave in to Mozzies, not decent people. Everyone in Minneapolis should start carrying around one of those little miniature bottles of booze that carry about one shot or 30 ml or whatever. Fit nicely in your pocket or handbag and will ensure you don’t have to give any money to a discriminating prick.
The Koranic Taxi Charter is even harsher on drivers found to be wearing deoderant. So far they have all been good little adherents.
The ability to drive, know where you are going and speak English are also looked upon badly, but are not punishable by public stoning, yet.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 10 02 at 09:38 PM • permalink#41 Ah, Beer Cocktail: Boilermaker.
Drop a shot of whisky (or bourbon or rye, to taste) into a cold frothy pint of lager and skull it!
Yum!
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 02 at 09:41 PM • permalinkLie. Get in the cab with a bottle of bourbon. Pour it out in the back seat when you get where you’re going. Driver breathes the fumes and goes straight to hell.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2006 10 02 at 10:23 PM • permalinkwhile we’re dropping the abortion pill metaphor, can we drop the “it’s a free country” /"market forces” stuff as well? That was a red herring introduced by Kalli a few threads back. The fact is that businesses have to abide by various basic principles, market forces notwithstanding. For instance, cab drivers cannot price gouge, drop you off in the middle of the interstate, take you to a random location of their choosing, demand sex, or discriminate on the basis of gender, age, or race. We don’t wait for “market forces” to sort these things out.
Posted by daddy dave on 2006 10 02 at 10:34 PM • permalinkThat’s the wrong analogy, Koran-booze. A better one would be to ask the outrage if born-again Christians were refusing to carry gay people. You know, just if they were obviously gay, like holding hands or something.
In the immortal words of Zeyda at Healing Iraq, deport these ignorant trash back to the miserable societies they came from. The sheer arrogance of these illiterate barbarians sickens me.
The taxi and the abortifacient pills are not parallel cases.
The pill taker can go to another drugstore (well, perhaps not in one-drugstore towns), but the passenger cannot go to another airport—not without taking a taxi, anyway.
They should be counseled about how civilized people behave and reminded that they’re not fucking goats in Somalia any more.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 10 02 at 11:23 PM • permalinkDocweasel - “Really, I have little sympathy or time for drunks.”
Who said anything about ‘drunks’? The taxi drivers refuse to accept anyone carrying alcohol - eg, if you just bought some alcohol or a carton of beer and it was visible, the driver would not accept your fare.
Obviously their licences should be yanked for refusing a legitimate fare. They are taxi drivers, not the moral arbiters of Western society. If alcohol offends them so much, perhaps they would be happier living in a country where they dont have to deal with it.
This is simply another way of imposing their primitive intolerant nonsense on us. What next, refusing to carry unaccompanied women maybe?
if I don’t like homosexuals or blacks or jews or weasels will you defend my right to refuse them a ride in my cab?
Yes. Because it’s your cab. That’s the difference between us and the leftoid control freaks in the media, ACLU etc.
You know what? I’m in solidarity with DocWeasel.
I think the question here is the indifference of the media and other leftwing institutions.
#58
Indifference to the bigotry of the cab drivers and attempts by the Somali Muslim community of Minneapolis-St Paul to impose their values on the majority culture. As I said in an earlier comment, imagine the howls of indignation if a group of Irish Catholic cab drivers had refused to carry homosexuals.
In short: Keep your fucking shirt on.
murph, and docweasel, I am old enough to remember, back in the days of Jim Crow, seeing signs saying “Managenent reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” These were defended with rhetoric like “Because it’s my restaurant/cab/hotel/whatever.” With the passage of the Civil Rights Act these signs disappeared. Some businesses closed rather than serve non-Whites.
Whether one likes it or not, or agrees or not, the the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the Law of the Land, and Metropolitan Airport Commission Ordinance 102 is the Law governing the present situation.
murph, I don’t follow your thinking. I’m an enthusiastic defender of the rights and freedoms of the individual, but the way I see it taxi cabs are part of the public transport system and it makes no difference that they are privately owned, any more than it would if we were talking about the local bus route which just happens to be privately owned. if a private enterprise has a licence or concession from the government to provide a public service the operator should leave his personal prejudices at home.
murph, I believe that I have the honor of disagreeing with you. I do not understand the concept of a “perfect right” in conflict with the law on so many levels. It is like a restaurant owner saying that it’s his place and he has a perfect right not to set a plate of his wife’s cooking in front of a N*****.
ErnieG, public places still reserve the right to refuse service to any individual. They just can’t refuse service to an entire group based on race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.
Posted by Some0Seppo on 2006 10 03 at 09:41 AM • permalink"The taxi and the abortifacient pills are not parallel cases.
The pill taker can go to another drugstore (well, perhaps not in one-drugstore towns), but the passenger cannot go to another airport—not without taking a taxi, anyway.”
Disagree. I think they’re analogous.
The pharmacist is licensed, and (at least in Minnesota) takes on certain obligations to “serve the public” when open for business. But the pro-life pharmacist has decided, for reasons sometimes related to religion, that one of the products that a pharmacist normally offers will not be sold there.
The taxi driver (who, no, isn’t exactly a common carrier - they do have some discretion to refuse passengers, as long as it’s not for a “protected” reason - i.e., race, gender, etc.) has, likewise, decided that he will not participate in delivering certain “prohibited” (to him, by his religion) services to the public - he won’t transport booze.
In both cases, you can go elsewhere. I have at least five pharmacies within five miles of my house, and, while I have sometimes gone through several cabbies in Mpls before finding one who will carry my case of wine with me, I can always eventually get a cab.
So, I think they are analogous.
Hmmm.
So, I think they are analogous.
I agree that they are analogous but I don’t agree with your conclusion that you can simply “go elsewhere”. In both cases the individuals are certified and licensed by a public authority to provide specific services to the public. This is both an opportunity and a privledge and as such there are some strings attached to both.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 03 at 10:23 AM • permalinkHmmm.
I’m sorry but I do not and never have considered taxis as part of the public transport system. If it were bus drivers employed by city hall then you would have a point, but taxi drivers are private operators.
It depends, in part, on location but here in the US many public transportation systems are based on services rendered by private corporations operating under contract to public transportation authorities. So, in that case at least, the operators are indeed private but they are providing a public service and as such must operate under the guidance and guidelines of the public transportation authority.
*shrug* YMMV.
Posted by memomachine on 2006 10 03 at 10:27 AM • permalinkI believe an individual has the right to discriminate to his little ole heart’s content. But licensed public conveyance drivers operate voluntarily under a set of rules and regulations. These hackies clearly are in violation of the airport’s R&Rs and airport authorities, instead of calling them on it, are facilitating their defiance of said R&Rs. Both are at fault.
Local Islamic leaders certainly have been silent on this issue, haven’t they. One might conclude that they approve which leads one to wonder what’s next.
Posted by Kyda Sylvester on 2006 10 03 at 10:43 AM • permalinkIf a cabdriver owns his/her cab, s/he should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason s/he pleases.
If a cabdriver drives a cab that is owned by someone else (or is using someone else’s proprietary branding), and these parties have imposed conditions on the manner in which the cabdriver provides their labour (ie. forbidding the discrimination of clientele with the exception of the physically threatening), then that’s a different story.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 03 at 10:47 AM • permalinkIt is like a restaurant owner saying that it’s his place and he has a perfect right not to set a plate of his wife’s cooking in front of a N*****.
I believe he does has a perfect right to take that stand if it’s his place. I don’t expect many people would visit his restaurant once word got out, but it’s his choice as the owner of private property.Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 03 at 10:51 AM • permalinkThe problem for JamesW and murph is that they have been trumped, but they’re playing “Old Maid” and that’s the extent of their intelligence.
In a parallel thread in this revered blog, the R&R of the cab-drivers’ licence was published, and it quite explicitly says that what they are doing is AGAINST THE LAW.
Fuck civil liberies, fuck abortions, fuck individual rights and fuck the cabbies. It’s the fucking LAW! They don’t like the law, they have two options. Get it changed through the democratic process (now who’s going to bet me they understand that concept), or FUCK the hell off! And all the pussies who think the cabbies are right - take the same road!
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 03 at 04:54 PM • permalinkPS
Take a dry cab with you. That’s a double bonus for us.
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 03 at 04:57 PM • permalinkif I own my own cab, can I run a redlight if I chose to, or run over that muslim cunt I don’t like? if not, why not? may I suggest that in a civilized society one’s individual rights and freedoms don’t negate other peoples rights and freedoms, including the right to go about their daily life without some fucker using their petty authority to impose themselves on me just cause they don’t like the look of me. In times gone by I could draw my weapon and smote the prick for the insult. Sadly, not allowed to now.
boy, maybe it’s an Australian thing of something but some of you people really get enraged when someone steps on your right of public drunkedness.
Myself, I don’t take taxis out to the liquor store, um, ever, so this is a non-issue to me. I lump drinkers in with smokers: people doing something everyone knows is idiotic behaviour, and expecting the world to not only accept (and in this case enable) it, but to like it as well.
I can’t really work up a hard-on for protesting drinker’s rights. It’s not exactly a hardship not to be able to find a ride to the liquor store. Well, maybe it is in Australia, where you guys seem to treat drinking as some sort of sacrament.
Really, there are 1000 good reasons to bash Islam. This isn’t one of them. Try another and I’ll jump right on your hate wagon.
If anything, this trivializes real concerns like the Muslim penchant for cutting the heads off of non-believers.
Who pissed in your beer today?
Don’t know where you’re from docweasel, but you’re not too sharp.
Firstly, this is about a US Airport, not trips to the liquor store.
Secondly, it’s not about drunks, but passengers carrying legal duty-free goods.
Maybe this is why an Aussie may view things differently: cab licenses are (in all states that I know of) strictly controlled. There is a finite number, and it’s never enough.
So for every cab that won’t take you from the airport, that’s… one less cab, not a business opportunity for a more open-minded business person.
rampisadmukerjee - it is the mark of the none-too-bright to dismiss another’s argument without comprehending it fully. Read my first post again, you fucking great genius, you. It’s not that long, only a few words. I’m sure you’ll be able to manage it. Although I apologise for the lack of pictures.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 03 at 10:36 PM • permalinkGrimmy, I have a little story—true, as it happens—about how civilized Somalis are.
‘
Back in the ‘70s or early ‘80s, some American do-gooders decided, accurately, that Somalis would be a lot healthier if they stopped drinking their own sewage. What to do, what to do?Out in the boonies, there are no plumbers, not much water, and Somalis are not familiar with any tools more complicated than a knife.
So the do-gooders thought and pondered and came up with a solution: a cheap, concrete Clivus-style toilet with no moving parts.
So they built some, showed the Somalis how to use them and left.
A year later, they returned and asked the headman, ‘How do you like your loos?’
‘We don’t use them.’
‘Why not?’
‘They don’t work.’
(Do-gooders to themselves: How the hell can they not work?)
‘Please show us.’
Turns out, to pass the time at stool, Somalis click two stones together. When they’re done, guess where they threw the stones.
One of those cultural sensitivity things we’re always being told to be aware of.
Posted by Harry Eagar on 2006 10 04 at 02:00 AM • permalinkIn all my travels I learned one solid fact. Everywhere you go, the people there are at their best possible level of development. If it’s a sewer, it will always be a sewer for as long as those people inhabit that area. If they move then the new area will be the same sewer that they left, just with different landmarks.
murph
As I said - we’re seeing the level of intelligence. Nice comment that. Clean, precise, dumb. Tells a story, it does.
JamesW.
I can read. You said “If a cabdriver owns his/her cab, s/he should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason s/he pleases”. I said - ITS AGAINST THE LAW. Got some difficulty understanding my words. If I go visit murph’s daughter and say “I heard your name’s “yussef” and your daddy told me fuck you - it’s my right, right? Charming couple you two make.
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 04 at 06:30 PM • permalinkmessage for el Cid (peace be unto him)
Now I’ve made two muzzie loving, “individual rights trumps all” pussies HATE me.
Does that set things right between us?
PS - your email link in this blog is inactive - tried to send a nice JNY message to you, but it bounced (sob, sob)
PPS - thats SOB, not S.O.B.
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 04 at 06:35 PM • permalinkIf I go visit murph’s daughter and say “I heard your name’s “yussef” and your daddy told me fuck you - it’s my right, right?
Right. Murph has no right not to be offended. However, if I am on his property, he has every right to force me to leave in light of such insults.
Using your logic consistently, I bet you were calling for Western media to be censored in light of the Motoons. You need to think your rants through more carefully.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 04 at 10:34 PM • permalinkAnd I don’t give a shit if it’s law, you dolt. The law is frequently an ass. How do you feel about eminent domain? If Wal-Mart was repossessing your house against your will, would you defend such action to your wife, saying “if we don’t roll over and let them take our house, we’re breaking the LAW, dear! Go Wal-Mart!”
Idiot.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 04 at 10:37 PM • permalinkIt pains me to see such rancour. Let me add to it. I agree with James Waterton and murph.
While my own experience may not be pertinent, I used to drive in an earlier life (first goods, then people—the latter requiring a far more stringent set of laws and conditions), and, swelp me, many a time in Toronto I refused a fare—however lucrative it might have been—despite the agreement I’d signed in order to get my passenger permit.
Circumstances varied: some were clearly trouble on legs, others I just had a bad feeling about, still others I rejected from sheer cussedness.
And, no, I was not an Owner/Driver. My boss/dispatcher never screamed over the radio at me, and I never suffered for work.
So there.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 05 at 04:51 AM • permalinkOh yeah. docweasel. Are you truly out to pick a fight?
I mean, honestly, ramapassthejerky is normally quite composed and well worth the time it takes to read his posts.
He is clearly in a tizzy over this one, and I am shocked—shocked, I say—to read such vituperative and unproductive comments from him.
But you...docweasel, have someone remove the cotton wool you have obviously been swathed in since birth. Your comments were certain to insult—gauged to do so, I venture.
Folk round these parts are actually pretty thick-skinned. There is a latitude in comment found here that is difficult if not impossible to find elsewhere, yet you attempt to moralise in such a patronising, butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth manner that even I want to slap you upside that aqueous melon teetering on top of your neck so precariously.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 10 05 at 05:05 AM • permalinkJamesW
So, your “logic” (I use this term very lightly in your case) is that if you, the effible JamesW, disagree with some law, any law, you are free to ignore it? Murdered anyone, lately? If not, why not? Fucked murph’s baby daughter yet? If not, time’s a wasting - better get going before murph beats you to it and takes all the fun out of it (unless your preference is for three-somes)!
Wow. Another thread in this blog posted the idea that Fisk is god. They obviously misheard. JamesW is god!
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 10 05 at 06:23 PM • permalinkYou’re not much of a thinker, are you, rampis?
is that if you, the effible JamesW, disagree with some law, any law, you are free to ignore it?
No. How could you have possibly extrapolated that from what I wrote here? I am not above the law, but I am free to voice my disapproval of a law, am I not? Which is what I did. I know it’s hard for you but please try to understand - I’m typing as slowly as my patience will permit. I don’t believe in licencing cabs. I think anyone should be able to offer such a service to anyone who will hire them. Consequently I don’t have a problem with cab drivers who own their cabs being selective in whatever way they please when picking up custom - regardless of “The Law” - which is precisely the opinion I expressed above. Of course, if the cabbie is being employed by the owner of the cab as a driver, and has been given instructions not to discriminate (within reason) regarding clients, then non-compliance with this may well result in consequences for the driver. However, the state need play no role in such affairs; it’s a matter between employer and employee.
Meh, I’m sick of bickering with you over this. I can see I’m wasting my time. From your first entrance on this thread, I’d pegged you as a third-rate intellectual force - your confusion over a relatively simply argument, coupled with a failure to counter the parallels I drew between your argument here and recent events, further affirms that deeply mediocre status.
Posted by James Waterton on 2006 10 06 at 08:38 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
Carrying - well, no.
Drunk on the Koran, however, would be OK.