Starbucks and White Guilt

[n david]

So this man walks into a Starbucks store while live streaming on Periscope. He claims he's there to claim the "Starbucks reparations voucher" for free coffee due to "Starbucks is racist."

AND THE GIRL GIVES HIM FREE COFFEE!

:toofunny

Watch:

https://www.pscp.tv/w/1gqGvpYQodgxB

From looking over his twitter feed, he did this to show white guilt and that racism in America is "a cash cow." He says "Black privilege gets me free coffee. I love racism. Only in America."

It's interesting see the reaction to this. Some are angry with him, threatening violence for "race baiting," but most see what he's doing, including this tweet which sums it up well:

"@VibeHi Starbucks prank was poking fun at the left and yet many right leaning outlets are missing the point. He's showing you fools the wizard behind the curtain and exposing the truth behind the white guilt movement. I give up."

"You bout the only person I know who can get white liberals and #MAGA people to come together, to hate the same thing."

Oh, and Starbucks is closing for a few hours next month for diversity training. They should hire Michael Scott to do the training. HA!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Well, looks like I'm going to get my FREE triple venti white mocha!!! :happydance

[Evang.Benincasa]

But you know what is really sad, is that the girl Amanda who served Jesus Hotep? Is the future of this country, and the recipient of the Carlton Pearson "all rapists go to heaven" doctrine. White guilt, more like stupid snowflake teens of the United States of Amnesia.

[n david]

Well, looks like I'm going to get my FREE triple venti white mocha!!! :happydance

God bless 'Murica!

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

"Racism in America is a cash cow...":blah:blah:blah

[BuckeyeBukaroo]

People go to Starbucks all the time for meetings and what not. These guys were singled out. The question is why. The lady who called the police on these guys set all of this in motion and there is no doubt in my mind that their race is what drew her attention to them. I am glad it happened though. It helps to highlight the unconscious racial bias that the minorities in America still face. Not everyone who cries race is being truthful, but this is an open and shut case.

[Evang.Benincasa]

"Racism in America is a cash cow...":blah:blah:blah


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez8eBzt6xM&ab_channel=ThinkSquad

[TGBTG]

People go to Starbucks all the time for meetings and what not. These guys were singled out. The question is why. The lady who called the police on these guys set all of this in motion and there is no doubt in my mind that their race is what drew her attention to them. I am glad it happened though. It helps to highlight the unconscious racial bias that the minorities in America still face. Not everyone who cries race is being truthful, but this is an open and shut case.

:thumbsup

[Aquila]

I had married into a family wherein half the members were Reformed Jews. Ruth, my grandmother-in-law bore the tattoo of having been in a concentration camp. The family knew of many people lost in the Holocaust and can explain the toll (emotional and economic) that it took on their family overall. Being present with them as they remembered the Holocaust was an eye opener for me in how pain and loss can be inherited by generations after the fact.

The Atlantic slave trade was an inhumane machine of death and subjugation. An estimated 2 million to 5 million human beings died as a result of this market. The history, wealth, and identity of those peoples subjected to this trade were systematically destroyed in the process. An estimated 10.7 million were taken from their homelands to South America and the Caribbean, as well as North America between 1500 and 1866. Of that, about 390,000 made it to North American soil. This was about 3 percent of the total.

Historian Herbert Klein of Columbia and Stanford universities, has explained that the data suggest that about 85,000 people destined for North America did not survive the trip across the Atlantic. According to Klein, the death toll by the slave trade in all of North and South America was estimated at the very least as being 1.8 million.

While these studies consider deaths due to the capture and transport of slaves, they say nothing about the people who died in bondage from brutality, disease and deprivation. Another issue with these numbers is that they do not take into account the illegal shipments of slaves after 1808.

I look at the issue of slavery as an African Holocaust. I don't see this as "white guilt". I just look at it like facing the reality regarding a bloody and inhuman practice engaged in by my nation. Balance is definitely needed on the issue. If someone can prove that they are descendants of slaves, I can see some form of reparations made. But there should be solid evidence that they are indeed descendants of slaves. What reparations would be adequate? I'm not certain. I certainly don't think giving free coffee treats the issue as seriously as it is. And the man's point is well taken. Merely being black shouldn't be a cash cow. Numerous people of African ancestry have come to the United States and have never had ancestors involved in the slave trade. I find it a bit peculiar that every person of color assumes that they are a descendant of slaves. When considering actual reparations to those who can prove slave ancestor status, perhaps we could focus on tax exemptions and educational opportunities. This shouldn't be about color, it should be about actual historicity of atrocity. I am willing to wager that a number of black Americans will find that they do not have ancestors who were slaves. But certainly those who do should be given some form of restitution.

At least, that's my current opinion.

[n david]

At least, that's my current opinion.
Should be your signature line.

:lol

[n david]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bez8eBzt6xM&ab_channel=ThinkSquad

That's great. :thumbsup

[Esaias]

Watch the whole thing, this man speaks the truth:

Two Black Men Arrested for Acting Entitled At Sta…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUv-qSi9yk

[Esaias]

Here's the original arrest video. Notice, the black police supervisor on scene about 3/4 of the way through...

Full Video Of Men Arrested In Starbucks For Being…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fBOQCfx6xc

[Truthseeker]

People go to Starbucks all the time for meetings and what not. These guys were singled out. The question is why. The lady who called the police on these guys set all of this in motion and there is no doubt in my mind that their race is what drew her attention to them. I am glad it happened though. It helps to highlight the unconscious racial bias that the minorities in America still face. Not everyone who cries race is being truthful, but this is an open and shut case.


How do you know they were singled out? It's Philly, they are used to blacks coming in all the time.

[Jito463]

I look at the issue of slavery as an African Holocaust.

Committed by Africans on other Africans? :dunno

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/c/c9/You-keep-using-that-word.jpg

[Praxeas]

White Guilt isn't a new drink?

[Esaias]

White Guilt isn't a new drink?

No, but I've been enjoying ice cold Liberal Tears for a couple years now.

:heeheehee

[Originalist]

How do you know they were singled out? It's Philly, they are used to blacks coming in all the time.

Notice how he did not answer. People like him have allot vested in their feelings of superiority for owning up to their "privilege". Thus, they resent anyone like you presenting any facts that might cast doubt on the validity of the good feeling they get from being self-loathing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Should be your signature line.

:lol

That's funny. :heeheehee

[Evang.Benincasa]

I had married into a family wherein half the members were Reformed Jews.

Interesting, what are they currently?

[Evang.Benincasa]

If someone can prove that they are descendants of slaves, I can see some form of reparations made. But there should be solid evidence that they are indeed descendants of slaves.

This poster posts things just to get a reaction.

[n david]

Interesting, what are they currently?
Multifaceted post. He didn't say they weren't, necessarily. He could have meant at that time they were (or not).

:lol

[Aquila]

Interesting, what are they currently?

I didn't mean to say that they "were Reformed Jews" as in they are now another religion. I meant to indicate that I'm no longer a part of that family. They still are Reformed Jews.

They were good people. Wait, I'm sure that they still are. Sorry, I know this can be confusing. lol

[Evang.Benincasa]

I didn't mean to say that they "were Reformed Jews" as in they are now another religion. I meant to indicate that I'm no longer a part of that family. They still are Reformed Jews.

They were good people. Wait, I'm sure that they still are. Sorry, I know this can be confusing. lol

Bro, things become confusing when you aren't clear. Your sentence stated that they "were" Reformed Jews. Which would indicate they were no longer Reformed Jews. Do you understand then why I asked my question?

[Aquila]

Bro, things become confusing when you aren't clear. Your sentence stated that they "were" Reformed Jews. Which would indicate they were no longer Reformed Jews. Do you understand then why I asked my question?

Yes, I can. And I appreciate you asking to clarify and not insisting that they are no longer Jewish and arguing with me for five days over it. lol

They were good people. Oh, wait. Still are. lol You know what I mean! :p

[Evang.Benincasa]

Yes, I can. And I appreciate you asking to clarify and not insisting that they are no longer Jewish and arguing with me for five days over it. lol

They were good people. Oh, wait. Still are. lol You know what I mean! :p

Arguing with you for five days? If we go pages and pages with you it is because you aren't clear, you say something along the lines like this, "I never said that they weren't actually religious Jews, but reformed in a multifaceted way, which is my current understanding of Jews, and the definitions of the word Reformed as it correlates to any religious society."

[n david]

Arguing with you for five days? If we go pages and pages with you it is because you aren't clear, you say something along the lines like this, "I never said that they weren't actually religious Jews, but reformed in a multifaceted way, which is my current understanding of Jews, and the definitions of the word Reformed as it correlates to any religious society."

"to me, Reformed, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Hasidic, ABCs & 123s, it makes no difference."

[Esaias]

Watch the whole thing, this man speaks the truth:

Two Black Men Arrested for Acting Entitled At Sta…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUv-qSi9yk

bump

[Aquila]

Arguing with you for five days? If we go pages and pages with you it is because you aren't clear, you say something along the lines like this, "I never said that they weren't actually religious Jews, but reformed in a multifaceted way, which is my current understanding of Jews, and the definitions of the word Reformed as it correlates to any religious society."

There might be times when I'm not clear. However, there is no need to become mean spirited, insulting, degrading, or condemnatory over it.

Imagine if someone prejudged you, assuming the worst regarding your every motivation, statement, or action you took. You could say something as simple as, "I love you.", and they would turn the statement into something it was never meant to mean. I feel that you do this to me and others quite a bit. While we all may not agree on every point, we should assume the best about our brethren.

[Aquila]

"to me, Reformed, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, Conservative, Hasidic, ABCs & 123s, it makes no difference."

But do you understand what I meant by the statement you're parodying?

I meant that to me, those are all human institutions full of both good and bad people. If I mention that someone doing wrong is UPCI, I think it is silly if someone assumes that I think that everyone in the UPCI is bad. From my perspective, I see people rush to defend these human organizations almost as though they are sacrosanct. To me, it boarders on idolatry. I think these human organizations are just franchises of like minded individuals that will come and go. I don't see them as eternal. Nor do I see them as anything that will even be noted with any significance in eternity. If I point out that someone is UPCI, ALJC, PAW, or whatever... I'm only trying to point out that they are not on the fringe of what we might identify as being "Apostolic". Of course, context might be to warn of behaviors among us Apostolics that are becoming too common. Or, it might be to point out that good men are still solidly Apostolic.

I felt like when I mentioned that the "porno pastor" (as EB called him) was UPCI, y'all kinda lost your minds assuming that I was slamming the UPCI. What I expected, or would have liked to see, was some who are UPCI or who associate themselves with the UPCI in some way, actually agree that the man's statements were over the top and maybe examine more closely with me if political hero worship is indeed causing a growing trend in lowering standards of conduct.

And as I've said, "multifaceted".... everything I've said so far is one facet of the topic as I see it. The other is... my statement was just a response to Amanah. I didn't expect it to go much further at all. I believe one poster called it a "throw away comment". And frankly, I expected it to be, unless Amanah wanted to discuss it. But I was raked over the coals for 20 pages! LOL

Oh well.

[Amanah]

I currently attend a UPCI church, actually a small but growing daughter work.

My pastor is a very gifted young minister with a heart to follow after God, and I am very excited about what God is doing in Sebastian Florida. I love my current pastor and church family.

There are also ministers on this forum that are not affiliated with any organization who I also love and think of as part of my church.

I think it is heart breaking when a brother or sister falls away, falls into sin, placing their eternity in jeopardy. I would hesitate to glory in it for the sake of argument.

I also think a person who would condemn an organization to hell because they insist on everyone wearing long sleeves, or insist on women wearing scarves, or whatever, has no love for the body of Christ or edifying the body in love.

Galatians 6:1-10 1Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. 2Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. 3For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. 4But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. 5For every man shall bear his own burden. 6Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. 7Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. 9And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 10As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

[Aquila]

The majority of good men of God that I have known are UPCI.

[n david]

I felt like when I mentioned that the "porno pastor" (as EB called him) was UPCI, y'all kinda lost your minds assuming that I was slamming the UPCI. What I expected, or would have liked to see, was some who are UPCI or who associate themselves with the UPCI in some way, actually agree that the man's statements were over the top and maybe examine more closely with me if political hero worship is indeed causing a growing trend in lowering standards of conduct.
We still don't know this guy was UPCI. I'm not going to do what you did, call him vulgar and bash him when I really don't know if he's who you say he is.

You want us to just take your word and condemn the guy without any proof he is who you claim he is. Sorry, I've done that and found out the guy making the claim 1) didn't tell the whole story and 2) exaggerated the story. So no, I'm not going to do what you want me to do. And especially not since you reneged on your pledge and admitted you don't know personally that this man is UPCI.


But I was raked over the coals for 20 pages!
Cry me a river. When you blast someone and claim they were a seasoned minister in an organization for 30+ years, expect questions and don't whine when doubts arise because you're playing coy, reneging on pledges and not responding for days.

[Aquila]

Whoa there tiger... you're getting all heated and spastic again.

We still don't know this guy was UPCI.

I was told that he was UPCI. But whatever organization he has been affiliated with is irrelevant to the point.

I'm not going to do what you did, call him vulgar and bash him when I really don't know if he's who you say he is.

I only copied you on what "HE" claimed about himself. Frankly, I don't even know if he's tell us the truth or not about himself. My point was made assuming that he was telling the truth. I mean, I'm not going to call the guy a liar.

You want us to just take your word and condemn the guy without any proof he is who you claim he is. Sorry, I've done that and found out the guy making the claim 1) didn't tell the whole story and 2) exaggerated the story. So no, I'm not going to do what you want me to do.

I can understand your concerns. I'm not asking anyone to "condemn the guy". That's why I omitted his name. I was only asking that we consider how this man was currently defending his political hero by lowering his own standards of decency, that we might all look inwardly and contemplate how we allow our political hero worship to effect our own standards of decency. Again, the context was what I see to be the danger in allowing our politics and our religion to become too intertwined. And, all of this was in response to Amanah's accusation that I want to destroy the conservative church by quoting some statements I had made about protesting politics in the pulpit.

Now, like I said, I understand your concerns. But, you did something equally as bad. You accused me of lying about the man when I only shared with Amanah the truth about something this man said in our short conversation that is relevant to the subject.

You had no problem with condemning me, blasting me, personally attack me, in short, being quite vile towards me. I've been in conversations like this with well balanced people with similar concerns of not wanting to unjustly seem to condemn another. And what they have said was something similar to this:

"If what you've shared is true, I think your right, the man certainly let his politics lower his standards here. Perhaps we all should be aware of this in our own lives in relation to our politics and religion"

Notice, the response remained related to the subject. Notice also, the response didn't "condemn" the man personally, but reflected on what he said. By saying, "If what you shared is true," the response leaves the door open to the possibility that there might be more to the story or that the story could have been exaggerated. And the response never called anyone a liar, neither the man who said these things, nor myself.

There is something in you that wants to be nasty to me. It wants to get vile, accusatory, and downright mean. But none of that is my problem. That is something within you that you're going to have to come to grips with.

And especially not since you reneged on your pledge and admitted you don't know personally that this man is UPCI.

I apologize. I did renege on my statement that I'd give you the man's name. I fully intended to in the heat of the moment. However, I began to think about it. I don't want to be accused of slandering the man, because "HE" wasn't the subject. What he said was only an "example" of the issue I was addressing. Now, I didn't just do nothing, however. I sent the name of the individual's wall the conversation was on, and the name of the man in question to an individual, whose ethics and judgment I trust, who was a part of our discussion. If he wishes to disclose the man's identity publically, it's entirely up to him. In this way, I did take a step towards fulfilling your request, while also ensuring that I can't be accused of slandering the man. If you guys want to put this man on blast publically, it won't be me who participates in that action.

Cry me a river. When you blast someone and claim they were a seasoned minister in an organization for 30+ years, expect questions and don't whine when doubts arise because you're playing coy, reneging on pledges and not responding for days.

I didn't claim he was a "seasoned minister", he did. I only relayed what he said to me.

I apologize that I had periods wherein I was taken away from our conversation.

It's not that I don't expect questions. I do expect those questions to be on the topic though.

It's like me saying,

"I like Cheeto's. They're so cheesy. And I like the sticky mess they leave on my fingers. You know, the snack with Chester Cheetah as a logo?"
And then... from that point forward all you do grill me on Chester Cheetah for 20 pages. lol You never addressed the point I made about "Cheetos". In fact, your grilling over Chester Cheetah deflected all focus from the point I was making.

[n david]

Whoa there tiger... you're getting all heated and spastic again.
What are you talking about? I am perfectly calm. Why do you always do this? Whenever I post a disagreement, you claim I'm some wild, frothing at the mouth, maniac.

Spastic? No, I don't have cerebral palsy. Do you understand the words you post?

I was told that he was UPCI. But whatever organization he has been affiliated with is irrelevant to the point.
If it's not relevant, why mention it at all? You made it part of the story when you wrote it. If it's not relevant, don't use it. Especially when you don't know personally that it's true.

I can understand your concerns. I'm not asking anyone to "condemn the guy".
Yes, you were. You called the guy "vulgar" and said he used "vulgar" words. You were upset, and still are, that I didn't jump to bash the "vulgar" man.

Now, like I said, I understand your concerns. But, you did something equally as bad. You accused me of lying about the man
Absolutely, I did. And with good reason. You pledged to send me a name via PM because at first I doubted it was true. I didn't flat out call you a liar right away. It was only after you went dark for a couple days, resurfaced and made a few posts while ignoring the post I bumped asking for the name. You also ignored EB and Chosen's posts about sending me a PM.

I even sent you a PM which you ignored and never responded to. After that, yes, I did. Your actions were that of someone not being honest.

You had no problem with condemning me, blasting me, personally attack me, in short, being quite vile towards me.
Let's be clear, had you responded and not ignored multiple posts and PMs, I wouldn't have put you on blast. I almost wonder if you ignored it on purpose, waiting for me to call you out and then play the poor victim as you are now.

There is something in you that wants to be nasty to me. It wants to get vile, accusatory, and downright mean. But none of that is my problem. That is something within you that you're going to have to come to grips with.
You're good. And predictable. You're always the right one. The hero and the victim. Others are the villains. You're multifaceted, deep and incredibly brilliant. Others of us are too dumb to truly understand and appreciate your google-sourced wisdom.

I apologize. I did renege on my statement that I'd give you the man's name. I fully intended to in the heat of the moment. However, I began to think about it. I don't want to be accused of slandering the man, because "HE" wasn't the subject.
Yet you made him the subject by calling him "vulgar" and saying he used "vulgar" words.

I sent the name of the individual's wall the conversation was on, and the name of the man in question to an individual, whose ethics and judgment I trust, who was a part of our discussion.
Don't cry or get upset, but I don't believe you. Even if you did, you did so because you know the person you sent it to will not try to contact the person you blasted here and check the story. You knew I would find the person and contact him. You knew it wouldn't look good on you to be blasting someone behind their back on AFF. That's the real reason you didn't send me the name.

In this way, I did take a step towards fulfilling your request,
Seriously? By claiming you sent the name to someone else, you believe you made good on your pledge to send me the name? That's not how that works.

If you guys want to put this man on blast publically, it won't be me who participates in that action.
You already blasted the man and called him "vulgar." Don't try to pretend you're innocent. You brought him into the discussion, no one else.

As I post this, my Gear watch tells me my heart rate is at a steady 68 bpm. I'm certainly not heated nor "spastic," as you wish to portray me. Were we having a conversation face to face, you could see for yourself that while I am being blunt, I'm very calm. I rarely raise my voice at anyone. I find it most effective speaking in a clear, concise and even voice.

[n david]

Now, like I said, I understand your concerns. But, you did something equally as bad. You accused me of lying about the man
I'm curious, why did you ignore my PM?

Before I made the multiple posts putting you on blast, I sent you a PM "in case you're missing my post."

I know whenever I receive a PM, I get a pop-up once the page is either refreshed or I click to a different page. You were posting at the time, so I don't see why you wouldn't get it.

You were given ample opportunity to respond to my, EB and Chosen's posts and my PM and for some reason you refused to do so. It's almost as though you meant to ignore it, wait for more accusations and then play the victim as you did above.

[Aquila]

What are you talking about? I am perfectly calm. Why do you always do this? Whenever I post a disagreement, you claim I'm some wild, frothing at the mouth, maniac.

Because you sound manic. All you're missing are all caps. lol

If it's not relevant, why mention it at all? You made it part of the story when you wrote it. If it's not relevant, don't use it. Especially when you don't know personally that it's true.

Listen to yourself. You're trying to command me what to post and not to post because you can't stop yourself from attacking. lol That's manic. Look, why not allow people to post as they wish to post, and you determine what is relevant or not. Or, maybe stop and ask conversationally?

Yes, you were. You called the guy "vulgar" and said he used "vulgar" words. You were upset, and still are, that I didn't jump to bash the "vulgar" man.

I thought what the man said was vulgar. I don't know him personally. He might have just had a bad day, been moody, low blood sugar, or something. My point was not him. My point was how even good people can lower their standards as part of political hero worship. That is the "Cheetos" that I'm talking about that you keep refusing to see.

Absolutely, I did. And with good reason. You pledged to send me a name via PM because at first I doubted it was true. I didn't flat out call you a liar right away. It was only after you went dark for a couple days, resurfaced and made a few posts while ignoring the post I bumped asking for the name. You also ignored EB and Chosen's posts about sending me a PM.

Love is patient. And, why call anyone a liar if you have no absolute proof that they have lied? Why not just take their word for it, discuss the point made as it was presented, and if they're lying, let it rest on them? For example, I don't know the guy. He might have been lying about his 30+ years of Christian service and ministry. I took him at his word, and examined what he was saying in light of what he claimed about his experience. I would have taken no joy in calling him a lair or trying to "force" him to prove to me he had worn those hats in the church.

But that is how you're approaching me. lol

I even sent you a PM which you ignored and never responded to. After that, yes, I did. Your actions were that of someone not being honest.

That's funny. Because I have been honest to you this entire time. I don't want to slander a man. And why would I want you to contact him and give him the impression that I'm out here bashing him when he would have remained anonymous if not for YOUR desire to identify him and drag him into being the focus??? Chester Cheetah isn't the point. The point is Cheetos are cheesy. lol

I ignored you because I was contemplating what to do. Since my original point was that he remain anonymous and we just examine his statements in light of my concern about how political hero worship can effect us, I felt I should remain true to my original intent. You want to make this about him. I do not. I want to only use something he said to illustrate a point that political hero worship can cause us to compromise our own decency. And that is why in the posts that Amanah posted of mine, I advocating protesting politics in the pulpit. You want to make this about him. Beat the drum, beat the drum, demand his name, and then go and trouble him and lead him to believe someone is slandering him personally. No, that would be unloving of me to allow you to do that. Because you'd drag everyone and their cousin into this to try to do only one thing... distract from and discredit my point. Political hero worship is bad for the church.

Let's be clear, had you responded and not ignored multiple posts and PMs, I wouldn't have put you on blast. I almost wonder if you ignored it on purpose, waiting for me to call you out and then play the poor victim as you are now.

Yes, yes. I'm quite the mastermind. lol

Actually, that's not true. I can't chew gum and walk at the same time. lol

While yes, I was silent as I contemplated what to do. But you, of your own will and accord, chose to "put me on blast" (as you worded it). And still, it was entirely unnecessary. You wanted to lash out. You wanted to sink your teeth into me. You wanted to scream "Liar!" so loud the universe would echo with your indignation. lol But I've not lied to you. And though you've twisted the entire point of what I posted to be something a million miles from my original point, I'm still trying to be kind to you.

I'm in no way a victim. The way I see it, you are. You've fallen victim to whatever it is in you that wants to destroy, discredit, distract from, and revile everything I post. And that isn't my problem. That is your problem. That issue resides in you. That is something that you'll have to resolve with yourself. And you might not like it... because it might challenge you to try to slow down and cease this "attack mode" mindset when you respond to my posts. Until then, I'm just enjoying the forum waiting for you to drop your sword.


You're good. And predictable.

Wait. I thought I was the mastermind who went silent to trick you into lashing out? Now I'm predictable. lol

Why not just stop trying to "You're this..." and "You're that..." me? I mean, what does it do for you anyway? Do you feel better when you say, "You're this..." or "You're that..."? And if it does, why? Do you feel threatened or belittled by what I have to say? Are some of the things I'm writing causing you to experience a cognitive dissonance with regards to some things that you previously felt absolutely certain of? Why must I be this or that? Why not just openly chat about our thoughts and perspectives without you or me being anything derogatory? Wouldn't that be nice?

Until we can get to the place where we can disagree and just chit chat... you're a big fat doody head.

There, now we've both wallowed in the mire a bit. LOL

You're always the right one. The hero and the victim.

Let's think about this for a moment....

Why would I (or anyone else for that matter) post something if I didn't think I was right? I've yet to read anyone post anything that starts out by saying, "Hey, I'm dead wrong, and here's what I think, and why I'm dead wrong!" LOL

And why wouldn't I be the "hero" in my perspective, seeing that I know my intentions and why I've posted what I've posted? I don't feel like a victim. But analytically speaking, you guys do drag things out like Sean Hannity clones trying to "Gotcha!" burn me on some talk radio show. lol In fact, you'll spend 20 pages or more trying to do so. So much so, other posters have often commented that it's not right and that you've abandoned the topic and made the thread an inquisition. And I'm over here like, not really understanding why you're doing it. On the outside, it's almost like something takes a few of you guys over. And I'll admit, some of the tirades have been deeply personal (not so much by you though). But I'm not going to let it get to me. What I will let it do is solidify my conviction that all is not well in the institutional church. Because I've not seen such demonstrations of hatred, reviling, and even railing against another believer anywhere else on the internet. In fact, on most forums, some of the things unloaded that are so personal and off topic would have gotten the person banned from said forum. Only here do they allow such a thing without any open warning or rebuke. I take it that the admins trust that we're big boys and can work out our differences. And I believe their right. It's just going to take more time than I would have imagined. But pain produces pain. Hurt produces hurt. Hurting people... hurt people. So, when I read a tirade that personally eviscerates me... I try to remember to pray for the poster. And when I don't, I look at my own scathing responses and I'm reminded to... pray for myself.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Aquila]

CONTINUED...

Others are the villains. You're multifaceted, deep and incredibly brilliant. Others of us are too dumb to truly understand and appreciate your google-sourced wisdom.

You're a good man N David. I don't see you as a villain. In fact, if I did, I could choose to put you on ignore. If I thought that any of you were really that bad, I'd have left this forum a long time ago. I do think there are times when you act in a manner that is below your calling. I'm not throwing stones here, because I have too. I'm just trying to say that I don't see you as a villain. Nor do I think that you're too dumb to understand or appreciate anything I have to say. In fact, I wish my ability to communicate was better because I would like to believe you'd not misunderstand me so often.

Yet you made him the subject by calling him "vulgar" and saying he used "vulgar" words.

I made him anonymous because he's not the subject. The vulgarity of his words were only an example of what I was trying to say regarding political hero worship.

Sometimes we don't see things that are all around us, especially if we're not directly effected. If you'd like, I have a friendly challenge. Go to an Apostolic discussion forum out there, just pick one, and create an ID and pretend to be a democrat. Pretend to be more moderate on some things. And experience the hate filled private messages, the venomous defamations of your character, the cold mockings of your reasoning regarding liberty for all men and women, and perhaps even their right to health care. Count the names that you're called. Read as they tear into criticize your every motive.

Maybe you'll walk away understanding what it is like to not be so... "conservative" in a movement that has made "political conservatism" a litmus test for belonging.

Don't cry or get upset, but I don't believe you.

So, you'll call me a liar again? I assure you that again, I'm not lying. I did indeed send all that information to a third party in our conversation whom I trust has ethical principles to judge. And should he decide to look into it, I trust he'll be fair and balanced in his assessment. In addition, I trust that he'll not needlessly drag the poor man into a discussion that isn't about him personally.

One thing that complicated the matter is that the post was on a different man's wall. So, I'd have to openly state whose wall it was on, and who the poster was. I know you'd feverishly track the man down and drag everyone and their cousin into this to try to make me look bad. And you'd get everyone so worked up they'd fail to see that in the end it was actually YOU that wanted to have them personally named and displayed publically for all to see... not me. They'd fail to see that I originally did my best to make the man anonymous. Are you seeing it yet? I'm the one seeking NOT to slander a person. I was only offering an anonymous quote to illustrate a point. You guys seem to want blood. That's a bit manic. That's rather over the top. And I'd ask why anyone would want to go through all that trouble... over just a post wherein I shared an opinion?

There's something else at work here. Certainly one man's opinion can't be worth so much trouble. I've never read an opinion expressed by any of you that would make me go through so much trouble to refute you. For example, EB once mentioned some things that transpired in a counselor's office. I didn't berate him over his point. I didn't demand he reveal who the counselor was. Nor did I demand to even know the name of the practice. Nor did I demand to know the very issue that might have brought him there. He shared an encounter that to him exemplifies how silly psychology can be. And that's cool. He has a right to that opinion. He has a right to those facts. I see my role as only responding to his point, given the information he has posted. I'd be a bit manic if I wanted to go on an inquisitional fishing expedition to prove the counselor didn't exist. lol If someone lies about something like that, guess what... they own it. It would catch up to them in the judgement. I'm just going to respond with my thoughts on what is shared. Nothing more, nothing less.

Even if you did,

So, above you think I'm lying. But even if I'm telling the truth... accusation, accusation, accusation.

Please tell me you are seeing this in your words bro. This is manic. It's not normal.

Even if you did, you did so because you know the person you sent it to will not try to contact the person you blasted here and check the story. You knew I would find the person and contact him. You knew it wouldn't look good on you to be blasting someone behind their back on AFF. That's the real reason you didn't send me the name.

I actually don't know what he'd choose to do with the information. He'd not someone who I agree with 100% of the time. However, whatever he'd choose to do, I trust his judgment. And I also trust that he'd approach it ethically and even handedly. And if he wishes to disclose the information I gave him, that's his choice. My goal is not to be included in openly disclosing anything about the man personally. Because what I posted to you is indeed what the man said.

Re-read your statement above.

You knew I would find the person and contact him. You knew it wouldn't look good on you to be blasting someone behind their back on AFF. That's the real reason you didn't send me the name.

That's why I felt that it wouldn't be wise to send it to you. Because you'd say that I was blasting someone behind their back on AFF. You seem to forget that I have striven to keep him anonymous and only to consider the implications of what was said. By striving to keep the man anonymous, I demonstrated that the last thing I wanted to do is slander a person or blast them behind their back. I only wanted to show the words that someone caught up in political hero worship used to illustrate how we can all too easily compromise ourselves in our political hero worship. And that is true of both the left and the right.

Seriously? By claiming you sent the name to someone else, you believe you made good on your pledge to send me the name? That's not how that works.

No. I said that I only took a "step" in fulfilling your request. I might not be the step you desired. But I reconsidered my statement about sending it to you personally. I don't believe it would be wise. You're too emotionally caught up in the need to refute me that you'd drag us all into WWIII to do it. lol

You already blasted the man and called him "vulgar." Don't try to pretend you're innocent. You brought him into the discussion, no one else.

A brought the anonymous words of a man into this discussion to illustrate my point about political hero worship. It is YOU who doesn't want him to remain anonymous. And my concern is that you'd cause pain and leave a man feeling slandered. No one knows who said that. If you let it go, and refocus on my point, no one will have any pain or feel slandered. Why do you guys want to see pain?

As I post this, my Gear watch tells me my heart rate is at a steady 68 bpm. I'm certainly not heated nor "spastic," as you wish to portray me. Were we having a conversation face to face, you could see for yourself that while I am being blunt, I'm very calm. I rarely raise my voice at anyone. I find it most effective speaking in a clear, concise and even voice.

If that's true, why aren't you being more rational?

[Aquila]

Posting portions from PM's is a no-no. The "P" stands for "Private" after all.

[Aquila]

Committed by Africans on other Africans? :dunno

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/c/c9/You-keep-using-that-word.jpg

Sorry, I missed this.

It wasn't just white people. It wasn't just America. There was an international system of human salve trade that was fueled by many nations and peoples... even Africans.

With colonial slavery we have an oppressive international slave economy that existed for nearly 400 years. For 400 years human beings were put to hard labor, often deprived of food & water, raped, denied basic human rights, and even butchered like cattle.

It was a crime against humanity.

[n david]

Since you mentioned your private message to me, consider what you wrote
Forum Rules
""6. .... don't post private messages unless both parties agree to it.""

[n david]

Why would you drag the name of anyone into this? Did you want it to be ******* for some reason?
You gave initials, I simply looked at your state's ministerial directory. It's not "creepy" or "stalkerish" or whatever villainous word you wish to use. #StopIt If I were this guy, I would want to know if some jerk was blasting about something I wrote on a forum.

But you like to do this. You took a post from someone here and put it on your FB wall last year, then posted on here about how your liberal friends were affected by it.

Why are you putting names from a PM on the forum anyway?

[Aquila]

You gave initials, I simply looked at your state's ministerial directory. It's not "creepy" or "stalkerish" or whatever villainous word you wish to use. #StopIt If I were this guy, I would want to know if some jerk was blasting about something I wrote on a forum.

But you like to do this. You took a post from someone here and put it on your FB wall last year, then posted on here about how your liberal friends were affected by it.

Why are you putting names from a PM on the forum anyway?

You actually even hunted for a minister with the man's initials in my state's minister directory?

You don't find any of this creepy, obsessive, or excessive? Lol

[n david]

You actually even hunted for a minister with the man's initials in my state's minister directory?

You don't find any of this creepy, obsessive, or excessive? Lol
It took all of 30 seconds. You posted initials, there are very few.

And no, it wasn't what you're trying to make it out to be.

As I stated before, you blasted the dude. You put his initials there. You called him "vulgar." You pledged to PM his name.

You're right, I would contact him. I hope someone would contact me if someone was bashing me on an internet forum.

Why are you so afraid of him finding out what you posted?

I'd say you probably shouldn't post something you wouldn't tell to someone's face, or that you shouldn't blast someone behind their back, but you'd cry and claim I was "commanding" how you should post.

[n david]

Because I've not seen such demonstrations of hatred, reviling, and even railing against another believer anywhere else on the internet.
Uhm, did you even read what you posted about the man you called "vulgar."

Pot, meet kettle.

[n david]

You're a good man N David. I don't see you as a villain.

When I post that you try to make others look the villain, this is a perfect example. Here's words you used to describe me in the past few posts:

you're getting all heated and spastic again.

I've been in conversations like this with well balanced people with similar concerns of not wanting to unjustly seem to condemn another.
Insinuating I'm not well balanced.

something in you that wants to be nasty to me. It wants to get vile, accusatory, and downright mean.

That is something within you
Something in me.... "Vile"

Because you sound manic.

manic.

lash out.

sink your teeth into me.

scream "Liar!"

you've twisted the entire point

You've fallen victim to whatever it is in you

issue resides in you.

it's almost like something takes you over.

hatred,

reviling

railing against another believer
And your initial post and subsequent one calling the man "vulgar" wasn't reviling or railing? Pot, meet Kettle.

manic.

over the top.

manic.

not normal.

why aren't you being more rational?
Not normal. Be more rational.

creepy

obsessive

creepy

unbalanced

creepy.

stalkerish

obsessive.

unbalanced

extreme

creepy

obsessive

excessive

[n david]

"You're a good man, I don't see you as a villain."

"But you are heated, spastic, unbalanced, have something in you which is nasty, vile, accusatory and downright mean. There's something in you. You're manic. Manic. You lash out, sink your teeth into me, scream 'Liar!' You've twisted the point and fallen victim to whatever it is in you. The issue resides in you. Hatred. Reviling. Railing against another believer (I do it, too, but it's okay when I do it). Did I say you were manic? Over the top. Have I called you manic yet? You're not normal. Why not be more rational? You're creepy, obsessive, and did I say creepy? You're unbalanced. And creepy. Stalkerish. You're obsessive, unbalanced and extreme. Have I told you that you were creepy, obsessive and excessive yet?"

Good grief.

I'd hate to read what you'd post of me if you thought I wasn't a good man!

[Aquila]

"You're a good man, I don't see you as a villain."

"But you are heated, spastic, unbalanced, have something in you which is nasty, vile, accusatory and downright mean. There's something in you. You're manic. Manic. You lash out, sink your teeth into me, scream 'Liar!' You've twisted the point and fallen victim to whatever it is in you. The issue resides in you. Hatred. Reviling. Railing against another believer (I do it, too, but it's okay when I do it). Did I say you were manic? Over the top. Have I called you manic yet? You're not normal. Why not be more rational? You're creepy, obsessive, and did I say creepy? You're unbalanced. And creepy. Stalkerish. You're obsessive, unbalanced and extreme. Have I told you that you were creepy, obsessive and excessive yet?"

Good grief.

I'd hate to read what you'd post of me if you thought I wasn't a good man!

Hey, even good people can be very mean towards others sometimes. Lol

[Aquila]

Uhm, did you even read what you posted about the man you called "vulgar."

Pot, meet kettle.

You don't think what was said was a bit vulgar?

[Aquila]

Honest questions...

Why didn't you stick to topic?
Why did you spend so much effort ignoring the topic and trying to personally discredit me?

I mean, what was your goal? What did you hope to accomplish? What is the outcome you're desiring to see?

Because it seems like when I comment on a topic it's not long before someone goes off topic and gets personal. Then twenty or more pages is me fending off insults, defending my actual intentions, explaining what isn't being understood, trying to fend off mischaracterizations, and even accusations based on threads unrelated.

Other posters have pointed this out several times now.

What do you want to see or hope to accomplish?

[Aquila]

News on Starbucks indecent:

https://youtu.be/-YPZ2FhVFGA

Here's the released video of the incident;

https://youtu.be/8p33IWE1OLM

[Aquila]

Okay, so a white guy asks two black guys to meet him at Starbucks to discuss some business. While they are waiting on him, they are told to leave because they have yet to purchase any coffee drinks. They refuse to leave, because they are waiting for the man they are supposed to meet and they feel singled out because they're black. The cops are called. They discuss their intentions with the cops. The cops order them to leave. They feel greater discrimination. The cops decide to arrest them. Finally, the white guy their meeting with shows up, and asks what the problem is, and explains that they were meeting him. He goes on to explain that he's met people at this Starbucks all the time, and asks if they all can just leave. For some reason, the officers are still determined to arrest them. So, now three guys go into custody peacefully and the white guy they were meeting follows them to the station, bails them out, and they contact attorneys.

Is that essentially what happened?

Wow. If that's what happened, if you're black, you can't just meet someone at a public place without risking being arrested?

Here's a personal story. It wasn't Starbucks, it was Carribou Coffee at The Green in Kettering, Ohio. I told a couple to meet me there for a Bible study, and lunch and coffee was on me. They arrived on time. I got stuck on the highway. I texted them, and they said they'd wait. I was about 25 minutes late. We ordered coffee and food, then we had our Bible study.

No incident.

At least we know Carribou Coffee is safe. Well, none of us are black. Might not want to risk it if you are.

Isn't America great again?

[n david]

Hey, even good people can be very mean towards others sometimes.
So it's okay for you to revile and rail against me, question my mental health and claim I'm possessed. But I dare not question or cast doubt on your outrageous story?

That's called being a hypocrite.

[n david]

You don't think what was said was a bit vulgar?
What I believe is you're a hypocrite who tries to have things both ways.

You cry and whine about me not believing your outrageous story, but then turn around and revile and rail against me, question my mental health and claim I'm possessed.

[Aquila]

So it's okay for you to revile and rail against me, question my mental health and claim I'm possessed. But I dare not question or cast doubt on your outrageous story?

That's called being a hypocrite.

How is what I posted an "outrageous story"? It was in a Facebook conversation under a political post. There's nothing outrageous about it, that's where one should expect to see people's political opinions and hero worship.

Go back and look at this thread. Who went off topic with a personal jab? From post 9 to 30 you can see how I tried to say on topic. However, any reader will note the jabs and criticisms that began to roll in and carry the conversation away from the topic at hand.

My response to unceasing attack is defense. Don't attack, stalk, or go personal... just stay on topic... and I doubt you'll rarely ever see me purposefully insult you.

[Aquila]

What I believe is you're a hypocrite who tries to have things both ways.

See, I asked a question, and you basically swept it aside and went personal. I'll ask it again...

You don't think what was said was a bit vulgar?

You cry and whine about me not believing your outrageous story, but then turn around and revile and rail against me, question my mental health and claim I'm possessed.

I'm not whining or crying. In fact, in almost every instance someone goes personal at me, and when I shoot back... THEY start whining. Again, go back and look at this thread. Look at how between posts 9 and 30 most of the posts directed my way had nothing to do with the topic of the thread... or even the point of what I posted. They were all personal jabs. One by one. But I return a bit and suddenly, you're whining and calling hypocrite? LOL

Bro... maybe in post 10 on this thread you could have stayed on topic. Tell me, why'd you go for the jab? What was it in you that made you feel that you needed to ignore the point of what was written and go personal?

And, what is it that you're hoping to accomplish by going personal? What's the purpose? What's the desired outcome? Why waste the time and ruin what could be good discussions? If you're not even certain why you're racing down this path to make jabs, personal insults, and derogatory remarks, or what you're hoping to accomplish with them... then perhaps this behavior isn't originating from you at all. That's when I often consider other spiritual influences. When you do something nutty, and someone asks, "Why do you do that, what are you wanting to accomplish?", and you are just left wondering, "Why do I do that?" That could be a sign of a bigger issue brewing.

[aegsm76]

Okay, so a white guy asks two black guys to meet him at Starbucks to discuss some business. While they are waiting on him, they are told to leave because they have yet to purchase any coffee drinks. They refuse to leave, because they are waiting for the man they are supposed to meet and they feel singled out because they're black. The cops are called. They discuss their intentions with the cops. The cops order them to leave. They feel greater discrimination. The cops decide to arrest them. Finally, the white guy their meeting with shows up, and asks what the problem is, and explains that they were meeting him. He goes on to explain that he's met people at this Starbucks all the time, and asks if they all can just leave. For some reason, the officers are still determined to arrest them. So, now three guys go into custody peacefully and the white guy they were meeting follows them to the station, bails them out, and they contact attorneys.

Is that essentially what happened?

Wow. If that's what happened, if you're black, you can't just meet someone at a public place without risking being arrested?

Here's a personal story. It wasn't Starbucks, it was Carribou Coffee at The Green in Kettering, Ohio. I told a couple to meet me there for a Bible study, and lunch and coffee was on me. They arrived on time. I got stuck on the highway. I texted them, and they said they'd wait. I was about 25 minutes late. We ordered coffee and food, then we had our Bible study.

No incident.

At least we know Carribou Coffee is safe. Well, none of us are black. Might not want to risk it if you are.

Isn't America great again?

Starbucks is not a public place. It is owned by a private company.
As to whether this was racially motivated, only the Starbucks employee who called the police could say.
And I find it ironic that none of the MSM talking heads can find him/her to interview.
So, let's look at it from this perspective:
1. It is fairly normal for a place of business to require someone to make a purchase to be there.
2. Many businesses have signs up indicating that their bathrooms are ONLY for customers.
3. Starbucks employees have a RIGHT to ask anyone to leave, even if they are a paying customer. The property is owned by Starbucks.
4. If you are asked to leave, you have no choice. It is not a public building.
5. When the police are called, they are following the request of the property owner in asking you to leave. They are not there to decide whether there is racist intent. They are there to remove a trespasser (which is what you are if you refuse to leave).

What I am seeing is that anything that a POC does not like, they blame it on racism.
For example the Waffle House case, where the POC was druck and threatening bodily harm to the employees, but now is threatening to sue.
This is an issue left over from the BHO administration.
Let me give you an example that I experienced.
The EEOC prior to BHO would take a complaint and speak with the complaining employee (or ex-employee) and then decide whether there was merit enough to even send it to the company for investigation and response. Thus, not very many complaints maybe about 10% were deemed valid and sent to the company.
The BHO admin started a policy that all complaints were valid and they would send everything to the company for a response.
This of course led to employees believing that the EEOC thought there was something discriminatory about their treatment, thus increasing the racial tension in the workplace and in society.
It also had the effect of increasing the number of complaints and increasing companies cost in defending against these complaints. In the 8 years of the BHO admin, I saw more complaints than in my previous 20 years of dealing with these.
Some of these were so ridiculous as to be laughable.
Two I will share.
An employee lead sent an email asking to be removed from his lead position, because his supervisor had sent him an email telling him that he needed to make sure the employees he was supervising were working and not standing around.
He then filed an EEOC charge stating that he was removed from his position due to discrimination. This went to the second level of EEOC, which was unbelievable.
An employee got mad and walked out. We could not find her and she would not answer her phone. We finally found her on security camera leaving the building. We attempted to contact her many times over the next week by home phone and cell, but she would not answer. Then guess what we received?
An EEOC complaint that she had been discriminated against.
I could give numerous more examples of how the BHO admin "fostered" racial divisions, but I need to get back to work!

[n david]

I walked into a Chick Fil A during lunch and tried using the restroom before ordering. The restroom was locked and I was told I had to make a purchase in order to get a code for the bathroom on the receipt.

Racists.

[Aquila]

Aegsm76, you make some good points.

However, with incorporation comes commitment to abide by civil laws. And there are laws against racial discrimination. Now, any business is indeed legally in the right to ask anyone to leave, especially if they are loitering. But what do you do if you ask a couple customers if they'd like to place an order and they explain that they are waiting on someone? That person might be the one buying their lunch or coffee, or whatever.

I've waited for people in coffee shops, restaurants, and book stores so many times. I've waited up to over an hour before... and nobody has ever approached me or seemed to care one bit. I'm wondering why staff at this Starbucks would make an issue of these men? Perhaps if these specific men had a history of just coming in and hanging out, it would be warranted. But I don't believe that was the case here. The man they were meeting seems to indicate that he's arranged to met other people in that very same Starbucks many times in the past without a problem.

Why do you think the staff at this Starbucks chose to call the police and request that these gentlemen be removed?

[Aquila]

I walked into a Chick Fil A during lunch and tried using the restroom before ordering. The restroom was locked and I was told I had to make a purchase in order to get a code for the bathroom on the receipt.

Racists.

lol

If it's closed to everyone unless they make a purchase, it's definitely not racism. I know a lot of gas stations that have that policy because they don't want the homeless coming in and taking up residence in their bathrooms.

But what if you were a part of a traveling circus, and you watched as they freely gave the keys to the bathroom to your companions, one right after another. But when you stepped up, they denied you the key and told you that you'd have to make a purchase. And the only thing different between you and your companions is... your color.

Now, that would be racist.

[n david]

I know the Starbucks near here are always very busy, especially between 6AM and 9AM. If people are just sitting around, taking up space and not ordering anything, the business has a right to tell them to take a hike.

And if they refuse to do so, the business also has the right to have them removed by the police.

I don't believe this was a racial thing. I believe there's more to the story. I would bet money these guys mouthed off to the Starbucks employee and refused to leave or order anything.

[aegsm76]

Aegsm76, you make some good points.

However, with incorporation comes commitment to abide by civil laws. And there are laws against racial discrimination. Now, any business is indeed legally in the right to ask anyone to leave, especially if they are loitering. But what do you do if you ask a couple customers if they'd like to place an order and they explain that they are waiting on someone? That person might be the one buying their lunch or coffee, or whatever.

I've waited for people in coffee shops, restaurants, and book stores so many times. I've waited up to over an hour before... and nobody has ever approached me or seemed to care one bit. I'm wondering why staff at this Starbucks would make an issue of these men? Perhaps if these specific men had a history of just coming in and hanging out, it would be warranted. But I don't believe that was the case here. The man they were meeting seems to indicate that he's arranged to met other people in that very same Starbucks many times in the past without a problem.

Why do you think the staff at this Starbucks chose to call the police and request that these gentlemen be removed?

I will say that when I wait on someone, I almost always (would say always but I cant remember everytime) order something. Even when we are traveling and we stop to use the facilities, I will order something. Just so I do not feel like I am free loading.
I am still amazed that I have seen no interviews with the Starbucks staff, who called the police. It really feels like almost a cover-up. Either by Starbucks or the media.

[Aquila]

I will say that when I wait on someone, I almost always (would say always but I cant remember everytime) order something. Even when we are traveling and we stop to use the facilities, I will order something. Just so I do not feel like I am free loading.
I am still amazed that I have seen no interviews with the Starbucks staff, who called the police. It really feels like almost a cover-up. Either by Starbucks or the media.

I'm getting worried about you guys. lol

I think it is really simple. It is in the best interest of Starbucks to keep things quiet and settle. They don't need, nor want, any negative publicity.

[Aquila]

I know the Starbucks near here are always very busy, especially between 6AM and 9AM. If people are just sitting around, taking up space and not ordering anything, the business has a right to tell them to take a hike.

And if they refuse to do so, the business also has the right to have them removed by the police.

True.

I don't believe this was a racial thing. I believe there's more to the story. I would bet money these guys mouthed off to the Starbucks employee and refused to leave or order anything.

Why would you assume that?

One customer began recording because they felt uncomfortable with the way the staff approached the two black customers and with the fact that the police were called. There were also remarks being made on the side about discrimination by other customers. When the man finally showed up to meet his associates and began telling the officers that this was discrimination because he meets white people there all the time without incident, you can hear customers agreeing.

It sounds like the entire room was uncomfortable with what they were seeing unfold in front of them.

I don't think it was a conspiracy. I don't automatically think the men were mouthy or did anything to have it coming.

I believe a Starbuck's employee just went a little off the deep end with their bigotry. That's one employee, in one Starbucks, out of roughly 25,000 Starbuck's stores. What we see here is the bad press one bigoted manager can bring.

Moral of the story: If at all possible, don't promote racists to management. :lol

[Aquila]

I'm willing to bet that a number of white people have already videoed their waiting in that very same Starbucks for far longer than the two black men, without incident. lol

[Aquila]

Here's another racist. This woman goes nuts on two soldiers for parking in a handicapped spot.

Why do racists always look so inbred? lol

And why do they turn around and have to act like it? :lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MonEy_JQqE

[n david]

Why would you assume that?
Because I've personally witnessed it before.

It sounds like the entire room was uncomfortable with what they were seeing unfold in front of them.
I'm sure that in Philly there are enough snowflakes and bleeding hearts that people automatically assumed it was racism.

I believe a Starbuck's employee just went a little off the deep end with their bigotry. That's one employee, in one Starbucks, out of roughly 25,000 Starbuck's stores. What we see here is the bad press one bigoted manager can bring.

Moral of the story: If at all possible, don't promote racists to management. :lol
Why are you assuming the employee or manager is bigoted or racist? I have yet to read or hear any statement from either person with their side of the story.

[n david]

I'm getting worried about you guys. lol

I think it is really simple. It is in the best interest of Starbucks to keep things quiet and settle. They don't need, nor want, any negative publicity.

The Starbucks CEO is a bleeding heart liberal. He doesn't care whether his employees acted right or did the right thing. You're right that he doesn't want any negative publicity.

Speaking of settling: there was a settlement announced today in which the two men settled for $1 each and the promise by Starbucks' CEO to give $200,000 to establish a youth program for young entrepreneurs.

[n david]

I had a client, who was black, call me asking why he hadn't received his refund check yet. Per policy, after a certain time frame we can reissue a check once the client has signed a bond of indemnity. The dude went off about how I was racist and making him sign it because he was black. Claimed I was implying that he was dishonest or some criminal. Nothing I said could change his mind. It was ridiculous. Standard procedure for everyone, but this guy was adamant that I was singling him out.

smh

[Aquila]

Because I've personally witnessed it before.

I think we all have. But what makes you think these two gentleman did that?

I'm sure that in Philly there are enough snowflakes and bleeding hearts that people automatically assumed it was racism.

They were present, listening to what was being said, watched it all unfold, started recording it, and felt like it was rather discriminatory. They aren't snowflakes, they're witnesses.

Why are you assuming the employee or manager is bigoted or racist? I have yet to read or hear any statement from either person with their side of the story.

And Starbucks will ensure that you don't... because it's obviously pretty bad.

[Aquila]

The Starbucks CEO is a bleeding heart liberal. He doesn't care whether his employees acted right or did the right thing. You're right that he doesn't want any negative publicity.

Speaking of settling: there was a settlement announced today in which the two men settled for $1 each and the promise by Starbucks' CEO to give $200,000 to establish a youth program for young entrepreneurs.

I'd like to see that story. Can you send a link?

[Aquila]

I had a client, who was black, call me asking why he hadn't received his refund check yet. Per policy, after a certain time frame we can reissue a check once the client has signed a bond of indemnity. The dude went off about how I was racist and making him sign it because he was black. Claimed I was implying that he was dishonest or some criminal. Nothing I said could change his mind. It was ridiculous. Standard procedure for everyone, but this guy was adamant that I was singling him out.

smh

Yes, that happens. I've been in similar situations. But I don't let that leave me jaded, thinking the worst of every situation just because they're black and that anyone who notices racism is a snowflake.

[n david]

I'd like to see that story. Can you send a link?
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-black-men-arrested-philadelphia-starbucks-are-settling-city-2-n870816

[n david]

I think we all have. But what makes you think these two gentleman did that?
Again, previous experiences. It's an assumption, I understand. But it's one I would be correct in making in the majority of circumstances.

This from the link I provide above:

"the men had not purchased anything and refused to leave."

And Starbucks will ensure that you don't... because it's obviously pretty bad.
Or.... it could be they don't want it out because it could show two people who acted in accordance with Starbucks' own policy, without regard of color. In that case, the Starbucks CEO would be clearly wrong for statements made after the incident. He'd either be proven to have wrongfully slandered his own employees or be forced to agree with their actions...the aftermath of which, would cause a ton of backlash towards Starbucks.

[n david]

They were present, listening to what was being said, watched it all unfold, started recording it, and felt like it was rather discriminatory. They aren't snowflakes, they're witnesses.
The woman who took the video and tweeted it is a raging, bleeding heart liberal.

[Esaias]

I know the Starbucks near here are always very busy, especially between 6AM and 9AM. If people are just sitting around, taking up space and not ordering anything, the business has a right to tell them to take a hike.

And if they refuse to do so, the business also has the right to have them removed by the police.

I don't believe this was a racial thing. I believe there's more to the story. I would bet money these guys mouthed off to the Starbucks employee and refused to leave or order anything.

Did nobody watch the two videos I posted?

They were asked to leave and refused to leave. The police showed up and asked them to leave. Again, they refused. At that point, they were placed under arrest. The black police chiefy guy said race was not an issue. The black police supervisor on site apparently didn't see race as an issue.

I don't care who you are, if you are asked to leave a business, and refuse, you are trespassing and subject to arrest. Once the police are involved, if you still refuse to leave when asked by them then you WILL be placed under arrest, black or not. Notice, the police are not obligated to ask you to leave, they could just show up and arrest your hind end and toss you in the clink.

[Aquila]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-black-men-arrested-philadelphia-starbucks-are-settling-city-2-n870816

Well, I think that was fair. They weren't out to try to bank on it.

[Aquila]

Again, previous experiences. It's an assumption, I understand. But it's one I would be correct in making in the majority of circumstances.

This from the link I provide above:

"the men had not purchased anything and refused to leave."

But what does "refused to leave" mean?

From what I'm gathering, they were told that if they were not going to make a purchase, they were going to have to leave. They explained that they were waiting on someone, and the employee then backed off and went to call police. I'm not sure if one can say that they "refused to leave" at that point. Of course, a manager who had white fear might have felt like they were refusing to leave. The two men might have thought they were now okay to continuing waiting.


Or.... it could be they don't want it out because it could show two people who acted in accordance with Starbucks' own policy, without regard of color. In that case, the Starbucks CEO would be clearly wrong for statements made after the incident. He'd either be proven to have wrongfully slandered his own employees or be forced to agree with their actions...the aftermath of which, would cause a ton of backlash towards Starbucks.

Eh, I don't know. I don't think you'd have had the comments among other customers if everything was on the up and up. Whatever happened made a number of other customers uneasy.

What I don't understand is why the officers still insisted on arresting them when the man they were meeting finally showed up, apologized for being late, and insisted that they could just go somewhere else. In most situations the police don't want to arrest a person over something meaningless or silly. And even though they were arrested and taken downtown, they were released without any charges.

The whole thing is stupid. People wait to meet people in coffee shops all the time. People are asked if they are going to purchase anything and explain they are waiting on someone without consequence all the time. Police change course as more information becomes available all the time. I just think it's all stupid. None of it was necessary.

[Aquila]

The woman who took the video and tweeted it is a raging, bleeding heart liberal.

Of course she is. Everyone knows we can't trust a Confederate Flag waving conservative to care about racism in this day and age. lol

Conservatives only protest gay wedding cakes, women's health clinics, and any effort to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover uninsured families with health insurance. lol

[Aquila]

Did nobody watch the two videos I posted?

They were asked to leave and refused to leave. The police showed up and asked them to leave. Again, they refused. At that point, they were placed under arrest. The black police chiefy guy said race was not an issue. The black police supervisor on site apparently didn't see race as an issue.

I don't care who you are, if you are asked to leave a business, and refuse, you are trespassing and subject to arrest. Once the police are involved, if you still refuse to leave when asked by them then you WILL be placed under arrest, black or not. Notice, the police are not obligated to ask you to leave, they could just show up and arrest your hind end and toss you in the clink.

That's true. If a business establishment asks you to leave and you don't, they can call the police. And if you don't comply with the police, you can be arrested. Definitely by refusing to leave after the police requested it, they are subject to arrest.

I think the issue here is that if they were two white guys in shirts and ties, nobody would have said a thing to begin with. And if they were asked to make a purchase or leave, after saying they were waiting on someone, there wouldn't have been an incident.

I've been asked if I was going to purchase something while waiting for someone else before. No one called the police on me. In fact, if they insisted I leave, I would have complied. And if it was a misunderstanding and the police were called, I'd definitely leave upon a police officer's request.

But thank God I don't have to ever worry about anything like that. I'm white. I might be offered a complimentary coffee while I wait. lol

[aegsm76]

True.



Why would you assume that?

One customer began recording because they felt uncomfortable with the way the staff approached the two black customers and with the fact that the police were called. There were also remarks being made on the side about discrimination by other customers. When the man finally showed up to meet his associates and began telling the officers that this was discrimination because he meets white people there all the time without incident, you can hear customers agreeing.

It sounds like the entire room was uncomfortable with what they were seeing unfold in front of them.

I don't think it was a conspiracy. I don't automatically think the men were mouthy or did anything to have it coming.

I believe a Starbuck's employee just went a little off the deep end with their bigotry. That's one employee, in one Starbucks, out of roughly 25,000 Starbuck's stores. What we see here is the bad press one bigoted manager can bring.

Moral of the story: If at all possible, don't promote racists to management. :lol

I believe refusing to leave when asked by an employee would qualify as "mouthy".
Then when you refuse to leave when the police tell you to leave would also quality.

[aegsm76]

I had a client, who was black, call me asking why he hadn't received his refund check yet. Per policy, after a certain time frame we can reissue a check once the client has signed a bond of indemnity. The dude went off about how I was racist and making him sign it because he was black. Claimed I was implying that he was dishonest or some criminal. Nothing I said could change his mind. It was ridiculous. Standard procedure for everyone, but this guy was adamant that I was singling him out.

smh

I have seen this over and over. Sometimes the person really believes they are being discriminated against because of their race and sometimes it is just one of the "tools" they will use to try and get their way.

[aegsm76]

Here's another racist. This woman goes nuts on two soldiers for parking in a handicapped spot.

Why do racists always look so inbred? lol

And why do they turn around and have to act like it? :lol



Not sure why you posted that or what that has to do with this issue, but we both could post tons of videos that show racism by every race.
But, that does not mean that every incident or issue is "racist".

[aegsm76]

But what does "refused to leave" mean?

From what I'm gathering, they were told that if they were not going to make a purchase, they were going to have to leave. They explained that they were waiting on someone, and the employee then backed off and went to call police. I'm not sure if one can say that they "refused to leave" at that point. Of course, a manager who had white fear might have felt like they were refusing to leave. The two men might have thought they were now okay to continuing waiting.




Eh, I don't know. I don't think you'd have had the comments among other customers if everything was on the up and up. Whatever happened made a number of other customers uneasy.

What I don't understand is why the officers still insisted on arresting them when the man they were meeting finally showed up, apologized for being late, and insisted that they could just go somewhere else. In most situations the police don't want to arrest a person over something meaningless or silly. And even though they were arrested and taken downtown, they were released without any charges.

The whole thing is stupid. People wait to meet people in coffee shops all the time. People are asked if they are going to purchase anything and explain they are waiting on someone without consequence all the time. Police change course as more information becomes available all the time. I just think it's all stupid. None of it was necessary.

They were arrested because they refused to follow a lawful order from the police.
It is pretty simple, actually.
Do what the police say and things will go a lot better for you.

[n david]

Well, I think that was fair. They weren't out to try to bank on it.
It was a good gesture on their part. Some would have milked it for a lot more.

[n david]

I've been asked if I was going to purchase something while waiting for someone else before. No one called the police on me. In fact, if they insisted I leave, I would have complied. And if it was a misunderstanding and the police were called, I'd definitely leave upon a police officer's request.
And therein lies the difference. These guy didn't comply which is why the police were called.

It's ridiculous that a bar in NYC can kick someone out for wearing a MAGA hat and all the libs are obviously okay with it and I read many tweets applauding what the bar did, but tell a black person to leave when they're not ordering anything and taking space ...

What's worse is a Judge ruled in favor of the bar and said they could discriminate against the Trump supporter.

Had that been a homosexual ...

Blatant hypocrisy from the radical left.

[n david]

They were arrested because they refused to follow a lawful order from the police.
It is pretty simple, actually.
Do what the police say and things will go a lot better for you.
Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

[n david]

But what does "refused to leave" mean?
C'mon, Aquila. Some things are pretty obvious. They were asked to leave because they weren't ordering anything. When they continued to refuse to leave, the police were called.

Eh, I don't know. I don't think you'd have had the comments among other customers if everything was on the up and up. Whatever happened made a number of other customers uneasy.
First, the camera started after the police were there. Also, the people were uneasy because its liberal Philly and white cops were arresting black people. I doubt some of those people even saw the buildup to the police arriving. Think about it, the video is from someone standing in line. Even when busy, Starbucks is efficient and you're not in line more than 10 minutes. I guarantee you it took more than 10 minutes for the officers to arrive. So it is entirely possible, likely even, that the bleeding heart lib taking the video and some of the others standing in line didn't even see the beginning of the confrontation.

What I don't understand is why the officers still insisted on arresting them when the man they were meeting finally showed up, apologized for being late, and insisted that they could just go somewhere else. In most situations the police don't want to arrest a person over something meaningless or silly. And even though they were arrested and taken downtown, they were released without any charges.
Which is another reason I believe these men were being belligerent and mouthy to the cops. You're right. In most situations, the cops would have talked with the friend and left.

The cops acted reasonably and within the law. There's no denying that. They didn't use excessive force. They did their job. No one should be complaining about what they did.

[Aquila]

I believe refusing to leave when asked by an employee would qualify as "mouthy".
Then when you refuse to leave when the police tell you to leave would also quality.

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

The point I'm trying to make is... if they were white the odds are that no one would have asked them to leave. I've been in a business establishment waiting on someone far longer than those guys were, and I have never been asked to leave. Even the man they were meeting explained that he has chosen to meet clients at Starbucks many times, and those clients didn't always order anything. The only difference between those who were never approached and asked to leave and the gentlemen who were asked to leave is... their skin color.

Think about it. If I were going to meet you in a Starbucks for a Bible study and I was running late and you'd had been waiting 25 minutes without ordering anything... and no one approached you and asked you to leave... but you watch as staff approaches some people of color and ask them to leave because they'd been seated for 20 minutes without ordering anything... wouldn't you be disgusted? I would be. I'd expect someone to be tempted to stand and say, "Um, excuse me. I've been waiting on a friend for 25 minutes without ordering anything, they've only been here 20. Why are you asking them to leave and not me? Is it because they are black?"

It's not that Starbucks did anything illegal. It's that they chose to do what they have legal authority to do... against people that are black, when they have essentially ignored whites who have done the same. The man who met them was key in explaining this. And the people present, most of whom were white, have most likely never experienced being asked to leave, as these black men were being asked to leave. That's why the white guy these men were meeting, and the people throughout the room, felt uncomfortable and were making comments about it being discrimination.

Yes, Starbucks acted within the law. But the management of the store chose to use that authority selectively, targeting black people.

I think a group of people (white and black) should break out their cameras and record how long it takes for a Starbucks, or any other business, to ask them to leave. Anything you want to bet, the black people will be asked to leave far more than the whites, if the whites are asked to leave at all. That would perhaps highlight the problem.

[Aquila]

Not sure why you posted that or what that has to do with this issue, but we both could post tons of videos that show racism by every race.
But, that does not mean that every incident or issue is "racist".

True. But I have to ask myself if this woman would have behaved this way if the women were two white women.

[Aquila]

They were arrested because they refused to follow a lawful order from the police.
It is pretty simple, actually.
Do what the police say and things will go a lot better for you.

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

The point I'm trying to make is this... if they were two white men, the odds are rather high that no one would have asked them to leave in the first place. I've been in a business establishment waiting on someone far longer than those guys were, and I have never been asked to leave. Even the man they were meeting explained that he has chosen to meet clients at Starbucks many times, and those clients didn't always order anything. The only difference between those who were never approached and asked to leave and the gentlemen who were asked to leave is... their skin color.

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.

[Aquila]

It was a good gesture on their part. Some would have milked it for a lot more.

Yeah, you're right about that. These were men just wanting to meet to with another to discuss business. Most likely, they realized rather quickly that they could comply, or take a stand and prove a point. I don't think they were hurting for money. They chose to make the point.

It's kind of like when Mrs. Rosa Parks was asked to give her seat up to a white person and stand in the back of the bus. At the time, it was perfectly legal for a bus driver to demand such a thing. She took a stand... by refusing. She was arrested and fined as a result. And her refusal sparked a civil rights campaign to abolish unchristian and inhumane segregation laws.

By refusing to comply, these men brought to light how racism is still alive and well in the United States, and how racists will use the law, when they can, to harass minorities.

[Aquila]

I've hung out in various businesses for various amounts of time for various reasons without making a purchase. And as an adult, I've never been asked to leave. I remember a Taco Bell asking me to leave once when I was in high school. But that was because we were goofing off in the lobby. I think that if I were black, I'd have been asked to leave various establishments far more often.

[n david]

It's kind of like when Mrs. Rosa Parks was asked to give her seat up to a white person and stand in the back of the bus. At the time, it was perfectly legal for a bus driver to demand such a thing. She took a stand... by refusing. She was arrested and fined as a result. And her refusal sparked a civil rights campaign to abolish unchristian and inhumane segregation laws.

Oh good grief. Rosa Parks, these men are not.

:toofunny

[n david]

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.
No, you're just making big assumptions. The same kind of assumptions you don't like others making about the black men. You're ASSUMING the employee and manager are racists and bigots. You're ASSUMING these men were targeted because of their skin color. You're ASSUMING a lot.

The fact is we haven't heard from either the employee or manager as to why the men were asked to leave.

What you criticized me for doing, assuming the worst of the black men, you're doing the same with the employee and manager --- assuming the worst.

[n david]

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.
I have to disagree, sorry. Also, you cannot compare Starbucks to a bookstore. I looked up Books & Co, because I was pretty sure it was similar to the bookstores we have here. Most bookstores in general have seating areas where you're allowed, and in some even encouraged (Books & Co included) to sit and read. Books & Co even promotes book clubs, like a couple of bookstores here do.

Bookman's is a local bookstore I like. They have a large seating area and free wifi for people to use.

So I really doubt anyone, even a black person, would be told to leave from Books & Co or most any other bookstore.

[aegsm76]

True. I'm not arguing against those facts.

The point I'm trying to make is this... if they were two white men, the odds are rather high that no one would have asked them to leave in the first place. I've been in a business establishment waiting on someone far longer than those guys were, and I have never been asked to leave. Even the man they were meeting explained that he has chosen to meet clients at Starbucks many times, and those clients didn't always order anything. The only difference between those who were never approached and asked to leave and the gentlemen who were asked to leave is... their skin color.

I hung out in a Books&Company for over 4 and a half hours before. I wasn't purchasing anything. I was seated and reading a book (that I didn't buy) the entire time. No one approached me about purchasing anything, nor was I asked to leave. No one bothered me at all. But dollars to doughnuts, if I were black, it is more likely that I would have been asked to make a purchase or leave.

You do not know that.
You are assuming that because it fits what you want to believe.
The only way to know that would be for the Starbucks employee who made the call to the police to be interviewed.

[Aquila]

No, you're just making big assumptions. The same kind of assumptions you don't like others making about the black men. You're ASSUMING the employee and manager are racists and bigots. You're ASSUMING these men were targeted because of their skin color. You're ASSUMING a lot.

The fact is we haven't heard from either the employee or manager as to why the men were asked to leave.

What you criticized me for doing, assuming the worst of the black men, you're doing the same with the employee and manager --- assuming the worst.

According to Starbuck's CEO, Kevin Johnson, Starbuck's prides itself in being not only a coffee shop, but they enjoy being a community hub for conversation, business, meetings, networking, etc. Starbuck's primarily delegates the authority to request that people leave the store to each individual store manager. However, the general practice is only to request that individuals leave if they are causing a disturbance. This is because so many do use Starbuck's as a meetup to do business. The employee that made the call to police was fired because, based on eye witness accounts (both customers and employees) and video, the gentlemen weren't being a disturbance, and were just waiting on someone to discuss real-estate business. When the employee was questioned as to why these men were singled out, seeing that they posed no disturbance, the employee offered no answer that agreed with the company's philosophy. And so, the company decided to fire the employee amidst growing public condemnation.

Now, no doubt the company has asked the employee not to discuss the issue, seeing that the employees actions were deemed discriminatory, since the employee could offer no valid reason for singling them out and asking them to leave. If the employee were to speak, and say something that could be misconstrued to affirm discrimination, and the company face backlash, the company could sue them. So, this is why we're probably not hearing from the employee.

Since Starbucks prides itself as being a place for the local business community to meet up, do business, communicate, etc., in addition to being a coffee shop, the employee's actions are unjustified seeing that the men weren't causing a disturbance. The employee's actions fly in the face of the company's philosophy and public image. Starbuck's WANTS the business community to feel comfortable meeting up to discuss business with clients in their stores. The employee's actions were therefore counter the company's vision and image.

[n david]

The employee that made the call to police was fired because, based on eye witness accounts (both customers and employees) and video, the gentlemen weren't being a disturbance, and were just waiting on someone to discuss real-estate business. When the employee was questioned as to why these men were singled out, seeing that they posed no disturbance, the employee offered no answer and became defensive. And so, the company decided to fire the employee.
Assumptions. Please post the source for the bold. I have read that the employee quit.

Now, no doubt the company has asked the employee not to discuss the issue seeing that the employees actions were deemed discriminatory,
Assumption.

since there employee could offer no valid reason for singling them out and asking them to leave.
Assumption.

If the employee were to speak, and say something that could be misconstrued to affirm discrimination, and the company face backlash, the company could sue them.
Assumption. Also, unless there's an NDA the company couldn't sue the former employee. Free speech and all.

So, this is why we're probably not hearing from the employee.
Assumption.

the employees actions are unjustified seeing that the men weren't causing a disturbance.
Assumption

[Esaias]

Watch the whole thing, this man speaks the truth:

Two Black Men Arrested for Acting Entitled At Sta…: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoUv-qSi9yk

Aquila, did you watch this?

[Aquila]

Assumptions. Please post the source for the bold. I have read that the employee quit.


Assumption.


Assumption.


Assumption. Also, unless there's an NDA the company couldn't sue the former employee. Free speech and all.


Assumption.


Assumption

I think you're assuming that these are assumptions. Let's allow time to disclose the details. :)

[Jito463]

Of course she is. Everyone knows we can't trust a Confederate Flag waving conservative to care about racism in this day and age. lol

Conservatives only protest gay wedding cakes, women's health clinics, and any effort to expand Medicare/Medicaid to cover uninsured families with health insurance. lol

If you really believe that, then we must be complete monsters in your eyes. Is that the case? Do you believe we're monsters who don't care about real racism (as opposed to these "cry wolf" situations)?

I've been asked if I was going to purchase something while waiting for someone else before. No one called the police on me. In fact, if they insisted I leave, I would have complied. And if it was a misunderstanding and the police were called, I'd definitely leave upon a police officer's request.

And these two refused to comply with both the establishment and with the police. Is it any wonder they were arrested? For crying out loud, you're disproving your own point.

[Aquila]

Aquila, did you watch this?

No. I can later if you like.

But one man's opinion is no more valid than another's.

The facts are:

The two gentlemen in question were not being a disruption.

The customers, and even employees, were not comfortable with how the situation was handled.

The men were not doing anything that isn't done on a daily basis in Starbuck's.

No criminal charges were filed against them.

The employee is no longer with the company.

The CEO has voiced that this isn't how Starbuck's wishes to be known as a business. People should feel free to wait for business partners, friends, and associates meeting at Starbuck's.

Apologies were issued by the CEO.
And you're over here complaining because two black guys didn't get what you think they deserved?

[n david]

I think you're assuming that these are assumptions.
No, your post was filled with several literal assumptions. You have zero facts or evidence which back your assumptions.

Please post the source which says the employee was fired. Thank you.

[Esaias]

No. I can later if you like.

But one man's opinion is no more valid than another's.

The facts are:

The two gentlemen in question were not being a disruption.

The customers, and even employees, were not comfortable with how the situation was handled.

The men were not doing anything that isn't done on a daily basis in Starbuck's.

No criminal charges were filed against them.

The employee is no longer with the company.

The CEO has voiced that this isn't how Starbuck's wishes to be known as a business. People should feel free to wait for business partners, friends, and associates meeting at Starbuck's.

Apologies were issued by the CEO.
And you're over here complaining because two black guys didn't get what you think they deserved?

I could care less about who got what. I don't patronise Starbucks and I don't empathise with anyone who does. :)

Oh, and when did I say "I think they deserve..." whatever?

One man's opinion IS more valid than another's, in this case. Specifically, that black man's opinion of the racial element of this situation is way more valid than YOUR virtue-signaling SJW whitey race-baiting opinion. In my humble opinion. And in the opinion of every Black Lives Matter proponent and the SJW crowd you seem to be falling behind and not playing catch-up with. Why? Because you and your white priviledge got no room to be speaking about what is or is not racist.

Oh wait, the BLM crowd and their liberal white supporters don't like when black people voice opinions not handed to them from the mouth of Sauron's "social justice" cadre? Hmmm...

[Esaias]

No, your post was filled with several literal assumptions. You have zero facts or evidence which back your assumptions.

Please post the source which says the employee was fired. Thank you.

Maybe he'll pm it to you...

[n david]

Maybe he'll pm it to you...
I won't say he's lying, I promise. I've read several articles, all the one's I've read say the person quit. When this first broke, news on the radio here also said the employee quit.

I'm not saying Aquila's wrong, I just haven't read where the person was fired. I'd like to read the article Aquila read where it stated that.

[Originalist]

Aquila, would you trust these Confederate flag waving conservatives?.....

https://i.imgur.com/uB7j2S4.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/y0A41Cp.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/CrhH2n0.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/vtbADVD.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/KFSvCyv.jpg



https://i.imgur.com/xJ6JS8d.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/eCrn1wB.jpg

[Aquila]

No, your post was filled with several literal assumptions. You have zero facts or evidence which back your assumptions.

Please post the source which says the employee was fired. Thank you.

When all the details come to light, if they do, I'm confident it will show that the employee as given an ultimatum. Quit or be fired. And, from where I come from, that's essentially being fired.

[Aquila]

I could care less about who got what. I don't patronise Starbucks and I don't empathise with anyone who does. :)

Oh, and when did I say "I think they deserve..." whatever?

One man's opinion IS more valid than another's, in this case. Specifically, that black man's opinion of the racial element of this situation is way more valid than YOUR virtue-signaling SJW whitey race-baiting opinion. In my humble opinion. And in the opinion of every Black Lives Matter proponent and the SJW crowd you seem to be falling behind and not playing catch-up with. Why? Because you and your white priviledge got no room to be speaking about what is or is not racist.

Oh wait, the BLM crowd and their liberal white supporters don't like when black people voice opinions not handed to them from the mouth of Sauron's "social justice" cadre? Hmmm...

Why are you so bitter, angry, personal, and hateful? You sound more like Rush Limbaugh than Jesus. I think you need the Holy Ghost. lol

I'm only saying that I think a Starbuck's employee was racially profiling. They saw two black men waiting without purchase and assumed they were just loitering when in fact they were waiting on someone. I don't even believe it is a big problem throughout the entire company. Which is one reason why I don't believe there's a need to boycott Starbucks. It's a management issue only involving one employee in one store.

[n david]

When all the details come to light, if they do, I'm confident it will show that the employee as given an ultimatum. Quit or be fired. And, from where I come from, that's essentially being fired.
So you have no source? Again, every source i read said the person quit. I'll stick to that and not just make stuff up like you're doing.

[Amanah]

Lolade Siyonbola, a 34-year-old black graduate student at Yale University, was forced to defend her presence on campus after she says a white student found her asleep in her dormitory common room and summoned the campus police. . .

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-white-yale-student-called-the-cops-on-a-black-student-napping-in-a-common-room/ar-AAx4UJw?ocid=ientp

[Aquila]

So you have no source? Again, every source i read said the person quit. I'll stick to that and not just make stuff up like you're doing.

You're free to do that.

I'm just saying that should all the facts come to light, I'm confident that you'll find that Starbucks gave the employee an ultimatum.

[Aquila]

Lolade Siyonbola, a 34-year-old black graduate student at Yale University, was forced to defend her presence on campus after she says a white student found her asleep in her dormitory common room and summoned the campus police. . .

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-white-yale-student-called-the-cops-on-a-black-student-napping-in-a-common-room/ar-AAx4UJw?ocid=ientp

Sleeping while black?

According to the article:

Lolade Siyonbola, a 34-year-old black graduate student at Yale University, was forced to defend her presence on campus after she says a white student found her asleep in her dormitory common room and summoned the campus police.

Lolade, who is a grad student in African Studies, she says was working on a paper when she fell asleep in the dorm’s study space on Monday. She says a fellow student turned on the lights to the common room and called the police. When Lolade asked the officers about the complaint, one officer responded that the white student called and said that somebody “appeared they weren’t… where they were supposed to be."

After Lolade opened her apartment door to prove she lived in the building, the Yale police requested her student identification and she spent 17 minutes livestreaming the encounter on Facebook. The two videos posted on social media were viewed nearly 1,500,000 times.

“I deserve to be here, I pay tuition like everybody else,” Lolade told the campus officer. “I am not going to justify my existence here. I'm not even going to...it's not even a conversation. She needs to be put into an institution so she can stop harassing people.”

The white student, who was filmed by Lolade, had allegedly reported other black students on campus. As the police were headed to the college dorm room, the student told Lolade, “I have every right to call the police, you cannot sleep in that room.”

The Yale police officers left the dormitory after clarifying that Lolade’s preferred nickname on her student identification card was the same as her full name in the student database.

The incident is the latest public encounter where black Americans are forced to defend their legal presence in everyday life. In April, two black men were arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks while waiting for their friend to arrive. The arrest led to mandatory racial-bias education training at stores across the country.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-white-yale-student-called-the-cops-on-a-black-student-napping-in-a-common-room/ar-AAx4UJw?ocid=ientp


Why is this happening in America right now?

It's 2018. We should be past this kind of thing. Why not just wake her up and maybe offer her some water or something???

[n david]

You're free to do that.

I'm just saying that should all the facts come to light, I'm confident that you'll find that Starbucks gave the employee an ultimatum.
If you want to assume so.

Just don't get all self righteous about others assuming things when all you've done here is make your own assumptions.

[Aquila]

If you want to assume so.

Just don't get all self righteous about others assuming things when all you've done here is make your own assumptions.

Sorry if I seemed self-righteous.

I think the worst is being assumed of these gentlemen who were just peacefully waiting on a friend in a Starbucks.

I'm probably assuming the worst regarding the employee of Starbucks.

What I definitely don't want to do though is assume that the entire company is racist based on the actions of one employee.

[n david]

I'm probably assuming the worst regarding the employee of Starbucks.
You certainly have assumed the worst, all while complaining that I was assuming about the two men.

What I definitely don't want to do though is assume that the entire company is racist based on the actions of one employee.
No, you'd rather assume the employee is a racist bigot and assume the employee was terminated.

[aegsm76]

New article with new info
link
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/05/11/starbucks-schultz-bathrooms-open/

snippets
Schultz’s comments follow the arrest of two black men at a Starbucks on Rittenhouse Square last month who had asked to use the bathroom without making a purchase but an employee told them it was only for paying customers. When they sat in the store without ordering anything, the manager called police, and the men were arrested for trespassing. No charges were filed.


I must have missed that in the original report.
and now:

Starbucks executive chairman Howard Schultz now says Starbucks stores will open their bathrooms to everyone, regardless if they’ve made a purchase.

Are they insane? Welcome to Starbucks your free public bathroom.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for this bad coffee chain!

[aegsm76]

Another article with Schultz adding in more detail:
link
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/chairman-on-starbucks-incident-we-did-everything-we-could-to-demonstrate-contrition/

snippet
“Our stores are not public bathrooms, but they’re used as such. In this particular case, two African-American gentlemen came in the store – like millions of other people – to sit down and have a meeting and one of them asked to go to the bathroom and we have kind of a loose policy around you should be able to use the bathroom if you buy something and it’s really the judgment of the manager. And in this particular case, she asked the gentleman: Are you a customer? And he said, no. And they go into a conversation and one thing led to another, and she made a terrible decision to call the police,” Schultz recalled.

Still would like to know what happened to the manager.
And would like for someone to interview her.

[n david]

That racist bigot! How dare she ask if he's a paying customer and then tell him they're only for paying customers!

Aquila would likely say she really meant that bathrooms are for white customers only.

Gimme a break. Even by Schultz's comments, the manager did NOTHING wrong, though Schultz says the decision to call police was "terrible." I would argue that he shouldn't make that judgment since he wasn't there.

[Aquila]

You certainly have assumed the worst, all while complaining that I was assuming about the two men.


No, you'd rather assume the employee is a racist bigot and assume the employee was terminated.

What we do know is that the two men were business men, meeting an associate. We know that this associate has regularly met with others at this very same Starbucks without incident. These gentlemen were not being a disruption, and the CEO and others have mentioned that as a coffee shop, they also want to be known as a place to meet up, do business, and relax. They generally only ask people to leave only if they are being a disruption. We also know that other customers were disturbed by the way the employee approached the gentlemen and how the police were called, in addition to how the police chose to handle the incident.

While one can argue that the way it was handled wasn't racially motivated, we need to ask what other significant reason might there have been for such action to be taken? Maybe the employee was just having a bad day and chose to do what is typically not done. But with the way things are right now, racial motivations on both sides are becoming more and more common.

[Aquila]

New article with new info
link
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2018/05/11/starbucks-schultz-bathrooms-open/

snippets
Schultz’s comments follow the arrest of two black men at a Starbucks on Rittenhouse Square last month who had asked to use the bathroom without making a purchase but an employee told them it was only for paying customers. When they sat in the store without ordering anything, the manager called police, and the men were arrested for trespassing. No charges were filed.


I must have missed that in the original report.
and now:

Starbucks executive chairman Howard Schultz now says Starbucks stores will open their bathrooms to everyone, regardless if they’ve made a purchase.

Are they insane? Welcome to Starbucks your free public bathroom.
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end for this bad coffee chain!

I see this move as only logical.

A mother of two walks in with kids desperately needing to use the restroom... most stores will allow them to use the restroom. If a man walks in bursting at the seams, they might turn him away. If a business man who seems to be likely to purchase coffee comes in and asks to use the restroom, they might let him. If some Pentecostal women with hair up come in and the ask a bitter backslider if they can use the restroom, they might be told it is only for paying customers. If a minority walks in, a given employee might allow them to use the restroom or might not.

Definitely leaving use of the restroom up to the discretion of management could lead to allowing one person to pick and choose, risking discrimination.

Now, the company can choose to only allow paying customers to use the restroom. But that isn't fair if one wishes to use the restroom before making a purchase, because they don't want to stand in light and urinate themselves. So, such a policy could turn off would be paying customers who just need to use the restroom first. Or, they can officially declare an open bathroom policy and be done with it.

I think they chose to just allow for open restrooms to be done with the issue.

America is becoming too polarized, too political, too whipped up into a frenzy by the news media. They are keeping all of our heads spinning with some kind of righteous anger or another. I think they are trying to distract us from what's really going on. Who's paying attention to the bills being passed in Congress? Who's paying attention to efforts to gut Social Security and Medicare? These are all corporate news sources, all controlled by the very same couple media corporations. It's all designed to distract us.

I've chosen to turn off the news. None of it can be trusted anyway. And it is clearly designed to whip up emotion about the facts (either for the right or for the left), not to analytically deliver the facts.

America is now a corporatist tabloid nation, ruled by crony capitalism. The corporations have bought the Whitehouse, Congress, and even the SCOTUS. They control all the news given to us. In 10 years, America will be a banana republic ruled entirely by the oligarchy.

Unless... we have a movement to restore the democratic process in this republic and reign in corporate power. But I don't see it happening.

[Aquila]

That racist bigot! How dare she ask if he's a paying customer and then tell him they're only for paying customers!

Aquila would likely say she really meant that bathrooms are for white customers only.

Gimme a break. Even by Schultz's comments, the manager did NOTHING wrong, though Schultz says the decision to call police was "terrible." I would argue that he shouldn't make that judgment since he wasn't there.

Ummm… you weren't there either. lol

Schultz knows the image and atmosphere desired in the coffee shops. He has more authority to speak on it than anyone.

[n david]

Ummm… you weren't there either.
You're right. Neither were you. Yet you've repeatedly called the employee a racist and a bigot.

Schultz knows the image and atmosphere desired in the coffee shops. He has more authority to speak on it than anyone.
Sure, Schultz can speak as to what he desires for image and atmosphere -- but as to the facts in question, he wasn't there and shouldn't be throwing his employee under the bus because her interpretation and application of company policy made him look bad.

[Esaias]

I don't know of any "conservative" people who work for Starbucks. So, these are Aquila's people imploding.

lol

[Aquila]

You're right. Neither were you. Yet you've repeatedly called the employee a racist and a bigot.

So, what other motivation for such an action could there have been? They never threw out anyone else meeting with this guy in this store? The customers were there. They all felt that this was discrimination. You can hear it even mentioned out loud when the police arrived and were threatening arrest. Count them as troops on the ground. If that's how it felt, if that's how it seemed, then the odds are that it was indeed what was transpiring.

Sure, Schultz can speak as to what he desires for image and atmosphere -- but as to the facts in question, he wasn't there and shouldn't be throwing his employee under the bus because her interpretation and application of company policy made him look bad.

Actually, Schultz can do and say whatever he pleases about the employee's actions. And the employee's take on it is inconsequential. Corporations are not democracies.

[n david]

So, what other motivation for such an action could there have been? They never threw out anyone else meeting with this guy in this store? The customers were there. They all felt that this was discrimination. You can hear it even mentioned out loud when the police arrived and were threatening arrest. Count them as troops on the ground. If that's how it felt, if that's how it seemed, then the odds are that it was indeed what was transpiring.
You really don't understand, do you? You, like most of your ilk, hear a black man isn't allowed to use a bathroom and you automatically assume racism!

To you, the employee being a racist and bigot is the only reason. You ignore company policy. You ignore Schultz commenting on the lead up to the call with police -- man wanted to use bathroom, manager asked if he was purchasing anything, he said no. Manager said bathroom use is for paying customers only.

Now, you're also ASSUMING this manager has had a non-paying white person ask to use the bathroom and allowing it, though the person didn't buy anything. That is a massive assumption. You're obviously free to assume, but that's all you've done is assume things.

Actually, Schultz can do and say whatever he pleases about the employee's actions. And the employee's take on it is inconsequential.
Sure, he can. And any employee who isn't a liberal toad should take note and quit before they, too, are tossed under the bus.

It's ridiculous that Schultz admits its a company policy, then blames the manager for following said policy. Again, he tossed her under the bus because her interpretation and application of his policy caused him to look bad.

[Jito463]

While one can argue that the way it was handled wasn't racially motivated, we need to ask what other significant reason might there have been for such action to be taken? Maybe the employee was just having a bad day and chose to do what is typically not done. But with the way things are right now, racial motivations on both sides are becoming more and more common.

So, what other motivation for such an action could there have been? They never threw out anyone else meeting with this guy in this store? The customers were there. They all felt that this was discrimination. You can hear it even mentioned out loud when the police arrived and were threatening arrest. Count them as troops on the ground. If that's how it felt, if that's how it seemed, then the odds are that it was indeed what was transpiring.

Or perhaps those two gentlemen didn't exactly behave like gentleman when they "asked to use the restroom"? You see, there are other possibilities than you simply jumping to the conclusion that the employees and manager were racists.

[Esaias]

So, what other motivation for such an action could there have been? They never threw out anyone else meeting with this guy in this store? The customers were there. They all felt that this was discrimination. You can hear it even mentioned out loud when the police arrived and were threatening arrest. Count them as troops on the ground. If that's how it felt, if that's how it seemed, then the odds are that it was indeed what was transpiring.





I'll take this as a "no, I didn't watch the videos you posted".

[Amanah]

6176

The Cheesecake Factory is investigating an incident at one of its Miami locations after a black customer claims he was verbally attacked by staff over his “Make America Great Again” hat, The Daily Wire reports.

Eugenior Joseph, 22, was reportedly dining with his girlfriend’s family at the Dadeland Mall location of the restaurant on Mother’s Day. His MAGA hat allegedly drew the attention of a female staff member, who gathered her co-workers to confront him, a witness told the site. The witness further claimed about a dozen of those employees circled his table, pointing fingers.

EXCLUSIVE: Cheesecake Factory Employees Attack Black Man For Wearing MAGA Hat https://t.co/m6HvEICTD6
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) May 15, 2018
"So then all the employees started standing there, saying things out loud, like, 'I'm going to knock his head in so hard his hat's going to come off," the source said.


http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/05/15/black-trump-supporter-attacked-at-cheesecake-factory-over-maga-hat-report.html

[n david]

6176

The Cheesecake Factory is investigating an incident at one of its Miami locations after a black customer claims he was verbally attacked by staff over his “Make America Great Again” hat, The Daily Wire reports.

Eugenior Joseph, 22, was reportedly dining with his girlfriend’s family at the Dadeland Mall location of the restaurant on Mother’s Day. His MAGA hat allegedly drew the attention of a female staff member, who gathered her co-workers to confront him, a witness told the site. The witness further claimed about a dozen of those employees circled his table, pointing fingers.

EXCLUSIVE: Cheesecake Factory Employees Attack Black Man For Wearing MAGA Hat https://t.co/m6HvEICTD6
— The Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) May 15, 2018
"So then all the employees started standing there, saying things out loud, like, 'I'm going to knock his head in so hard his hat's going to come off," the source said.

http://www.foxnews.com/food-drink/2018/05/15/black-trump-supporter-attacked-at-cheesecake-factory-over-maga-hat-report.html

I'm sure the Cheesecake Factory will be requiring diversity training over this incident. I'm also certain CNN, MSNBC and the other liberal news orgs will be all over this, demanding accountability.

Riiiiiiight.

This guy obviously isn't really black, or is an Uncle Tom, so it's okay.

[Amanah]

I'm sure the Cheesecake Factory will be requiring diversity training over this incident. I'm also certain CNN, MSNBC and the other liberal news orgs will be all over this, demanding accountability.

Riiiiiiight.

This guy obviously isn't really black, or is an Uncle Tom, so it's okay.

:heeheehee

[1ofthechosen]

I received this email earlier about this very issue:
"This afternoon Starbucks will close more than 8,000 stores and begin a new chapter in our history.

In 1983 I took my first trip to Italy. As I walked the streets of Milan, I saw cafés and espresso bars on every street. When I ventured inside I experienced something powerful: a sense of community and human connection.

I returned home determined to create a similar experience in America—a new ’third place’ between home and work—and build a different kind of company. I wanted our stores to be comfortable, safe spaces where everyone had the opportunity to enjoy a coffee, sit, read, write, host a meeting, date, debate, discuss or just relax.

Today 100 million customers enter Starbucks® stores each week. In an ever–changing society, we still aspire to be a place where everyone feels welcome.

Sometimes, however, we fall short, disappointing ourselves and all of you.

Recently, a Starbucks manager in Philadelphia called the police a few minutes after two black men arrived at a store and sat waiting for a friend. They had not yet purchased anything when the police were called. After police arrived they arrested the two men. The situation was reprehensible and does not represent our company’s mission and enduring values.

After investigating what happened, we determined that insufficient support and training, a company policy that defined customers as paying patrons—versus anyone who enters a store—and bias led to the decision to call the police. Our ceo, Kevin Johnson, met with the two men to express our deepest apologies, reconcile and commit to ongoing actions to reaffirm our guiding principles.

The incident has prompted us to reflect more deeply on all forms of bias, the role of our stores in communities and our responsibility to ensure that nothing like this happens again at Starbucks. The reflection has led to a long–term commitment to reform systemwide policies, while elevating inclusion and equity in all we do.

Today we take another step to ensure we live up to our mission:

FOR SEVERAL HOURS THIS AFTERNOON, STARBUCKS WILL CLOSE STORES AND OFFICES TO DISCUSS HOW TO MAKE STARBUCKS A PLACE WHERE ALL PEOPLE FEEL WELCOME.

What will we be doing? More than 175,000 Starbucks partners (that’s what we call our employees) will be sharing life experiences, hearing from others, listening to experts, reflecting on the realities of bias in our society and talking about how all of us create public spaces where everyone feels like they belong—because they do. This conversation will continue at our company and become part of how we train all of our partners.

Discussing racism and discrimination is not easy, and various people have helped us create a learning experience that we hope will be educational, participatory and make us a better company. We want this to be an open and honest conversation starting with our partners. We will also make the curriculum available to the public.

To our Starbucks partners: I want to thank you for your participation today and for the wonderful work you do every day to make Starbucks a third place for millions of customers.

To our customers: I want to thank you for your patience and support as we renew our promise to make Starbucks what I envisioned it could be nearly 40 years ago—an inclusive gathering place for all.

We’ll see you tomorrow.


With deep respect,
Howard"

[Amanah]

meanwhile, back at the ranch, Roseanne Barr tweets:

"muslim brotherhood & planet of the apes had a baby=vj," Barr said earlier on Tuesday in response to a Twitter thread about Jarrett, a former adviser to Barack Obama.

causing her show to be cancelled . . .

[n david]

ABC didn't waste any time. "Roseanne" has been cancelled!

[n david]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuHmFkbuihc

[n david]

Here's a preview of Starbucks' Racial Bias Training which will take place today.

Towards the end, Starbucks promises to also address issues relating to: "gender identity and expression, sexual identity, class, language, citizenship, political views, religious affiliations and more."

Anyone remember when Starbucks just sold overpriced, bad coffee? Yeah, those were the good old days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp29Npa1BOc