I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.
The administration had the Solicitor General file a friend of the court brief in support of the Colorado baker who believed he had the right to decide who he would serve. Yet they attack this restaurant for the same reason.
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it is dirty on the inside!"
But the Colorado baker did not assert the right to decide *whom* he would serve. He asserted the right to decide *what* he would serve.The "*what* he would serve" was based on who they were. If a cake is an expression of his art then is a fine meal any different?
As has been discussed here at length, the baker offered to sell the homosexual couple anything already in his shop, but he would not prepare a wedding cake for them. The "progressive" left is quick to claim hypocrisy against anyone who supported the baker and does not support the restaurant, but in fact the baker did not attempt to exercise the right which was actually asserted by the restaurant owner.
Having said that I'll confess that I'm ignorant of the Trump Administration's Friend of the Court brief; perhaps the Solicitor General did argue there that the baker could choose *whom* he would serve, in which case I'll agree that the charge of hypocrisy against the Trump Administration has merit.At lease we agree there.
Jesus. I swear he wants to get sued.
The "*what* he would serve" was based on who they were. If a cake is an expression of his art then is a fine meal any different?
Oh please. The baker refused the serve the gay couple based on who they were. The restaurant did the same.
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.
To defend this position you'll have to provide evidence that the baker refused to sell the homosexual couple anything and asked them to leave his shop.To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.
The reason Trump does this is to put his opponents off balance. While not a fan of this tactic, I must admit that it has been working for quite sometime. When your opponent becomes unhinged because of statements like this, then their entire pre-frontal cortex shuts down, and they are unable to process effectively.
The administration had the Solicitor General file a friend of the court brief in support of the Colorado baker who believed he had the right to decide who he would serve.
When your opponent becomes unhinged because of statements like this, then their entire pre-frontal cortex shuts down, and they are unable to process effectively.
He does drive them to distraction. I gotta say its fun to watch.
@RedHead
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It was never about who he served. It was about what he served.
To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.
The fact is that had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked the cake for them.
You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".
You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".
This instance is a bit different than his other trumpertantrums. In this case, he targeted a specific business with specific statements about health and safety which he likely does not know first hand. Those statements were not made in good faith (ie he didn't make the statement about the cleanliness from first hand experience witnessing this) but to impact this restaurant's business.
Along those lines, about a year ago, a photographer sued bloggers for making false statements about her business on social media. The photographer won one million dollars. I think this restaurant would actually have more of a case because Trump wasn't even a customer who visited their facility.
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/08/01/couple-allegedly-destroys-wedding-photogs-reputation-business-125-dispute-judge-makes-regret-520605 (https://www.bizpacreview.com/2017/08/01/couple-allegedly-destroys-wedding-photogs-reputation-business-125-dispute-judge-makes-regret-520605)
What part of "The baker refused to create a same-sex wedding cake for a heterosexual customer" do you not get?
And what part of "The baker offered to bake any other product he makes to the homosexual customer" eludes you?
Stop lying, already. It is clear that we have read the case. And it is equally clear that you have not.
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.
[...]
But the larger issue here concerns restaurant economics. If you’re a national politician, net positives matter a lot. It’s hard to win national office if large numbers of people loathe you. The restaurant business is quite different. You don’t need to win plurality national support to profitably operate a small entity in Lexington, Virginia. You only need an extremely tiny percentage of the public to support you. Whether the remainder of the public is indifferent or hostile to the prospect of ordering a $25 Shenandoah Lamb Co. braised leg of lamb with harissa-spiced Wades Mill Polenta and a side of Fennel & Dill Salad matters not at all.
The name of the game in the restaurant business is getting on the map. If Trump’s social media abuse was wildly successful, and it created 100 new Red Hen haters for every one new Red Hen fan, it would still be a big win for the Red Hen, which at this point probably now has a waiting list for reservations longer than Trump’s term in office.
To say that there was no similarity between the two you would have to provide evidence that the restaurant would have refused to serve Sanders had she not been a member of the Trump administration.
The baker can justify his position any way he wants. The fact is that had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked the cake for them. He denied them service based on who they were as much as what they wanted. The restaurant did the same.
You can't divorce the "what" from the "who".
Sure it does. It helps the restaurant get more business with its target clientele.
He offered to sell them other products already in the store.
There was a case several years back where a Radford, VA bakery refused to bake cookies for a Democrat event featuring Vice President Joe Biden. It proved to be a huge windfall for the baker because Conservatives are willing to back their convictions with their dollars. On the other hand, liberals do not share this characteristic. They are only willing to back their convictions with other people's money. It's what makes them liberals.
So no, I don't foresee any economic boom for this restaurant. Just as with AirAmerica, liberals had their golden opportunity to fund liberal talk radio. Yet they failed. Sure, they were willing to use taxpayer money (i.e. other people's money) to fund it. But when it came to their own money, they let it go bankrupt instead.
@RedHead
That is asinine.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. First of all, the sexual preference of the customer was never brought into issue, nor was the sexual preference of a heterosexual woman who made the same request. The FACT of the matter is that the baker refused to make a cake that he does not make, regardless of the sexual preference of the customer.How do you refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding without involving the sexual orientation of the bridal couple?
I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read the Colorado decision for yourself and learn the facts instead of repeating the same false liberal talking points that have been debunked again and again and again on these boards.
Actually, he took it a step further by offering to bake something for them. Not just what was on the shelf, but something to be made from scratch - birthday cake, cupcakes, cookies, etc. He simply did not make the cake they requested.
I don't think the Radford bakery is there anymore. The owner's dad had a stroke a while back and I don't know if it was related to that.
Why?
How do you refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding without involving the sexual orientation of the bridal couple?
I've read it.
Well I doubt he needs to worry about that. People go where they're wanted and avoid where they are not.
I understand your argument to be that the restaurant denied service not because of who Sarah Sanders is, but because of something she chooses to do. That's a good distinction and a very fair point.
However the baker took a far less assertive position with the homosexual couple; he never asked them to leave and offered to sell them anything else he had available. He simply would not support one particular thing they chose to do, which was to hold a wedding ceremony. Short of supporting that one particular thing they chose to do he was happy to engage in business with them. That's very different from the position taken by the restaurant owner.
Had the restaurant owner refused to cater a pro-Trump banquet but agreed to serve Sarah Sanders a routine meal, or had the baker refused to do any business with the homosexual couple and asked them to leave, the cases would be the same. However neither of those things happened.
I see all the NTers are having another hissy fit over Trump telling it like it is. Keep up the good work
Mr President.
FYI Conservatives are not a protected group so no one is saying the dirty eatery did not have the
right to deny service to Mrs Sanders.
"telling it like it is"
So then you know for a fact the restaurant is dirty and unclean? Or did he just make a rabid, reactionary post with no factual evidence behind it in order to fire people up?
This is beyond saying they were wrong. He was actually commenting on the health and safety of a business that I assume, he hasn't visited. IE, unless he has some demonstrable evidence, he was lying and setting himself up for legal liability.
This isn't 'telling it like it is', this is like an internet troll spamming restaurant reviews saying their are roaches in the food.
I can't believe our news media is focusing on this stuff. The BBC must be laughing their butts off at us.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the distinction. In both cases the business owner chose to discriminate and used their moral beliefs to support their decision.
Not really. Had Sarah Sanders not been Trump's Press Secretary then the restaurant would have served her without issue. Had the couple in question not been homosexual then he would have baked them a cake.
I don't agree that's relevant. In the first place, I've seen nothing to indicate the restaurant caters so we don't have any indication that they would provide a service to one party while denying it to another. We do have that with the baker. The continued claim that the baker would have served them anything else is also irrelevant. Had the baker, for example, said that they would not bake a cake for a mixed race couple wishing to marry but would be open to selling them a cookie then would that be alright?
DONALD TRUMP SLAMS RED HEN, BUT MAR-A-LAGO RESTAURANT HAS 'DIRTY' HISTORY OF HEALTH VIOLATIONS
But if cleanliness is one of Trump’s rules, it’s one he has a history of breaking. In November, Trump’s exclusive Mar-a-Lago resort and club was hit with 15 health code violations that stemmed from its two main kitchens. Among the violations were milk stored at 49 degrees and hot dogs placed on the ground of a walk-in freezer.
In January 2017, the same kitchens were found to have sushi that wasn’t treated for parasites and various foods stored in broken down freezers. The report found four basic violations, three intermediate violations and three high priority violations
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-red-hen-mar-lago-health-993790 (http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-red-hen-mar-lago-health-993790)
I support the President in most things. However this was just stupid. It does nothing to help anything at all.
This is the problem with Trump.... rather than attempting to diffuse a situation.... or rather than (gasp!) just not saying/tweeting anything about it (can't have that!).... Trump does his employees and supporters a disservice by "weighing in" on stupid crap like this.
BTW, the last health report they had showed no violations.
http://healthspace.com/Clients/VDH/VDH/web.nsf/module_healthRegions.xsp (http://healthspace.com/Clients/VDH/VDH/web.nsf/module_healthRegions.xsp)
When you are winning on something....STFU!
Because there is no rational connection between the two.
If you had read the court papers, you would know that this was about a same-sex wedding - not a gay wedding.
Really? Yet here you are offering a false account of that record - the same record you now claim to have read - with the expressed intent of deceiving others. There's a word for people who do that.
Unlike Mar-a-Lago.
The cases are the same in that each business owner asserted the right to operate in accord with his own conscience.
The cases are different in that the restaurant owner refused to do any business with Sarah Sanders, while the baker selectively refused to perform a particular service and welcomed the would-be homosexual customers for any other business they might wish.
There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory in arguing that a conscience-based selective refusal to perform a specific service is different from a conscience-based blanket refusal to do any business. In fact the former policy respects the would-be customer much more than the latter. I don't know how to be any more clear than that.
OMG Trump fights back. Guess yall are used to just taking delux s**t from the anti-American
Marxists like G. W. Bush (spit) did. Well I'm happy Trump fights back. And I like the facts that when
he does all you Trump haters head's explode. Way to go Trump!
OMG Trump fights back. Guess yall are used to just taking delux s**t from the anti-American
Marxists like G. W. Bush (spit) did. Well I'm happy Trump fights back. And I like the facts that when
he does all you Trump haters head's explode. Way to go Trump!
You don't get it.... obviously. When you hold the highest office in the land, you should have the maturity to know that you pick and choose your battles. You don't opinionize on every....single... sliver of minutia that happens on a daily basis.
Is it ok with the devout Trump supporters that Trump does this? Sure. Is it wise or mature for him to do it? Hell no. Not in ANY book of logic.
OMG Trump fights back. Guess yall are used to just taking delux s**t from the anti-American
Marxists like G. W. Bush (spit) did. Well I'm happy Trump fights back. And I like the facts that when
he does all you Trump haters head's explode. Way to go Trump!
And let's not forget the principle of the matter-
The US Federal Government Executive branch is targeting a private business over political beliefs.
Yes, we all disagree with the politics of the restaurant, but this is a huge over-step of the federal government authority. When Obama did it, we screamed. We should oppose this over-reach by the federal government no matter what letter is behind either player's name.
And let's not forget the principle of the matter-
The US Federal Government Executive branch is targeting a private business over political beliefs.
Yes, we all disagree with the politics of the restaurant, but this is a huge over-step of the federal government authority. When Obama did it, we screamed. We should oppose this over-reach by the federal government no matter what letter is behind either player's name.
Whine Whine Whine. Take the high road they said. We don't act like that they said. We are better than that. Well, Bullshit on that high road crap. Every time we tried to take the high road those g-damn rats would dig a tunnel under us and we sank like a Florida car dealership in a sinkhole.
You guys can have the high road. I'm staying with my friend in low places.
Whine Whine Whine. Take the high road they said. We don't act like that they said. We are better than that. Well, Bullshit on that high road crap. Every time we tried to take the high road those g-damn rats would dig a tunnel under us and we sank like a Florida car dealership in a sinkhole.
You guys can have the high road. I'm staying with my friend in low places.
Then you agree that private businesses can and should be compelled by the gov't to serve everyone who demands it?
You don't get it.... obviously. When you hold the highest office in the land, you should have the maturity to know that you pick and choose your battles. You don't opinionize on every....single... sliver of minutia that happens on a daily basis.
Is it ok with the devout Trump supporters that Trump does this? Sure. Is it wise or mature for him to do it? Hell no. Not in ANY book of logic.
No. They think that Private businesses that represent the ideology a people hate, are to use government, the courts or the President to punish them very publicly.
Using the Government as a weapon is now justified for use by both the Marxist/Homo Left and the vengeful ForeverTrump®s
We will have tyranny now, regardless whichever entity controls congress or the Presidency.
Trump needs to stop playing when he's won the hand. He'd already won this one.
Whine Whine Whine. Take the high road they said. We don't act like that they said. We are better than that. Well, Bullshit on that high road crap. Every time we tried to take the high road those g-damn rats would dig a tunnel under us and we sank like a Florida car dealership in a sinkhole.
You guys can have the high road. I'm staying with my friend in low places.
Trump needs to stop playing when he's won the hand. He'd already won this one.
I play till the whistle blows or my opponent gives up. Even then I would give them a knee to the groin.
But what Trump did is the equivalent of a fan running onto the field because of a bad call.
No. They think that Private businesses that represent the ideology a people hate, are to use government, the courts or the President to punish them very publicly.
Using the Government as a weapon is now justified for use by both the Marxist/Homo Left and the vengeful ForeverTrump®s
We will have tyranny now, regardless whichever entity controls congress or the Presidency.
But what Trump did is the equivalent of a fan running onto the field because of a bad call.
That right there, in bold, is exactly what most oppose.
Many Conservatives went from disliking the restaurant and joining boycotts (and even mob comments) to suddenly saying 'hold on now, the government shouldn't do that'.
If this came down to any sort of regular practice of the government going after private businesses for political differences- no matter the politics of either player, I and many others would stand against the government, even if it means standing beside someone who we oppose politically. A much, much bigger issue is at stake here which is the use of the federal government as a political weapon against private businesses/citizens.
We opposed it when Obama did it, we should oppose it when Trump does it.
It's the same thing as Trump going after Amazon. It's becoming a pattern. It's all fine now because it's only against liberals. So far...
No it was like Woody Hayes run on the field to tackle a player.
These are the type of leaders I want to play for.
No it was like Woody Hayes run on the field to tackle a player.
These are the type of leaders I want to play for.
No it was like Woody Hayes run on the field to tackle a player.
These are the type of leaders I want to play for.
Woody got sacked.
The problem is so many are caught up in the 'us versus them' game, hey sidestep the issue of the government doing this in the first place. Some just want the government to beat political opponents into submission.
Most of us (I hope) don't want a government that powerful at all.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have.
What you let them get away with now, will be used against you in the future. That's how it always goes.
(Ohio lost to Clemons 15-17)
Woody got sacked.
No it was like Woody Hayes run on the field to tackle a player.
These are the type of leaders I want to play for.
Clarence?
No it was like Woody Hayes run on the field to tackle a player.
These are the type of leaders I want to play for.
Clarence?
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/jHEA2VxzNXGtNYlO3uGmDg--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz02MDA-/http://static.spin.com/files/130307-clarence-clemons.jpg.cf.jpg)
LOL, I'm getting bad about typos lately.
You want to play for an undisciplined leader with anger management issues who'd already been warned about physical violence on the sideline?
We opposed it when Obama did it, we should oppose it when Trump does it.
Sadly when both the Communists/Marxists and the Trump Populists are inciting payback and mayhem - neither has any justifiable cause to support. We simply go the route France went in the very late 1700s.
Wait till Trump's response to Maxine Waters.
At least she is a public, government figure, and not a private business.
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/8vzbj0Tyh8z9g_7BUwz6Vw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD00MDA7dz03NjI-/https://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/trump_forever_thumb.jpg.cf.jpg)
So? He's above the law, so that's irrelevant.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/250x250/59121918/the-law-i-am-the-law.jpg)
Confused Pro-Trump protestors go after the wrong Red Hen restaurant
As soon as the story broke that a Virginia restaurant refused service to White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, you knew the blowback was coming.
But some of the Trump administration supporters fighting back with nastiness are getting a bit confused, mistaking other restaurants for the one Sanders attempted to dine at on Friday....
https://www.yahoo.com/news/confused-pro-trump-protestors-wrong-154337250.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/confused-pro-trump-protestors-wrong-154337250.html)
Stephanie Wilkinson, co-owner of The Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, Va., told The Washington Post on Saturday that Sanders's support of President Trump's desire to ban transgender people from the military, in particular, was antithetical to her beliefs.
The restaurant employs several LGBT employees, Wilkinson said, some of whom voiced concerns over serving Sanders because of her previous comments defending Trump's proposed ban.
<snip>
Wilkinson told the Post Sanders worked in an administration that is "inhumane and unethical."
She added that the Trump administration's policy of separating migrant families who are apprehended illegally entering the U.S. also contributed to her staff's concerns.
That practice, part of Trump's "zero tolerance" policy, was halted by the president after ongoing backlash prompted him to reverse his administration's position and sign an executive order to keep migrant families together.
“Tell me what you want me to do. I can ask her to leave,†Wilkinson said she told her staff. “They said yes.â€
Some more background on why Sarah got the boot.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/393810-restaurant-owner-i-threw-out-sarah-sanders-over-her-defense-of (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/393810-restaurant-owner-i-threw-out-sarah-sanders-over-her-defense-of)
That was thin. Thin as piss on a flat rock in Lubbock during August.
Conservatives SHOULD - but ForeverTrump® won't because.... they like that "HE FIGHTS!"
Never mind the fact that we are going frightfully fast from a cold war with Leftists and Statists in the GOP to an open hot war being stoked by everyone.
Bloodbaths are not pretty. But that it seems is where this train is wanting to go.
Sadly when both the Communists/Marxists and the Trump Populists are inciting payback and mayhem - neither has any justifiable cause to support. We simply go the route France went in the very late 1700s.
So she asked her gay employees what to do, and she obeyed them, exercising not a whit of executive authority. Probably thought running her kitchen like a democracy is a good idea. Still does. I wonder if she runs her yarn company the same way?
Sadly when both the Communists/Marxists and the Trump Populists are inciting payback and mayhem - neither has any justifiable cause to support. We simply go the route France went in the very late 1700s.
She's a leftie. She never thinks. She emotes.
Is that when they lose their feathers?
LOL! And the difference is?
No, I just don't have your imaginative interpretation.
No, you're thinking molts. But it probably results in the same type of shedding (brain cells).
One refers to gender while the other refers to one's sexual preference. The two are not the same. There are homosexuals who marry persons of the opposite gender, and there are heterosexual persons who marry persons of the same gender.
Here it is for the fifth time:
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece, a bakery
in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that Phillips design and
create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips
declined, telling them that he does not create wedding cakes for
same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, but advising
Craig and Mullins that he would be happy to make and sell them
any other baked goods. Craig and Mullins promptly left
Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their
wedding cake. The following day, Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn,
called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make
wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious
beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf (https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Court_of_Appeals/Opinion/2015/14CA1351-PD.pdf)
So which one is the gay wedding and which is the same-sex wedding?
Still not seeing it.
So which one is the gay wedding and which is the same-sex wedding?
Still not seeing it.
So which one is the gay wedding and which is the same-sex wedding?
Still not seeing it.
A same-sex wedding is where two people of the same gender marry each other. I personally know two males who did exactly that. Neither is homosexual. Both like women and continue to date women. But they agreed to get married (in California) so that one could enroll in the other one's insurance plan. Such a marriage was deemed not to be recognized by the State of California per its own Constitution. But some black-robed tyrant decided otherwise.
As for 'gay wedding', I am not sure what you mean by that. To me, the word 'gay' means annoyingly immature. But seeing how sexual preference is exactly that, a preference, then it is entirely plausible for one to consider him/herself of having one sexual preference at one moment, and an entirely different sexual preference at another.
Clearly intentional.
I see the Trump critics here have made up their minds without knowing all the facts.
Sanders didn’t ‘go after a private company’ at all. That’s nonsense. In fact she said nothing about the incident until a waiter at the restaurant tweeted about it. That’s when and where she responded, not in an official capacity, but as a private citizen.
Sanders didn’t ‘go after a private company’ at all. That’s nonsense. In fact she said nothing about the incident until a waiter at the restaurant tweeted about it. That’s when and where she responded, not in an official capacity, but as a private citizen.
Did she use her private Twitter account or her WH Twitter account? Anyway, I see more of a problem with Trump getting involved in any way than Sarah commenting on what happened to her.
Why. What difference does it make. Leave the Trump thing out of the conversation.
No.
Why. What difference does it make. Leave the Trump thing out of the conversation.
Why. What difference does it make. Leave the Trump thing out of the conversation.
No what?
Come on, man. He inserted himself with the 'dirty windows' and 'paint job' nonsense.
So, you can't separate one thing from another? I thought you were better than that shit.
Sure I can. Up until the point he tweeted about it, I didn't bring him up. However, now that he's chimed in as POTUS, whose words do you think has more weight in the public arena?
Come on, man. He inserted himself with the 'dirty windows' and 'paint job' nonsense.
No what?
This thread has been dancing all over the place on the subject. So, you dig in on your points, and I will dig in mine. Who's words do you think will have more weight in the public arena?
This thread has been dancing all over the place on the subject. So, you dig in on your points, and I will dig in mine. Who's words do you think will have more weight in the public arena?
Yours, obviously. I can't compete with someone who has this tattoo....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/U.di1LvB8lkRS5CgmKA7Hw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yNjk7dz01MDA-/http://www.tattoodesigns24.com/tattoopics/location_language/latino/latino_tattoo_20.jpg.cf.jpg)
Oh sure.... it's great now. But wait a few/ten years!
No one cares what us ticks have to say.
Wait until they start telling you stories....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/VQ44wC6dUktf7.tjjjkqfQ--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD03MDA7dz00MDA-/http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FDLTwXWRLRI/T331rx3If2I/AAAAAAAABFI/Y6V1veUHoxU/s1600/illustrated_man.jpg.cf.jpg)
Yours, obviously. I can't compete with someone who has this tattoo....
(https://s.yimg.com/lo/api/res/1.2/U.di1LvB8lkRS5CgmKA7Hw--~B/YXBwaWQ9eWlzZWFyY2g7Zmk9Zml0O2dlPTAwNjYwMDtncz0wMEEzMDA7aD0yNjk7dz01MDA-/http://www.tattoodesigns24.com/tattoopics/location_language/latino/latino_tattoo_20.jpg.cf.jpg)
Why. What difference does it make. Leave the Trump thing out of the conversation.
Come on, man. He inserted himself with the 'dirty windows' and 'paint job' nonsense.
Jay North has your tat? I am impressed! :laugh:
That's a joke son. Jay North was Dennis The Menace.
For some people....impossible.
For some people....impossible.
Maybe if we just talked about the fact that this restaurant has dirty windows, canopies and needs a paint job the Trumpers wouldn't get so pizzy.
They can save on the cost of repainting by calling it The Magenta Hen.
Maybe Mad Maxine can get a job renovating it after they kick her out of office...? (dreaming again)