seattle.politics

Paul Mitchum wrote:

> Bill Shatzer wrote:

>>Paul Mitchum wrote:

>>>By talking about mayhem?

>>That seems a fair enough description of the folks generally trashing
>>Starbucks establishments.

> What folks are generally trashing Starbucks establishments, Bill? Cuz
> there's only really the one example, and I'm curious why you're
> referring to 'establishments' in the plural.

The photos rather clearly show two different Starbucks establishments.

In case you didn't look, here are the urls again.

/dec99/columnists/images/
/images/

Iffen you wish more photos, you'll have to find them yourself. Further
effort on my part to satisfy your prurient interest hardly seems worthwhile.

> Look, we all know niggers are rapists, and we all know that spicks are
> lazy, and we all know that faggots are pedophiles,

-You- may know that but "we" certainly do not. Nor do I use those terms.

It's rather unfortunate that you choose to.

> and we all know that
> Arabs are terrorists, and we all know that Republicans are Nazis, and we
> all know that liberals drive Volvos,

Again, "we" know no such thing. And you've not earned the right to
utilize the imperial 'we'.

> and we all know that protestors
> smash Starbucks.

Well, now there is something "we" do know. It is objectively provable
that Starbucks were smashed (trashed, vandalized, whatever term you
prefer) by "protesters" - though I used the term "anarchists" which
seems the more appropriate term unless you find "vandals" or "rioters"
more suitable.

> But what *in reality* are you talking about?

Starbucks are sufficiently ubiquitous that there's almost always at
least one or two around to provide targets of opportunity where ever and
whenever a riot (civil disorder, violent protest, whatever) breaks out.

Iffen there's general mayhem going on, it's almost inevitable that a
Starbucks or three is going to be caught up in it.

That was the only point.

Peace and justice,