All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others

Bla Bla Bla
weenies
when the government becomes lawless
you become a criminal


30623.jpg
 
2minkey said:
the airlines ain't the ones making the rules, sparky.
Click to expand...

Professur said:
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.



the time to stop oppression is .... always.
Click to expand...

I am familiar with that quote. Although I do not think that applies to me. My idea is that once the airline's bottom line is effected, then they will put pressure on the Federal government to change their procedures.
 
Gonz said:
I think organized boycotts are silly. I'm boycotting several things, but it's between me & the company involved.

As for Homeland inSecurity...cool, boycott the airlines. Whatcha gonna do when Auntie Janet puts scanners at the Metro station? The rails? We need to stop this nonsense.
Click to expand...

Good point, Gonz. They are already planning on doing just that.
 
Gotholic said:
....once the airline's bottom line is effected, then they will put pressure on the Federal government to change their procedures.
Click to expand...
As if that was a problem for this administration.

It most certainly does apply to you, more than you might imagine dear comrade.
 
Gotholic said:
I am familiar with that quote. Although I do not think that applies to me. My idea is that once the airline's bottom line is effected, then they will put pressure on the Federal government to change their procedures.
Click to expand...

You'd better start thinking it applies, Sunshine.
 
Gotholic said:
Based on this fact, I think that is how the term "Indian giver" came to be.
Click to expand...

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006020107250

Indian Giver
There are two popular etymologies for this term for a person who gives a gift only to later demand its return. The first is that it is based on an unfair stereotype of Native Americans, that they don't keep their word. In the other popular explanation, the term doesn't cast aspersions on Native Americans, instead it echoes the broken promises the whites made to the Indians. Neither is accurate, although the first is closer to the truth.

Instead the term comes from different commercial practices. To the Native Americans, who had no concept of money or currency, gifts were a form of trade goods, of exchange. One didn't give a gift without expecting one of equivalent value in return. If one could not offer an equivalent return gift, the original gift would be refused or returned. To the Europeans, who with their monetary-based trade practices, this seemed low and insulting, gifts were not for trade but were to be freely given.

The noun Indian gift dates to 1765. Indian giver follows about a century later in 1865. Originally, these reflected simply the expectation of a return gift. By the 1890s, the sense had shifted to mean one who demands a gift back.
Source(s):
http://www.wordorigins.org/wordori.htm
Click to expand...

There is also your theory detailed HERE.
 
Professur said:
You'd better start thinking it applies, Sunshine.
Click to expand...

Well, I am open to constructive criticism. Please enlighten me how it applies based on what I have said in this thread as it is not clear to me.

I have use that quote with chcr here, which is rather obvious how it pertains to him. In this thread, I do not see it myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top