What are you talking about? John Mackey, WF founder and co-CEO, is a libertarian who said the ACA is fascism and global warming could be GOOD for the planet. Among such other liberal ideas, of course.
Asswhole Foods. Feh!
He probably ran out of paper towels.
You missed Bricker’s thread on organic food. It turns out that eating organic food isn’t so liberal anymore.
Those Whole Foods jokes have lost their zing. Guys like you are messing up the stats. 
Dang! What’s happening to us anyway? Next thing you know we’ll all be sitting on the Group W bench! :smack:
The refutation was in my immediately preceding post. You were wrong about women and banks – banks did routinely turn women away for services without their husband’s permission, even if there were exceptions, like your relatives.
Can you accept that you’re wrong about this? If so, is it possible you’re wrong about some other things regarding women and minorities’ challenges in that time period?
No, I wasn’t wrong because it wasn’t true that women couldn’t get their own checking accounts. It is true that in order to do so they generally had to have their own source of income, as my female relatives had. Banks often withheld checking accounts from women if the checks they would be drawing were against the earnings of their husbands, who were forced to be the sole breadwinners for their families at that time (see, we men can play the victim card too if we choose, just like our liberal brethren).
This practice long preceded the 50s and 60s and was likely intended to keep housewives from looting the family bank account and running off with the mail man. But as long as women had their own source of income they generally had no problem in opening their own checking and savings accounts. They could also purchase and own property and own or build businesses and do most of the other things that men did which liberal history revisionists would dishonestly have people believe they weren’t allowed to do.
And certainly it’s ‘possible’ I could be wrong about almost anything I say. The likelihood however, is that I’m not.
I’m not in much of a position to judge, although I would be inclined to say “No.” CinnamonBabka’s first post as a Doper appears to have been on topic and germane to the thread it appeared in (an IMHO poll about the use of the Knee Defender). However, mhendo didn’t post to that thread, so it doesn’t fit the description of the post in question.
The charge of “stupid and irrelevant” was not directed at the entirety of any post at all, contrary to how CinnamonBabka’s post would seem to suggest, but at a single phrase in a post in the Bill Cosby rape accusation thread (with which I would hesitate to call myself familiar). That post was also not CinnamonBabka’s first post to that thread (unless I am mistaken), but be that as it may, a cursory reading of the exchange suggests that mhendo’s criticism was not misplaced, and WAS defensible.
Just double-checked. I’m NOT mistaken.
She made a simple and insignificant error most likely based on reading the post she was answering in too hurriedly a fashion. It was of no more importance than the error she made in calling it her first post here when in reality it was perhaps her second or third. She was new and that post probably sticks out in her mind because of how mhendo insulted her.
Most of us here make simple errors from time to time, and most of us understand how they happen and we let them slide. Not so mhendo. Anytime he sees the slightest excuse to be an asshole to somebody, even if they aren’t talking to him and even if he hasn’t posted to the thread previously, you can damn well bet he’ll take full advantage of it. And if they’re newbies feeling their way around and likely to be intimidated and chased away, so much the better. (CinnamonBabka, to her credit, hasn’t allowed herself to be intimidated and has stuck around.)
Or in other words, the Cliff’s Notes version is that CinnamonBabka made a minor, insignificant mistake and mhendo swooped in to play the asshole card for no reason other than because he could.
Yes it was – many women were turned away from banks for services. Not all women, but many.
If you disagree, please cite that the law mandated that women be allowed to get certain services like checking accounts, which is contrary to my cite.
Cite, please.
Without a cite, how do you know you’re right? Do you really trust your memory over cites about legal history?
Isn’t it a little early in the day for stupid questions? Of COURSE he trusts his own memory over established sources. That’s been his “thing” ever since he first registered.
I feel that you brought up this whole “my female relatives had bank accounts, so it’s all good” diversion to run away from your assertion that it was better in the 50s because women coped with sexual assault.
Since you have the time now, can you follow up on the post I quoted above? Do you feel that you were in fact wrong to say that it was better in the 50s because women coped with sexual assault?
Missed the edit window, so please substitute “silly” for “stupid” in my previous post.
Guys! Guys! A white man is telling me how I actually feel. You know, what I think I feel is just misguided and of course I need the Man to actually tell me what I am feeling. And maybe provide a little correction if I don’t get it the first time.
Hey dude! The British were in India for 400 years. They thought we were one step up from the blacks - like, the blacks were scary savages, and the Indians were naive, dumb little children.
I think I’ve had enough of white men telling me how I actually, truly, feel.
It’s our only hope by this juncture it seems-feed it until it explodes.
[Hack joke] Oh, you don’t really think that, I’m sure. [/hack joke]
If you’d just stop fighting it, everything would go easier.
First post, fifth post, whichever. Nevertheless, if the general consensus is that it is stupid and irrelevant to say
in a thread about Bill Cosby, directly replying to someone posting an 8-year-old interview where one of Cosby’s victims alluded to him being a horrible person, then I completely missed the point of that thread.
You “feel” a lot of shit that just ain’t so.
But to answer your question:
No, because I didn’t say things were better in the 50s because women coped with sexual assault. I said that “people” (get it? Men & women, boys & girls?) knew how to cope with things in general, which would include women knowing how to deal with guys like the one in the (Doris Day, no less) movie that had you in such a tizzy. If you think what he did was sexual assault, all that shows is how ridiculously and trivially you’ve come to think of sexual assault.
Nope, sorry. I’ve got a jillion things to do this afternoon but felt it necessary to pop in to contest this idiotic bullshit.
See above.