Is it time to switch from Starbucks to Peet's? - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Is it time to switch from Starbucks to Peet's?

Yes++ I already drink Peet's. Starbucks is for sissies.
No votes
0%
Yes. WTF are they thinking?
4
19%
No. I prefer an establishment that lectures me on racism and caters to loiterers over paying customers.
7
33%
Other.
10
48%
#14908006
Zamuel wrote:This is hilarious ... :lol: No one is willing to? ... but everyone does ... :lol: :lol: :lol: (except maybe Donald Trump.)


As I understand the Community Rights program, it's essentially aimed at preventing corporate malfeasance and government collaboration to circumvent environmental considerations ... (like the Flint Michigan water situation). I suppose there may be some "fringies" trying to exploit it's legitimate concerns into some kind of neocon manifesto ... like you are ? They meet at Starbucks I think.

Zam


Hmmm, you say everyone lives by the original intent of the constitution? I can’t think of any reply to such a strange view.
I can’t believe you are this naive and am sure you are just pretending ignorance, but I will play along a little.
Our country was based upon separation of authority by levels of government. For example, schools were always considered the sole province of local government. The state and federal levels found loopholes to take this historical ‘community right’ away from them. Our country’s entire history is filled with an ongoing battle between the levels of government for control. Liberalism, with emphasis on individual rights, has been used to allow the federal government to usurp control our constitution never intended them to have. Your fight for individual rights destroys local powers they were intended to have. You are playing into the hands of those who prefer complete centralized control. You may think it is great now, but your children or grandchildren will not.
#14908008
Other


1) Coffee is for the effete middle class anyway. Real men drink tea.
2) When you are out and about you should always get your tea at Greggs with a bacon or sausage sandwich as part of its £2 deal.
3) What sort of sodomite goes to a coffee shop and pays £3 or more just for a hot drink? :?:
#14908020
One Degree wrote:Hmmm, you say everyone lives by the original intent of the constitution? I can’t think of any reply to such a strange view.

Which reflects only on your own limitations.

Our country was based upon separation of authority by levels of government.

That's an aspect of it, certainly not it's basis.

For example, schools were always considered the sole province of local government. The state and federal levels found loopholes to take this historical ‘community right’ away from them.

So ... desegregation and civil rights are "loopholes." Shall I get that Klan handbook out again?

The "Basis" for the constitution is "the will of the people." Not "the will of you." It's flexability was engineered to assure that "The people' could always express their will as a majority. (hint - you ain't a majority.) You don't have to agree, the constitution guarantees that, you don't even have to respect it ... that's guaranteed too ... but you do have to abide by it, or face the consequences.

Zam
#14908025
Zamuel wrote:Which reflects only on your own limitations.


That's an aspect of it, certainly not it's basis.


So ... desegregation and civil rights are "loopholes." Shall I get that Klan handbook out again?

The "Basis" for the constitution is "the will of the people." Not "the will of you." It's flexability was engineered to assure that "The people' could always express their will as a majority. (hint - you ain't a majority.) You don't have to agree, the constitution guarantees that, you don't even have to respect it ... that's guaranteed too ... but you do have to abide by it, or face the consequences.

Zam


No, it is not merely an aspect. You do realize our country started as a confederation? Mentioning my limitations and then following with this did not help your argument.
Everyone should know what “the will of the people” actually meant. Your illusions about the real basis of our country is not an argument. Do you honestly believe the elite of the colonies of a monarchy gave a shit about peasants? They were just like all aristocrats and modern liberals. “We should do something about helping those dirty peasants” They gave us the House and they kept the executive through the electoral college, the judiciary through appointment, and the Senate through appointment. Now, can we please get off this nonsense about the constitution being proof of your argument.
Yes, civil rights and the civil war were both part of the battle between states and federal government for control, as was virtually every other major decision. I am tired of teaching history now.
#14908032
One Degree wrote:No, it is not merely an aspect. You do realize our country started as a confederation?

I'm not sure where you get this notion ... I'm guessing you refer to the Continental Congress, which was in fact a rebellious alliance, legitimate only unto itself, and nothing more. With victory achieved it quickly moved to define itself as a legitimate federation under constitutional democracy. It then took up consideration of domestic relations that had been previously ignored.

Do you honestly believe the elite of the colonies of a monarchy gave a shit about peasants?

hmmm... something, something, "all hang together." Samuel Adams ran a bar, Hancock was a smuggler I think ... Revere was a silver smith, a craftsman. The Elite were (mostly) Torys, loyal to the King.

I am tired of teaching history now.

Exercising your imagination that much must really be strenuous ... It's been a merry chase, good exercise for the hounds ... but if needs must, go indeed to ground.

Zam
#14908034
Zamuel wrote:I'm not sure where you get this notion ... I'm guessing you refer to the Continental Congress, which was in fact a rebellious alliance, legitimate only unto itself, and nothing more. With victory achieved it quickly moved to define itself as a legitimate federation under constitutional democracy. It then took up consideration of domestic relations that had been previously ignored.


hmmm... something, something, "all hang together." Samuel Adams ran a bar, Hancock was a smuggler I think ... Revere was a silver smith, a craftsman. The Elite were (mostly) Torys, loyal to the King.


Exercising your imagination that much must really be strenuous ... It's been a merry chase, good exercise for the hounds ... but if needs must, go indeed to ground.

Zam


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article ... federation
Read this since you seem to be confused on this issue also.
Any serious student of American history should be aware of the truth of everything I said. If you want to believe that is my imagination, then enjoy your ignorance.
I am tired and grouchy from this stupid virus, so I don’t feel like explaining more basic history. I can see how this truth may be eliminated from current history texts since the federal government has basically won, so perhaps you are not totally at blame for being unaware of the basics of our country.
Trump is probably the last chance to stop the total elimination of state and local rights.
Your individual rights will go after that.
#14908044
Zamuel wrote:I'm guessing you refer to the Continental Congress, which was in fact a rebellious alliance, legitimate only unto itself, and nothing more.

One Degree wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation. Read this since you seem to be confused on this issue also.

So you are referring to the continental congress and some attempt they made to legitimize themselves as something other than traitors to the crown with prices on their heads. The only thing ever accomplished was to assemble the "Constitutional Convention that forged the Constitution and instated a federal government (making Washington the President).

Zam
#14908051
Zamuel wrote:So you are referring to the continental congress and some attempt they made to legitimize themselves as something other than traitors to the crown with prices on their heads. The only thing ever accomplished was to assemble the "Constitutional Convention that forged the Constitution and instated a federal government (making Washington the President).

Zam

I fail to see what point you are trying to make. You seem to believe you can just imagine the Confederation was illegal? They lasted until 1787. The Revolutionary War ended 4 years earlier.
We started as a confederation and it has been a never ending battle over division of power ever since. The federal government gained tremendous leverage with the federal income tax. Look up how recent that was and you will get an idea how really new your view is in the US. People blinded by current reality make all kinds of ridiculous assumptions about our country and it’s history.
#14908080
One Degree wrote:I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

"there are non so blind as those who will not see." Who said that?

People blinded by current reality make all kinds of ridiculous assumptions about our country and it’s history.

I hope being a shining example gives you joy!

Zam ;)
#14910413
I think that RT America covered this incident well . <
( 8:33 - 10:45 ) ,
,
> In my experience , I have been able to use restrooms in fast food restaurants , and even meet up with people , without being required to first purchase anything . I think that conventionally such restrooms are treated as a public convenience rather than simply a customer service .
#14910415
> In my experience , I have been able to use restrooms in fast food restaurants , and even meet up with people , without being required to first purchase anything . I think that conventionally such restrooms are treated as a public convenience rather than simply a customer service .


In the US, this usually depends upon the neighborhood you are in. It is still common for many businesses to post signs saying “no public restrooms” despite many outcries against it.
#14910466
Rancid wrote:I would argue the guys fucked up too. It's generally understood, if you're going to hang at a coffee shop, you should buy something. Even if it's the cheapest thing on the menu, fucking buy something, purely because you're using their space, which is intended for actual customers. Doesn't matter if it's a quick 5 minute meeting, you should buy something. I always do, I thought that was the common sense thing to?? :?:


They were waiting on a third person, apparently.

Anyway I've been to Starbucks and just chilled there without buying anything with no issue. That's the vibe I thought Starbuck's was going for: go to the store and study, meet a client, use their internet, etc. It's a lot easier for them to sell you shit if you're physically in the store. I prefer to make my own coldbrew so it's rare that I go to one, but they all seem like places that you're basically encouraged to hang out at and the rest of the large coffee places seem to follow that model.

Like when I was between jobs 7 to 8 years ago I'd sometimes go and just get water and send out resumes because I was bored of the library. Nobody ever asked me to leave. In fact it didn't seem like the employees even noticed.

Regular Pike's Place roast tastes like ass though. Their cold coffee is fine and seems to be made from the same beans but I don't know how they got to be a $22 billion company selling coffee that has that skunky Heineken aftertaste.
#14910483
SpecialOlympian wrote:Regular Pike's Place roast tastes like ass though. Their cold coffee is fine and seems to be made from the same beans but I don't know how they got to be a $22 billion company selling coffee that has that skunky Heineken aftertaste.

We agree on this.

I got burnt there by ordering a shitty Chai Latte thinking it was going to be powdered(always tastes better than syrup). Instead they pulled a damn bottle of the imported shit(presumably the same stuff as on the States?).... In my mind I said "Fuck, this is gonna be bad, made a mistake coming here"....

It was the most disgusting drink I ever had in my life, tasted like the sweetened vomit of an Indian cow..... Spent half an hour puking. And their coffee, presumably the same as over there, is dogshit (probably tastes even worse here due to even worse lack of freshness).

Gloria Jean's(Starbucks knockoff, that also happens to be from Chicago but is basically 100% Australian at this point) is much better. At least they fucken use Powder for their tea products.

McCafe is fucken better than Starbucks here.... When McDonald's outclasses you on your staple product, you know you really fucked up....

Starbucks has been here since 1996, but because their coffee is just fucken shit, they've failed to dominate here. Barely 2 or 3 outlets in Melbourne (and mostly in the CBD). Wouldn't be surprised if Igor has never seen one here in Aus given where he lives.
#14911067
The two guys who got arrested seem like pretty good dudes and here's a summary of their settlement with the city:

WaPo wrote:Two African American men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks last month have reached a settlement with the city and secured its commitment to a pilot program for young entrepreneurs.

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson chose not to pursue a lawsuit against the city, Mike Dunn, a spokesman for the city of Philadelphia, told The Washington Post. Instead, they agreed to a symbolic payment of $1 each and asked the city to fund $200,000 for a grant program for high school students aspiring to become entrepreneurs.

[...]

Funds for the $200,000 program will come from the city’s Finance Department budget, Dunn said. The city, Nelson and Robinson will work together on developing a committee to award the grants.

The city has also invited Robinson, Nelson and their attorneys to submit thoughts and recommendations to the city solicitor on other ways of promoting equality in public places, including restaurants and retail establishments.


There's also an undisclosed settlement between the two and Starbuck's.
#14911069
SpecialOlympian wrote:Anyway I've been to Starbucks and just chilled there without buying anything with no issue.

So you enjoy loitering as well?

SpecialOlympian wrote:That's the vibe I thought Starbuck's was going for: go to the store and study, meet a client, use their internet, etc.

I'm pretty sure they want you to do that for a limited time after you buy something. However, I do think we should put out the word to the homeless that the Starbucks bathroom is open to anyone.

SpecialOlympian wrote:There's also an undisclosed settlement between the two and Starbuck's.

This looks like more government malfeasance in defense of lawbreaking.
#14911189
SpecialOlympian wrote:Oh cool, a blackjack post. I'm loving how a corporation acknowledging a racial incident at one of its stores is making his blood pressure spike like the gay cake * 9/11 But For Angry Old White Men.


Ahh... After reading two well written SO posts in a row, it's nice to see the old Sarcastic Jokey SO return.
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]