By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
By New Times
What this ornery oriole's sayin' is, if it's a gay club, do you reckon anyone's gonna be complaining about some trans person pullin' down his/her pantyhose to pee?
The Bird wasn't the only one Tom Anderson wasn't calling back. Robden Brethauer, promoter of the monthly Britpop night Panic!, told this seed-eater that he still had a night booked at the club but had to hear about the changeover through the media.
Brethauer believes the whole situation's got to do with desperation. Anderson's business was down, and gay was the only way left to go.
DJ William "Fucking" Reed, the guy who had booked Psychic TV into Anderson's this summer and had to work his ass off to get them another spot to play, concurred.
"The only thing that I see that makes sense is that his business is suffering," said Reed. "So he's trying to tap into a market he had yet to tap in into."
As for Anderson's employees? Let go, according to Club Forbidden GM Kelley Lyke. "Their services were no longer needed," she tutted. Lyke said that the switch in orientation had been in the works since "a couple of months ago."
Here's a suggestion for de LaFreniere. Anderson still owns another club in Scottsdale, called the Upper Deck Sports Grill. This parakeet doesn't know what the potty situation there is, but surely it, too, needs some transgendered action.
Ok, I understand.
I was just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. But unlike debate club, peoples lives are actually being affected by these discussions and the people they influence.
Thanks for explaining it to me.
"Lemmons quotes the 14th amendment that all "persons" born on American soil are citizens, but he forgots to mention the phrase "and subject to the juridisdiction thereof", and forgot to mention that the original meaning and intent of the law was to make the children of former slaves citizens, not to enable a mass ethnic invasion of our country by another in the form of anchor babies."
Weather the law was intended for slaves at that time you will not find anywhere in the sections of the law refer it as "for slaves" it doesn't even have the word slave anywhere because it was ALSO created to prevent from denying citizenship to anybody in the future not just slaves but Jewish, Mormons, etc. nowhere in the section it mentions to whom it specifically applies so therefore until the 14th Amendment is change to specify and say that it doesn't apply to anybody who's parents are illegal, until then anybody who is born in U.S. Soil is protected under the great 14th Amendment!, here's the Section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Lemons states that illegals "cross our borders to pick our vegetables, clean out hotels and cook our food".
Can Lemmons document what percentage of illegals actually work in any of those three occupations?
In addition, how many vegetables are there to be picked in the Phoenix Metro Area, where the vast majority of illegals appear to live?
Also, how about the gangbangers, drug cartels, coyotes and fecund women... are they just here to perform menial labor, or are their demands for welfare, medical, benefits, housing, eduction, voting rights and citizenship just a ruse to distract us from their attempt to corner the menial labor market?
If so, why has the hispanic crime rate gone up consistently with the influx of illegals?
Also, if illegals are just here to perform menial labor, then whey do they need in state tuition at our colleges and universities?
What menial job requires a college degree?
Lemmons quotes the 14th amendment that all "persons" born on American soil are citizens, but he forgots to mention the phrase "and subject to the juridisdiction thereof", and forgot to mention that the original meaning and intent of the law was to make the children of former slaves citizens, not to enable a mass ethnic invasion of our country by another in the form of anchor babies.
Such an abuse of the law is clearly a subversion of it's original meaning and intent, so Lemmons argument is suspect at best.
Lemmons questions Pearces association with Ready and pro-white groups, but is Lemmons also ready to question Barack Obamas affiliation with pro-black groups?
Then when Ready offers the plausible explanation that it was Ready who was following him [Pearce] around at the anti-immigration event, Lemmons ignores this plausible explanation and resorts to an ad-hominem attacks of calling Pearce a "crybaby", as well as a "punk".
Is that what passes for respectable "journalism" in the offices of the New Times?
If so, it's no wonder that the vast majority of Maricopa County residents don't take the New Times political opinions seriously, and continue to vote for Sheriff Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, Russell Pearce, and anti-illegal alien legislation... because the Lemmons and the New Times opposition to these officials on this issue is absolutely substanceless.
Does Nickel Bag Joe really use Grecian Formula? If so that might explain why he acts like such a buffoon. That stuff is full of nasty lead and was pulled off of store shelves in Europe.
If he has been plastering that smelly stuff on his head for the last decade he could be suffering from lead poisoning which would make him act like a 'tard.