Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 11003 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11245 Dec 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
The point is that topix has given the "public" at large permission to post here, making this a "public" place.
You are ranting and you don't know what you are talking about.

What a shame ignorance doesn't make you shy.

This is not a public place, it is a private place that a company has allowed you access - supposedly as long as you agree to their terms and conditions.

And they remind you and all your aliases every time you post each and every post.

They can revoke it at any time without asking your permission.

You do not have a right to post here.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11246 Dec 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
Even if it was true that I'm only working with the equivalent of a 7th grade education
I didn't say you had the equivalent of a 7th grade education. I said you had been carried to the ninth grade. I am sure your certificate of achievement of attending school looks very pretty, Shug.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11247 Dec 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are ranting and you don't know what you are talking about.
What a shame ignorance doesn't make you shy.
This is not a public place, it is a private place that a company has allowed you access - supposedly as long as you agree to their terms and conditions.
And they remind you and all your aliases every time you post each and every post.
They can revoke it at any time without asking your permission.
You do not have a right to post here.
Ranting? You're the one going on about a non issue. I never said anyone has a right to post here. Maybe if you read more than the sentence you cherry-picked for your response you'd be able to avoid making such a fool of yourself.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11248 Dec 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
However, let those rules violate the 1st amendment right of someone and see what happens.
Ranting.

Squishy: you don't have any rights here.

It isn't your sand box.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11249 Dec 21, 2013
Squach wrote:
It would be interesting to see where a court would draw the line in such a case.
~stomp stomp stomp~

Ranting.

It would not make it to court.

You would be standing outside the fence holding a piece of chalk insisting you want to draw a line.

HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!

Draw a line, Squishy!

Right there on the sidewalk.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11250 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
~stomp stomp stomp~
Ranting.
It would not make it to court.
You would be standing outside the fence holding a piece of chalk insisting you want to draw a line.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAH!
Draw a line, Squishy!
Right there on the sidewalk.
Ya know, idiots like you are fun to watch. You do your damnedest to find an argument where there is none. Your pathetic attempts at creating an argument from nothing are only surpassed by your pathetic attempts at cogent thought.

Some simple minded old lady who was unaware that coffee is served HOT (DUH!) managed to take the corporate GIANT McDonald's into court (and win a frivolous unfounded suit) and you think a 1st amendment case against topix wouldn't get to court?????? Thanks for proving your subhuman stupidity once again. You're an embarrassment to lower primates.

BTW, there's no place left on the sidewalk to draw a line..........your pet criminals and illegal aliens have filled it with disgusting graffiti.

Have fun storming the castle..........

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11251 Dec 22, 2013
Squach wrote:
Some simple minded old lady who was unaware that coffee is served HOT (DUH!) managed to take the corporate GIANT McDonald's into court (and win a frivolous unfounded suit)
The simple-minded just regurgitate what they heard as fact.

(quote)

Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.

The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.

Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.

Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.

Here is some of the evidence the jury heard"

• McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
• McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted,“there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
• McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11252 Dec 22, 2013
Squach wrote:
... and you think a 1st amendment case against topix wouldn't get to court?????.
Maybe if you are drinking hot coffee and you get so upset when you try to log on and can't get in that you spill coffee on yourself.

It's Topix's wall, it's on their property.

You can write anything you like on your wall, Shug.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11253 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The simple-minded just regurgitate what they heard as fact.
(quote)
Mrs. Liebeck was not driving when her coffee spilled, nor was the car she was in moving. She was the passenger in a car that was stopped in the parking lot of the McDonald’s where she bought the coffee. She had the cup between her knees while removing the lid to add cream and sugar when the cup tipped over and spilled the entire contents on her lap.
The coffee was not just “hot,” but dangerously hot. McDonald’s corporate policy was to serve it at a temperature that could cause serious burns in seconds. Mrs. Liebeck’s injuries were far from frivolous. She was wearing sweatpants that absorbed the coffee and kept it against her skin. She suffered third-degree burns (the most serious kind) and required skin grafts on her inner thighs and elsewhere.
Liebeck’s case was far from an isolated event. McDonald’s had received more than 700 previous reports of injury from its coffee, including reports of third-degree burns, and had paid settlements in some cases.
Mrs. Liebeck offered to settle the case for $20,000 to cover her medical expenses and lost income. But McDonald’s never offered more than $800, so the case went to trial. The jury found Mrs. Liebeck to be partially at fault for her injuries, reducing the compensation for her injuries accordingly. But the jury’s punitive damages award made headlines — upset by McDonald’s unwillingness to correct a policy despite hundreds of people suffering injuries, they awarded Liebeck the equivalent of two days’ worth of revenue from coffee sales for the restaurant chain. That wasn’t, however, the end of it. The original punitive damage award was ultimately reduced by more than 80 percent by the judge. And, to avoid what likely would have been years of appeals, Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s later reached a confidential settlement.
Here is some of the evidence the jury heard"
• McDonald’s operations manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit.
• Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns in three to seven seconds.
• The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and biomechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation, the leading scholarly publication in the specialty.
• McDonald’s admitted it had known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years. The risk had repeatedly been brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits.
• An expert witness for the company testified that the number of burns was insignificant compared to the billions of cups of coffee the company served each year.
• At least one juror later told the Wall Street Journal she thought the company wasn’t taking the injuries seriously. To the corporate restaurant giant those 700 injury cases caused by hot coffee seemed relatively rare compared to the millions of cups of coffee served. But, the juror noted,“there was a person behind every number and I don’t think the corporation was attaching enough importance to that.”
• McDonald’s quality assurance manager testified that McDonald’s coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into Styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat.
• McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers were unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then-required temperature.
• McDonald’s admitted it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not.
Like I said, a frivolous and unfounded law suit. Not my fault the lawyers pulled it off.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11254 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe if you are drinking hot coffee and you get so upset when you try to log on and can't get in that you spill coffee on yourself.
It's Topix's wall, it's on their property.
You can write anything you like on your wall, Shug.
This country loves law suits, especially leftist liberal cretins like you. You're so intent on making an argument where there is none that you forget yourself. Aren't you supposed to be out there chanting with your leftist brethren in support of such a law suit? Try again..........

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11255 Dec 22, 2013
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Like I said, a frivolous and unfounded law suit. Not my fault the lawyers pulled it off.
It was neither.

Gosh, I don't have to make you admit that you were wrong, just slap the snot out of you and make sure everyone sees you for the fool that you are.

Shug...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11256 Dec 22, 2013
Squach wrote:
BTW, there's no place left on the sidewalk to draw a line..........your pet criminals and illegal aliens have filled it with disgusting graffiti..
Of course: I don't have to work hard to make you look foolish or stupid...

I just quote you.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11259 Dec 22, 2013
Squach wrote:
You're so intent on making an argument where there is none that you forget yourself.
Gosh, I just enjoy slappiong the snot out of you when you say something wrong and it is easy to prove otherwise.

Such as when McDonald's was responsible for the 3rd degree burns due to negligence on a 79 year old grandmother that you insisted was frivolous.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11260 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh, I just enjoy slappiong the snot out of you when you say something wrong and it is easy to prove otherwise.
Such as when McDonald's was responsible for the 3rd degree burns due to negligence on a 79 year old grandmother that you insisted was frivolous.
The only thing "frivolous" here is you, communist-demonrat-LIEberal. And the only thing "proven" by you. Is the fact that you're not reality based even in the slightest degree.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11263 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
There were 5,364 people registered as Republicans in Newtown, and 4,505 registered as Democrats.
LET'S LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS, shall we. You vile and LYING communist-demonrat-LIEberal ignorama-troll?

The demonrats and Newtown

"Along with the District of Columbia, Rhode Island and Hawaii rank as the most Democratic states in the country, followed by New York, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Rounding out the top 10 Democratic states are Delaware, Connecticut, Vermont, and California."

The demonrat party has a 15 percentage point advantage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156437/heavily-dem...

"Historically Republican, the Fifth Congressional District has been treading Democratic since 2004. John Kerry carried the district with 49.3% of the vote, a margin of 1,112 votes in the 2004 presidential election.>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>Obama carried the district in 2008 with 56.3% of the vote and in 2012 with 53.5% of the vote.<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< "

“...Presidential Performance

“2012 - Obama - 53.53%, Romney - 45.30%, Third Party - 1.17%
“2008 - Obama - 56.34%, McCain - 42.40%, Third Party - 1.26%”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut%27s_...

Senators

Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D]
Sen. Christopher Murphy [D]

Representatives

By congressional district:

1st — Rep. John Larson [D]
2nd — Rep. Joe Courtney [D]
3rd — Rep. Rosa DeLauro [D]
4th — Rep. James Himes [D]
5th — Rep. Elizabeth Esty [D]
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/CT

SHOVE OFF, you deliberately LYING, vile communist-demonrat-LIEberal ignorama-troll.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11264 Dec 22, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
LET'S LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS,
Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Newtown by 7451 to 6784 votes or 51.7 percent to 47 percent.

I don't care about Hawaii or Rhode Island.

Prove that Adam Lanza voted.

Prove that he is registered.

Then show us the party.

PS: proving what way a state votes in an election isn't anywhere close to proving how someone in the state votes.

And you want us to believe because a slight majority votes one way or the other, it proves one voter's party affiliation?

You have to be the stupidest person on the face of the planet.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11265 Dec 22, 2013
2ndAmRight wrote:
The demonrat party has a 15 percentage point advantage.

(clip) Obama carried the district in 2008 with 56.3% of the vote
50 percent plus 15 percent is what, dear?

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11266 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
50 percent plus 15 percent is what, dear?
In the case of an ignorama-troll such as yourself, ZERO.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11267 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Newtown by 7451 to 6784 votes or 51.7 percent to 47 percent.
I don't care about Hawaii or Rhode Island.
Prove that Adam Lanza voted.
Prove that he is registered.
Then show us the party.
PS: proving what way a state votes in an election isn't anywhere close to proving how someone in the state votes.
And you want us to believe because a slight majority votes one way or the other, it proves one voter's party affiliation?
You have to be the stupidest person on the face of the planet.
"Historically Republican, the Fifth Congressional District has been treading Democratic since 2004. John Kerry carried the district with 49.3% of the vote, a margin of 1,112 votes in the 2004 presidential election.>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>Obama carried the district in 2008 with 56.3% of the vote and in 2012 with 53.5% of the vote.<<<<< <<<<<<< <<<<<<< "

“...Presidential Performance

“2012 - Obama - 53.53%, Romney - 45.30%, Third Party - 1.17%
“2008 - Obama - 56.34%, McCain - 42.40%, Third Party - 1.26%”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut%27s_...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11268 Dec 22, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama in Newtown by 7451 to 6784 votes or 51.7 percent to 47 percent.
I don't care about Hawaii or Rhode Island.
Prove that Adam Lanza voted.
Prove that he is registered.
Then show us the party.
PS: proving what way a state votes in an election isn't anywhere close to proving how someone in the state votes.
And you want us to believe because a slight majority votes one way or the other, it proves one voter's party affiliation?
You have to be the stupidest person on the face of the planet.
LIAR:

Newtown Election Day 2012 Results

From polling places to results and reactions for all local and state races, we've got you covered on Election Day.
Posted by Gary Jeanfaivre (Editor), November 07, 2012 at 02:54 PM

District 1 District 1-5 District 2 District 3-1 District 3-2 District 3-5 Absentee Total Ballots Cast 405 21 405 199 167 45 29 1271

President
Romney 169 11 199 104 65 22 7 577 Obama 204 10 201 91 96 22 21 645

How Newtown Voted in 2008 (88.97% Turnout)

(D=Democrat; R=Republican; G=Green; I=Independent; WF=Working Families; CL=Connecticut for Lieberman; WI=Write In)

PRESIDENT

Obama-Biden (D)— 7,764 votes
McCain-Palin (R)— 7,270 votes
http://newtown.patch.com/groups/politics-and-...

You are nothing more than a filthy, lying communist-demonrat-LIEberal ignorama-troll.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Secret Service: Man planned to kidnap first dog Jan 9 A_Visitor 4
News Why the Secret Service is such a mess Dec '15 Ritual Habitual 2
News Man detained after jumping over White House fen... Nov '15 WeTheSheeple 81
News Ben Carson to visit Syrian refugees in Jordan: ... Nov '15 Lawrence Wolf 13
News Sexting arrest latest embarrassment for Secret ... Nov '15 Bama Yankee 9
News Seeno offices raided by feds (Feb '10) Nov '15 Guru 46
News Secret Service officer charged with trying to s... Nov '15 Jane Said 1
More from around the web