It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pelosi used shuttered San Francisco hair salon for blow-out, owner calls it 'slap in the face'

page: 10
69
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: xuenchen
Nancy Pelosi was also mad because the old "poison handshake" trick failed.



Yup I remember that one 😎🚬




posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: frogs453

Neat but how can we confirm the letter is genuine and the law firm / lawyer(s) are real ?

😎


Best I can do is give you their website. The letter is a few days old and do not see anything that they dispute it. That's about all the info I can provide.
Soleiman,APC



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Let's assume the salon owner knew in advance, how does that change the fact that Nasty Nancy still was not wearing her mask?



posted on Sep, 4 2020 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: panoz77
Let's assume the salon owner knew in advance, how does that change the fact that Nasty Nancy still was not wearing her mask?


Shhhhhh 😷🤫




posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

I have to admit that the letter gives me pause. Maybe the salon owner knew about the appointment; maybe not. Maybe Pelosi was set up; maybe not. But here's my problem with this whole thing:

If the claim in the letter is genuine, then the salon owner knew Pelosi was coming in for an appointment, and her political stance would lend credibility to the setup theory. However, Pelosi could not have been set up unless she intended to violate the law. She has previously described herself as "the Master Legislator," so ignorance of the laws involved is absolutely no excuse. I am pretty sure no one broke into Pelosi's mansion, kidnapped her, drug her kicking and screaming into that salon, and did her hair. I'm pretty sure no one approached her and offered her a hairdo, even. Pelosi herself instigated contact and asked for a hairdo. As instigator of the "crime" she gets no absolution when someone sets her up to reveal the crime.

In short, all that letter does is shift some blame away from the stylist for allowing Pelosi to set up an appointment and onto the owner. Pelosi is still primarily at fault, just as surely as though she had asked a drug dealer to sell her crack. Just because the dealer was also an informant, it does not absolve the user of the crime.

The problem is not that Pelosi had her hair done. The problem is that Pelosi had her hair done in direct defiance of the very laws she has touted to the extreme detriment of the people who own and operate in salons. The stylist likely needed the money much more than Pelosi because of Pelosi's own actions; the owner likely needed the money much more than Pelosi because of Pelosi's own actions. Pelosi didn't need her hair done any more than any other woman in that area, but she was willing to defy her own statements as a legislator to get her hair done without any regard whatsoever for anyone but herself.

That's the issue for me, and the letter absolves Pelosi of nothing whatsoever IMO.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly. Pelosi acted like a typical elitist. HOWEVER it was the salon owners responsibility to NOT be open by State orders. Doesn't matter whether it was Pelosi or Sponge Bob. The salon owner is at-fault: not for Pelosi's actions (that's on her) but for being open at all. She best move her business to another state (or maybe just be Trump's personal hairdresser) because payback is a bitch.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: frogs453

I have to admit that the letter gives me pause. Maybe the salon owner knew about the appointment; maybe not. Maybe Pelosi was set up; maybe not. But here's my problem with this whole thing:

If the claim in the letter is genuine, then the salon owner knew Pelosi was coming in for an appointment, and her political stance would lend credibility to the setup theory. However, Pelosi could not have been set up unless she intended to violate the law. She has previously described herself as "the Master Legislator," so ignorance of the laws involved is absolutely no excuse. I am pretty sure no one broke into Pelosi's mansion, kidnapped her, drug her kicking and screaming into that salon, and did her hair. I'm pretty sure no one approached her and offered her a hairdo, even. Pelosi herself instigated contact and asked for a hairdo. As instigator of the "crime" she gets no absolution when someone sets her up to reveal the crime.

In short, all that letter does is shift some blame away from the stylist for allowing Pelosi to set up an appointment and onto the owner. Pelosi is still primarily at fault, just as surely as though she had asked a drug dealer to sell her crack. Just because the dealer was also an informant, it does not absolve the user of the crime.

The problem is not that Pelosi had her hair done. The problem is that Pelosi had her hair done in direct defiance of the very laws she has touted to the extreme detriment of the people who own and operate in salons. The stylist likely needed the money much more than Pelosi because of Pelosi's own actions; the owner likely needed the money much more than Pelosi because of Pelosi's own actions. Pelosi didn't need her hair done any more than any other woman in that area, but she was willing to defy her own statements as a legislator to get her hair done without any regard whatsoever for anyone but herself.

That's the issue for me, and the letter absolves Pelosi of nothing whatsoever IMO.

TheRedneck







I'm not getting all caught up again. There are over 5 posts of me stating Pelosi is wrong. I'm no fan for sure, you can seek them out here.

I just provided info on the document I came across. In trying to have a gotcha moment now the owner is in a bigger mess because it's come out that not only did she know but had people working during the mandate. They may also pull that 220 grand that was donated to her or make her give it back like they did with the other salon owner who lied about getting a PPP.

Pelosi getting hair done wrong. Salon owner scamming money wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: jtma508

a reply to: frogs453

While I am not going to say the salon owner's actions were legal, I have to ask about the 5000 pound gorilla in the room...

Why is it illegal to run a legal business?

Why is making a living illegal?

Why do governors get to write laws making it illegal without a legislature?

Pelosi's sin is that she tried to make people indigent, then did the exact opposite of what she demanded from others when it became inconvenient for her. The salon owner's sin was that she tried to make an honest living. I think we're glossing over that difference, and by doing so we are openly welcoming a monarchy. The whole point of the United States has always been that no one person had absolute power... but now governors do have absolute power.

Is this what we want? One person who has absolute control over every aspect of people's lives? One person who can simply speak laws into existence on a whim?

I do not blame the salon owner for trying to have enough to buy things like food. I do blame Pelosi for trying to abuse her power. If someone finds that wrong somehow, so be it.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

Why is it illegal to run a legal business?

Why is making a living illegal?

Why do governors get to write laws making it illegal without a legislature?


There's a public health emergency going on in the world. Yea, yea I know you're one of the people who advise coughing on people wearing masks because you are a True Patriot. Most of the rest of the world is slowly coming out of COVID. The U.S. is the worst worldwide despite being the most affluent and medically advanced country. Why? Because so many people don't give a crap about anyone but themselves. The countries that have fared better put FAR more restrictive measures and enforcement then the limp-wristed efforts here.

It' not illegal 'making a living' or running a legal business. Unless there is a public health emergency that makes running that business a risk to the public. Trump et al have done everything to downplay, minimize, and ignore the situation at-hand. That's why we are in the shape we're in and why we have been disallowed from traveling to the more responsible countries. We're a disgrace.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: jtma508


There's a public health emergency going on in the world.

I disagree... there is a specific virus in the public that we now know is relatively harmless to 80% of the population and deadly to something like 0.6%. In other words, a bad cold. That indicates many things, including some extra concern over those we now know are at high risk (see Andrew Cuomo for experimental results on forced exposure of a high-risk community) until we are more comfortable with the various treatments being tried. It does not indicate a complete shutdown of the economy is necessary.

Want proof? I assembled this table based on CDC data a week or so ago:
Stats are arranged based on 2019 average density (New York City is included separately because CDC data separated it out). Look at the one state which did not shut down: South Dakota. It is showing about equal with other similarly population dense states in the number of hospitalizations and deaths. Look at one of the most tightly closed states, Michigan. It represents a peak. Remember, states are arranged based on average population density, so relative dips and peaks take population density into consideration.

The economic shutdown is having absolutely no effect, positive or negative.


It' not illegal 'making a living' or running a legal business.

Is a salon not a legal business? What exactly is illegal about getting one's hair cut?

It most certainly is illegal to operate a legal business! This entire thread emphasizes that! A legal business owner, with a business license, is under fire for operating the business she is licensed to operate!

Are you drunk?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

No they’re not drunk. They’re democrat. Their lies have been so thoroughly debunked that no one with common sense would believe them.....so they dropped their common sense.



posted on Sep, 5 2020 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Guiltyguitarist

You want me to choose one over the other as if one being wrong makes the other right.

Pelosi is wrong. This woman who is now acting victimized is wrong. My post was strictly the document from the attorney stating there is proof the owner knew. Why should that be a problem to post it? The owner claimed she didn't. She's doing interviews and has contributions flowing because she said she didn't. Wouldn't you want to know this before you donated money?? Shouldn't information about the incident be properly noted? If there was some other documentation regarding Pelosi and the incident I would expect a member to post that as well.




I’ve been arguing with you this whole time assuming you were an adult. Let me ask you a question.
Do you know that people need to work to live?



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown

originally posted by: underpass61


And you think it's about hair. What a moron.


no problem my equally moronic friend

seems I ruffled a few feathers, I find it laughable that grown men are finding news in a politician having a haircut/style, yes i can see the hypocrisy (you made a stupid assumption if you think I did not) but when havent politicians of all ilks been hypocritical, if you guys wanna get your knickers in a twist over it haircut hypocrisy feel free, but it would appear I am the target for your thoughts now with plenty of minor insults from ATS's finest (oh woe is me, why cant I be right all the time like you guys), I myself will happily carry on with lifes important worries, like my own family

this story will blow over in a few days, it will be cut from the news cycle, washed rinsed and repeat


I used to be a liberal, guys. I can translate. This says:
I just got my ass thoroughly handed to me and I look like an entitled , out of touch imbecile. So I will vomit vitriol with a dash of victimhood while maintaining eye contact and slowly back out of the room. In a few days I will show back up and act like nothing happened
edit on 6-9-2020 by Guiltyguitarist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Well, I can applaud your walk away from supporting Nancys blow out, but any information you provided to “shed light” only serves to attempt to defend Nancy and vilify the ship owner... hardly a fair field when one of the two women writes laws restricting business and the other runs a business... it’s ok you were defending Nancy. I’ll forgive you, but you should accept as many are pointing out to you what your actions are, a quick attempt at defense you quickly walked away from when it didn’t stick.

a reply to: frogs453



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Nancy wasn’t wearing a mask in the shop. I know she is your dear leader, but why can she selectively wear and not wear masks at times we are required to? Why can she use services I’m told not to (by her)? Why does the public and ATS members think it’s appropriate to vilify the shop owner here in defense of Nancy?

Seems like your dear Nancy supports coughing on people or doesn’t think masks are required for others safety. Care to wager which it is, because she doesn’t support wearing a mask for safety just look at her actions when she thinks the cameras are off.

a reply to: jtma508


edit on 6-9-2020 by Rob808 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Cute. I have said what 5 or 6 times Pelosi is wrong, kick her out of office, I don't support the woman. That is quickly running away?
Because I didn't rant and rave and call her names or something?

Pointing out that the salon owner's actions in the incident is defending Pelosi? Seriously?

They both brought this on themselves. Both women thought rules don't matter.

You can discuss mandates all you want. You can discuss people needing to work for a living. I never got into a discussion about mandates.

The public would not even have known the salon was still doing business during the required closure time except the owner thought she could exploit the situation and it backfired because she was lying.

Personally I would rather donate to the salon owner down the street who had not made any money and had not went on Fox and lied.

Apparently the new rule of ATS is that when there is a news story, do not and I mean do not post any documentation that shows both sides of a story.

After my now what 7 times of saying Pelosi is wrong, is it considered running away if I'm done with this? I'll give you one more. Pelosi is wrong, throw her out of office.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453


Both women thought rules don't matter.

One made the rules and then broke them. The other had the rules forced on her and broke them.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: frogs453


Both women thought rules don't matter.

One made the rules and then broke them. The other had the rules forced on her and broke them.

TheRedneck


We have rules forced on us daily. I may not agree with them. If I break them, there may be consequences. The rule makers never seem to get into trouble. We see that daily as well. Does one justify the other? No. Are either of these things right? No. You want to justify one person because you dislike the other. I stand by both are wrong.



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

There's wrong, and there's damn wrong.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2020 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: frogs453

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: frogs453


Both women thought rules don't matter.

One made the rules and then broke them. The other had the rules forced on her and broke them.

TheRedneck


We have rules forced on us daily. I may not agree with them. If I break them, there may be consequences. The rule makers never seem to get into trouble. We see that daily as well. Does one justify the other? No. Are either of these things right? No. You want to justify one person because you dislike the other. I stand by both are wrong.


No, just no. You cannot make up arbitrary rules and then when they are broken claim a wrong was committed.

My new rule: Don't answer my reply with some dumb innuendo or straw man. Don't give me an answer I don't like or you have broken my rule I made.

Can people just make up rules now in the world? Well they certainly are like instant dictatorships, just add some stupid in, which these world leaders and governors have done.

You better not break any rules or you are in the wrong.


Hint: You can also make up your own new rules and be your very own dictator! Obey (your own rules)! Just like Nancy!

This is really how leftists think, remember this because life is all about illogical emotions and idealism and wishful thinking.




top topics



 
69
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join