• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.
Yes. Still, you shouldn't let a politician get away with any of those things! They get away with much too much as it is.

ETA: And they both ought to know about the Cuban way.

I feel like I talk about where I'm from a lot, but honestly, in NoDak this is just standard behavior. I can't say how many times I've seen someone in line with more items than is allowed, because I've never taken the time to notice. She's 9 months pregnant LoL. It was probably the closest line to wherever she was at. It's certainly not enough to call someone a bitch over. I'm not even sure if he knew she was a politician before hand or that came out after.

This seems insanely petty on every single front LoL.

:roll:

Okay, that was funny.

I had to :D
 
Lawmaker, not lawfollower.

I'm pretty sure going through the express lane with too many items isn't actually illegal. Against store rules? Yes.

Rude and inconsiderate of other customers? Yes again.

Illegal? I think not.

I'm also a bit curious to know whether we're talking about one or two extra items, or a cart stacked two feet high.

Obviously, making false accusations of racism is far worse than whatever violation of store rules initially led to the confrontation.
 
I'm pretty sure going through the express lane with too many items isn't actually illegal. Against store rules? Yes.

Rude and inconsiderate of other customers? Yes again.

Illegal? I think not.

I'm also a bit curious to know whether we're talking about one or two extra items, or a cart stacked two feet high.
Obviously, making false accusations of racism is far worse than whatever violation of store rules initially led to the confrontation.

She had 15 items in the 10 and under line.
 
We should really hear from a lawyer specializing in supermarket checkout law before jumping to any conclusions about how many items she had.
 
Guys, guys; she was pregnant of course she was entitled. She should be allowed to jump the queue, she probably has pregnancy brain with no emotional stability and little memory. Pregnant woman goes to shortest queue and shouts at someone when they tried to send her back to a longer queue. Of course she did. You lot try shopping with a baby on board!
 
Oh I see now - he looks and sounds white! Good for him confronting her on camera. She pulled the race card right there during the interview - "...because I'm black". Jussie must be proud. Two Dems accusing each other of racism!

Dems eating each other ain't gonna help them in 2020. It isn't looking good at all. The fake and/or misplaced outrage is getting old across the board. They are now on the road to resentment and damaging the causes they pretend to champion.

You'd think after realizing that running Hillary against Trump was a dumb idea that the party could come together and straighten their act up. Not even close.

Note: with all the enormous people in this country it can be difficult to tell if a woman is pregnant or not. Not that it matters in this case one bit. Her shirt alluded to the fact, but in order to read it you'd have to look at her chest which can also get the #MeToo crowd after you ;)

She blew it, but while Dem, not while black.
 
In Japanese trains, the priority seats are reserved for elderly and handicapped people as well as pregnant women, so I think it's polite to not harass a pregnant woman at the checkout line.

I think that Reason gives a pretty evenhanded take on this:

https://reason.com/2019/07/22/erica-thomas-grocery-store-racism-hoax-media/

Here's the de-sensationalized version of events: Thomas and Sparkes agree that she had opted to use the express checkout option, even though she had more groceries than the line allows. This irked Sparkes, despite the fact that two other lanes were open and available. He snitched on Sparkes to customer service and was informed that company policy forbade the store from doing anything about it, but that Sparkes could take matters into his own hands if he wished. Ultimately, Sparkes approached Thomas, and the two had words. Which words, precisely, is up for debate.

"This woman, Ms. Thomas, is playing the victim," Sparkes told WSB TV, telling his side of the story. "I am a Democrat, I vote Democrat party line. All my statements are anti-Trump, anti-Republican, anti-bigotry."

Sparkes utterly denied that there was anything racially tinged about his comments to Thomas. His strong denial, political affiliation, and the fact that Thomas backtracked slightly are being treated as conclusive evidence by Team Hoax. Of course, it's easy to go too far in this direction. Sparkes admits, for instance, that he called Thomas "lazy"and a "bitch." Maybe his comments weren't racist, but if you're calling a pregnant lady a lazy bitch, you aren't exactly the good guy, and it would be a stretch to label your conduct as non-hateful. Perhaps this is a sign of our incredibly politicized times: an accusation of racism must be rebutted at all costs, while mundane cruelty, seemingly tinged with sexism, is considered above board.

In truth, both Thomas and Sparkes seemed like they behaved obnoxiously. Sparkes should have minded his own business, especially given his admission that Thomas's abuse of the express checkout lane didn't even inconvenience him—there were other lanes. But Thomas quite clearly chose to escalate—and publicize—the incident, injecting it with political urgency and slotting it into a national narrative the media would find too tempting to ignore.

See? He's not a racist, he's just an *******. An equal opportunity *******.

He wasn't being personally inconvenienced, as there were other checkout lanes he could have used. He was just incensed that a pregnant woman was breaking the rules. Rules which it turns out the store itself doesn't think are important enough to enforce as a matter of policy. He first reported it to store employees and when they told him that actually we don't enforce that rule but you can confront her if you want, he took it upon himself to give her a piece of his mind and berate her.

I do think that the store should rethink their policy or just get rid of express checkout altogether. Yeah, we won't have our employees enforce this rule, we'll just let random irate customers be the enforcers. What could go wrong?
 
Last edited:
This whole thing is just stupid and I'm boggled it's even newsworthy. The headline should say, "Two morons waste each others time. Who cares?"

It's not really newsworthy but people all over the world seem to have strong feelings about it. This thread alone shows that. I'm sure there's much discussion on other social media platforms as well. It's a chance for all of us to get on our high horses about something.
 
He was just incensed that a pregnant woman was breaking the rules.


He was incensed that somebody was breaking the rules. (Or would you prefer to change the thread title to: Making Stuff up While Pregnant?!)
 
It's not really newsworthy but people all over the world seem to have strong feelings about it. This thread alone shows that. I'm sure there's much discussion on other social media platforms as well. It's a chance for all of us to get on our high horses about something.

Not as much as over in the US lately.
 
Not as much as over in the US lately.

Have you read most of the threads here, especially in SI/CE and USAPol? There's a fairly substantial population of posters outside the US who get very involved in discussions of social/political issues, no matter how localized the issue (i.e. goes way beyond 'what crap is Trump tweeting now?').

Not saying that's good or bad, just that, counter to your claim above, a whole lot of non-USA folks seem to be pretty passionate about who just j-walked across Ventura BLVD and the like.
 
Update: No "criminal" charges will be filed. Both can choose civil litigation. The drama continues...

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/c...wmaker-publix-dispute/fp9t5RJLXVSOTaMnVLmHEP/

The woman refuses to be held to account for her actions, however mundane they may seem. This refusal and subsequent concoction of lies to create a victim status can only point to the fact that she is unsuitable for public office.

Sparkes seems to be an officious wee ***** who wasn't harmed by her initial actions only aggrieved at her temerity. I wonder if he regrets his move?
 
Have you read most of the threads here, especially in SI/CE and USAPol? There's a fairly substantial population of posters outside the US who get very involved in discussions of social/political issues, no matter how localized the issue (i.e. goes way beyond 'what crap is Trump tweeting now?').

Not saying that's good or bad, just that, counter to your claim above, a whole lot of non-USA folks seem to be pretty passionate about who just j-walked across Ventura BLVD and the like.

For me, it's fascinating to watch it and, in no small way, an amusing pastime. A great number of the population of all colours, creeds and cultures stateside seem to have lost their **** and fall over themselves to;

1) Stick their oar in without engaging common sense.
2) Manufacture victim status based on race and gender.

On the other hand many of "the very good people on both sides" have a legitimate gripe.

There's quite the microcosm to be seen on this forum, in itself.

Sadly, as always, the UK is in thrall lockstep and will be right along shortly. We're right behind you.
 
The woman refuses to be held to account for her actions, however mundane they may seem. This refusal and subsequent concoction of lies to create a victim status can only point to the fact that she is unsuitable for public office.

Sparkes seems to be an officious wee ***** who wasn't harmed by her initial actions only aggrieved at her temerity. I wonder if he regrets his move?

She may be lying, but the witness testimony doesn't contradict her account. Her description seems to imply that his "go back where you came from" comment was close to the start of the altercation. The witness is clear that she only heard the altercation later.

And I still object to the notion that her initial action of using the 10 items or less lane is something she needed to account for in any way. Its a practical policy, not a law. It matters only to the extent that it causes inconvenience to others. At the point that there are plenty of empty lanes and no one has to wait, the rule has no meaning or power.
 
Maybe they should change the sign at the checkout lane to clarify that it is a "suggested limit" and not a hard limit, since store policy is to not actually enforce the limit.
 

Back
Top Bottom