Progressives, part 3...

posted by like_that

This is their spin? I don't buy that bullshit.  His comments were in reference/support of a VA state delegate proposing a bill as well as confirming that the bill allows an abortion up to minutes before birth.   That bill itself is despicable.  Especially considering most doctors agree it is safer for the women to deliver the child than abort it.  You have to deliver the child regardless, so killing it really doesn't make much medical sense. 

For the love of God there are tens of thousands of wonderful adults who wish to be parents that would love to adopt a newborn.  How could anyone take the life of a baby knowing there are so many ready to adopt that child?  Where the hell is the humanity?

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

For the love of God there are tens of thousands of wonderful adults who wish to be parents that would love to adopt a newborn.  How could anyone take the life of a baby knowing there are so many ready to adopt that child?  Where the hell is the humanity?

Here's one where I agree with you entirely.  I can't understand a human being even talking about how this "procedure" works without feeling sick to their stomach.  If a woman is into here third trimester and doesn't wan the baby, the most loving thing she can do is provide it to willing parents.  Even if the baby has some sort of developmental disability, there are tens of thousands of couples who would happily adopt him/her.  I have no comprehension as to how anyone can support this, let alone cheer about it.  

If someone who agrees with aborting a viable baby can please explain to me what is the difference between that and, for example, euthanizing a severely retarded teenager because the child is causing mental health issues on the mother?  What's the difference?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Here's one where I agree with you entirely.  I can't understand a human being even talking about how this "procedure" works without feeling sick to their stomach.  If a woman is into here third trimester and doesn't wan the baby, the most loving thing she can do is provide it to willing parents.  Even if the baby has some sort of developmental disability, there are tens of thousands of couples who would happily adopt him/her.  I have no comprehension as to how anyone can support this, let alone cheer about it.  

 

If someone who agrees with aborting a viable baby can please explain to me what is the difference between that and, for example, euthanizing a severely retarded teenager because the child is causing mental health issues on the mother?  What's the difference?

Or an elder adult that obviously isn't in good health.  This is why I facetiously said we might as well kill off RBG.  I don't understand the logic and why it's celebrated.

THese progressives are a joke.  Jesus they have all the talking heads on the news and politicians on there and have yet to create a viral soundbite because people arent asking the right questions.

Ask these wackos about the baby.....not about the policy.  Any answer about a baby would be a coffin nail on these types of legislation.

San Fran restaurant bans MAGA hats...

Fun times

posted by Spock

THese progressives are a joke.  Jesus they have all the talking heads on the news and politicians on there and have yet to create a viral soundbite because people arent asking the right questions.

 

Ask these wackos about the baby.....not about the policy.  Any answer about a baby would be a coffin nail on these types of legislation.

Last summer having a baby separated from its mother was a heinous crime and national crisis.  Today, well, just murder the kid.

posted by QuakerOats

San Fran restaurant bans MAGA hats...

 

 

Fun times

 

This reminds me of the baker in Colorado who refused to sell the gay couple a cake. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

This reminds me of the baker in Colorado who refused to sell the gay couple a cake. 

Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.

posted by iclfan2

Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.

Me too.  

posted by QuakerOats

San Fran restaurant bans MAGA hats...

Fun times

1. It's the free market at work. If it hurts their business, it's on them.

2. It's San Francisco. I'd just assumed MAGA hats were pretty taboo around town already.
 

posted by iclfan2

Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.

posted by like_that

Me too.  

Same, obviously.

posted by iclfan2

Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.

I didn't say it was the same thing.  It just reminds me of that case.  It brings up a similar question of a business owner's right to refuse someone service base upon the owner's opinion.  

posted by iclfan2

Except that they could have bought anything from the bakery. They couldn't get a CUSTOM cake. So no, not really the same thing. I'm cool with a company refusing to serve someone for any reason though, so I'm fine with the MAGA hat ban. The market will decide if he stays in business or not.

Agreed.  But had an owner banned the shirt below the media and leftists would have gone nuts until they shut the place down. The left simply can’t handle alternative thought.

posted by QuakerOats

San Fran restaurant bans MAGA hats...

 

 

Fun times

 

Boo-hoo dude. “Wahhh, a restaurant won’t allow people to wear a hat.” No one whines quite like you. 

posted by QuakerOats

 

 

Agreed.  But had an owner banned the shirt below the media and leftists would have gone nuts until they shut the place down. The left simply can’t handle alternative thought.

 

 

If insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, you seem to be there.  We all get that you think the mainstream media (whatever that is) is biased to the left and has been for awhile.  So do you really see any point to continually showing outrage for every new story that comes along and reemphasizes your opinion?

On top of that, I bet there are a bazillion conservative-leaning news sites I could visit right now with stories about this topic that will have opinions that perfectly align with yours.  If the New York Times was the only news outlet available, I would understand your point.  Today, anyone can get their news from anyplace that espouses an agreeable viewpoint.  So this Media conspiracy seems like a huge stretch.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I didn't say it was the same thing.  It just reminds me of that case.  It brings up a similar question of a business owner's right to refuse someone service base upon the owner's opinion.  

I'll side with the business owner's right to deny service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.

posted by queencitybuckeye

I'll side with the business owner's right to deny service to anyone for any reason he sees fit.

It's a tricky one though.  Cake or a restaurant meal is not a very important purchase.  But what about a scenario where there was something more critical that needed to be purchased, maybe something not easily found elsewhere, and the owner refused to sell because he/she found something objectionable about the customer?

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

It's a tricky one though.  Cake or a restaurant meal is not a very important purchase.  But what about a scenario where there was something more critical that needed to be purchased, maybe something not easily found elsewhere, and the owner refused to sell because he/she found something objectionable about the customer?

I would prefer that the laws deal with those exceptions rather than granting de facto "rights" to customers in general.

posted by SportsAndLady

Boo-hoo dude. “Wahhh, a restaurant won’t allow people to wear a hat.” No one whines quite like you. 

Maybe you should look at the post again; there is no outrage or whining.

Get in the game.

posted by QuakerOats

 

Maybe you should look at the post again; there is no outrage or whining.

 

Get in the game.

Uh huh

Well she did it, she out-retarded AOC. Omar says the 1% should pay 90% in taxes (marginal or not, stupid). You never go full retard! In most states the 1% is not a lot, $335k in Ohio. 

https://twitter.com/realsaavedra/status/1091178672940232704?s=12