Why The Left Are Clueless - Restaurant owner who asked Sarah Sanders to leave says she was taking moral stand against Donald Trump

Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, was refused service at a restaurant on Friday, sparking angry accusations that Donald Trump's aides are the target of liberal "bigotry".

Mrs Sanders said she had been asked to leave by the owner of the Red Hen, about three hours drive outside Washington.

The story was confirmed by the restaurant's owner who said she felt she had to take a stand against for "honesty" and "compassion".

Mrs Sanders wrote on Twitter: "I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, Virginia to leave because I work for the president and I politely left.

"Her (the owner's) actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/23/sarah-sanders-asked-leave-restaurant-works-donald-trump/

Talk about such stupidity, and if the left fail to condemn. They then leave open the door to then anyone being discriminated against their beliefs.

This is why some of the left have no moral standing and ethics, as they are just as prejudiced towards people

Didge wrote:This is why some of the left have no moral standing and ethics, as they are just as prejudiced towards people

Yet, if they fail to show their disapproval, they are tacitly supporting Trump and his deeds.

And what are you doing?  You castigate Trump's critics...where does that place you?

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:This is why some of the left have no moral standing and ethics, as they are just as prejudiced towards people

Yet, if they fail to show their disapproval, they are tacitly supporting Trump and his deeds.

And what are you doing?  You castigate Trump's critics...where does that place you?

They can show disproval all they like, which does not then warrant discriminating against people based on beliefs.

The moment you do so, then allows others to replicate this same stupidity

The owner can serve to, or bar anyone she choses.
Her business, her call.

End of.

Angry Andy wrote:The owner can serve to, or bar anyone she choses.
Her business, her call.

End of.

So if now people start to refuse Muslims for example in a restaurant. You will say the above will you?

nice one andy...nothing like showing the hypocrisy of the left

one law when it suits em and another when it doesnt

I take it then Andy, on the strength of that last post of yours that you beleive those bakers who refused the gay couple a wedding cake were in the right so to do???????

how typically ......lefty

Angry Andy wrote:The owner can serve to, or bar anyone she choses.
Her business, her call.

End of.

So you must therefore back the cake makers who refused to make the gay couple a cake then?
Their business, their call....right?

Could this action not be a direct result of the case of the refusal to back a cake for a gay couple?

I think both are wrong - to refuse service based on beliefs OR sexuality.

But IF the law says one is ok, then why shouldn't another be?

Eilzel wrote:Could this action not be a direct result of the case of the refusal to back a cake for a gay couple?

I think both are wrong - to refuse service based on beliefs OR sexuality.

But IF the law says one is ok, then why shouldn't another be?

Green

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yet, if they fail to show their disapproval, they are tacitly supporting Trump and his deeds.

And what are you doing?  You castigate Trump's critics...where does that place you?

They can show disproval all they like, which does not then warrant discriminating against people based on beliefs.

The moment you do so, then allows others to replicate this same stupidity

Ho, the hypocrisy of the right...now you're all against discrimination, after first inventing the concept.  You don't like blacks.  You're down on Hispanics.  But when it comes to someone who would like to see blacks and Hispanics put before a firing squad, you're all...Ohhhh, poor Axis Sally, poor Tokyo Rose!!

Sarah Sanders relinquished all her rights when she voluntarily stepped into the ring.  She is the gate on which all the authoritarian and mean-spirited edicts of the Trump administration are posted.  She even defends child-snatching, FGS.  Watch as the Trump administration builds baby-warehousing concentration camps to house all the kidnapped children all over the country.  She will be there, applauding.

And here you are--once again--defending the unconscionable.  You oppose Black Lives Matter, which is the same as saying that black people don't matter, and you you want to punish Hispanic children for having been cursed with parents who seek asylum.  Your morals are in the tank.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

They can show disproval all they like, which does not then warrant discriminating against people based on beliefs.

The moment you do so, then allows others to replicate this same stupidity

Ho, the hypocrisy of the right...now you're all against discrimination, after first inventing the concept.  You don't like blacks.  You're down on Hispanics.



And here you are--once again--defending the unconscionable.  You oppose Black Lives Matter, which is the same as saying that black people don't matter, and you you want to punish Hispanic children for having been cursed with parents who seek asylum.  Your morals are in the tank.

Oh dear, yet more claptrap


I do not support the views, of those asked to leave

That said, this will open up now a can of worms and have this replicated many times to now other people based on beliefs. Of whioch you cannot grasp.

I do oppose a racist organisation, in Black lives matter, just as I do towards any racist group

As all lives matter

The reality is, such a stance will send America now more backwards

This was left wing stupidity at its best

You then do as you always do, make up crap, saying I do not like blacks and Hispanics

You then further lie and say I want to punish Latino children

Its desperation on your part and is miles removed from my views

This is all you can, simple act lke a lying cock

Show your disapproval at the ballot box!


And the gays weren't refused service, or told to leave... the cake maker was happy to provide them with the same selection of styles of cakes as he provided for all customers...

Tommy Monk wrote:Show your disapproval at the ballot box!

That's a good idea.  Meanwhile, we'll advertise disapproval by not admitting Sarah Sanders into opposing businesses. We won't want to forget. It's important to show support in that way.

As soon as the Democrats take over the House of Representatives, this November, they will move to bring Articles of Impeachment for the president.  As soon as the Democrats take over the Senate, again this November, the president will go on trial pursuant to the Articles of Impeachment.

As soon as Trump and Pence are impeached, bring down an indictment based upon all charges to be brought by Mueller, and ask for the death penalty re: the Trump family, Pence, and all those associated with the Trump criminal enterprise.

The sooner, the better.

Oh dear... what a loon...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Oh dear... what a loon...!

That's what they said about traitor Trump, too.  Best take it seriously...last time you laughed he got elected.

No... that is what the voters thought of Hillary Clinton...

Tommy Monk wrote:No... that is what the voters thought of Hillary Clinton...

And now you know what the voters think of Trump and cronies like Sarah Sanders. They are criminals, and should be treated as such.

Sarah Sanders is not being discriminated against. She's being judged. Practically the whole country is with this tiny little restaurant...We don't want to sit with you!!

I don't think being a Trump Crony is a recognised minority group (and if it were then it is admission that he is not democratically supported)
SO all those comparing to gays don't have a leg to stand on

the world needs people that will stand up against evil, not just give it lip service and fellatio.

veya_victaous wrote:I don't think being a Trump Crony is a recognised minority group (and if it were then it is admission that he is not democratically supported)
SO all those comparing to gays don't have a leg to stand on

the world needs people that will stand up against evil, not just give it lip service and fellatio.

Precisely. Sarah Sanders is a person of privilege, with the power to do right. It's not discrimination; it's condemnation.

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I don't think being a Trump Crony is a recognised minority group (and if it were then it is admission that he is not democratically supported)
SO all those comparing to gays don't have a leg to stand on

the world needs people that will stand up against evil, not just give it lip service and fellatio.

Precisely.  Sarah Sanders is a person of privilege, with the power to do right.  It's not discrimination; it's condemnation.

Its discrimination based on her beliefs

Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Hence the idocy of the left and how they are happy to be selective in thier discrimination based on beliefs

So much for equality eh?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Precisely.  Sarah Sanders is a person of privilege, with the power to do right.  It's not discrimination; it's condemnation.

Its discrimination based on her beliefs

Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Hence the idocy of the left and how they are happy to be selective in thier discrimination based on beliefs

So much for equality eh?

  Yeah right!  If you can't rehabilitate the person, redefine the meaning of discrimination in America.

Sarah 'Tokyo Rose' Sanders is not an innocent bystander.  She is a wicked person, with wicked beliefs.  We were once quite prejudiced against poor Adolph Hitler and his beliefs, too.  Are you saying you wept for him as you do for Sarah Sanders?

Alas, discrimination on beliefs is what you do with evil people who have evil thoughts.  And if they carry out those beliefs--say, for example, kidnapping children--we put them in prison.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its discrimination based on her beliefs

Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Hence the idocy of the left and how they are happy to be selective in thier discrimination based on beliefs

So much for equality eh?

  Yeah right!  If you can't rehabilitate the person, redefine the meaning of discrimination in America.

Sarah 'Tokyo Rose' Sanders is not an innocent bystander.  She is a wicked person, with wicked beliefs.  We were once quite prejudiced against poor Adolph Hitler and his beliefs, too.  Are you saying you wept for him too?

Alas, discrimination on beliefs is what you do with evil people.  And if they carry out those beliefs--say, for example, kidnapping children--we put them in prison.

So based on your reasoning and the belief systems of Islam, which condemns homosexuals and endorses slavery. You would then back the view to discriminate against all Muslims, who follow the Quran. As surely you believe slavery and homophobia is evil, do you not?

You see how your stupidity opens up the door to now anyone, using a a belief, something is evil, to then deny basically anyone, based around a belief?

So now, anyone can be classed subjectivelly as evil to you Quill, based on their beliefs. From Christians viewing Abortionists as evil, to Muslims viewing adulterers as evil. To conservatives viewing lefties that love communism, as evil, to the left viewing anyone right of stalin as evil.

Also Hitler went to war with the US, which makes your view, not only stupid, but absurd and he certainly was not even in the US.

The reality is you have now have to make this equal through equality. That anyone can be discriminated based on your view point of evil, which can be argued by anyone against anyone else

Classic dumfuckwittery by Quill

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

  Yeah right!  If you can't rehabilitate the person, redefine the meaning of discrimination in America.

Sarah 'Tokyo Rose' Sanders is not an innocent bystander.  She is a wicked person, with wicked beliefs.  We were once quite prejudiced against poor Adolph Hitler and his beliefs, too.  Are you saying you wept for him too?

Alas, discrimination on beliefs is what you do with evil people.  And if they carry out those beliefs--say, for example, kidnapping children--we put them in prison.

So based on your reasoning and the belief systems of Islam, which condemns homosexuals and endorses slavery. You would then back the view to discriminate against all Muslims, who follow the Quran. As surely you believe slavery and homophobia is evil, do you not?

l

damn, you beat me to it

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

So based on your reasoning and the belief systems of Islam, which condemns homosexuals and endorses slavery. You would then back the view to discriminate against all Muslims, who follow the Quran. As surely you believe slavery and homophobia is evil, do you not?

l

damn, you beat me to it

Uh-oh. The gathering of the neo-Nazis and baby-snatchers. Hide the children!

The example we are discussion does not involve the Koran, nor does it involve Muslims. It involves Hispanics, remember? Sarah is beloved for her defense of kidnapping Central American children, which you didge bought hook, line and sinker.

You--the champion and chief apologist of discrimination--now weep about discrimination against white-nationalsts. That's not just right wing...it's right-full-(s)wing.

Brains atrophied from lack of cranial exercise, I s'pose.

Original Quill wrote:Uh-oh.  The gathering of the neo-Nazis and baby-snatchers.  Hide the children!

The example we are discussion does not involve the Koran, nor does it involve Muslims.  It involves Hispanics, remember?  Sarah is beloved for her defense of kidnapping Central American children, which you didge bought hook, line and sinker.

You--the champion and chief apologist of discrimination--now weep about discrimination against white-nationalsts.  That's not just right wing...it's right-full-(s)wing.  

Brains atrophied from lack of cranial exercise, I s'pose.  

There you have it Gelico

Quill does not have a problem with belief system, that endorse slavery

Now the fact this belief system, saw between 8-17 million Africans enslaved, castrated and most of all. Where are these Africans today in the Middle East? Who is to say how many millions died during this slave trade and yet Quill wants to make an exception over this evil it seems. And this slavery is still going on today with thousands of women and children enslaved as sexual slaves

Like I say, the left pick and choose what is okay to discriminate people over, He used the example of evil, as a reason and backing to allow discrimination. Yet when I present more cases of evil, he wants to run away from answering this.

Original Quill wrote:

Alas, discrimination on beliefs is what you do with evil people.  And if they carry out those beliefs--say, for example, kidnapping children--we put them in prison.

When you place their own reasoning back at them, over where he used evil. He then uses excuses.

In other words, he does not believe in equality

I believe in equality and that nobody should be discriminated over their beliefs. Even where I find someones beliefs appalling

Its why we live in a free society, which allows people to believe what they want to believe

So I am defending the right of everyone to be protected from discrimination due to their beliefs and Quill wants to allow this to happen to anyone due to their beliefs. If its construed as evil and on his terms

So I am not defending any white nationalists and have always condemned racism. I rightly condemn her views on child seperation and do what is right rationally to do, is condemn. Not disciminate (So again as seen Quill continues to lie, as he knows his argument has gone down the toilet.).

I am defending the right of people to be protected from discrimination.

You know, its something called a free society. Not one that is a Totalitarian dictatoship, which imprisons people for their beliefs.

They should stay in their own country rather than trying to illegally enter another country in pursuit of their own financial benefit... which is a financial burden to the people of the country they are trying to illegally enter...!

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I don't think being a Trump Crony is a recognised minority group (and if it were then it is admission that he is not democratically supported)
SO all those comparing to gays don't have a leg to stand on

the world needs people that will stand up against evil, not just give it lip service and fellatio.

Precisely.  Sarah Sanders is a person of privilege, with the power to do right.  It's not discrimination; it's condemnation.

Its discrimination based on her beliefs

Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Hence the idocy of the left and how they are happy to be selective in thier discrimination based on beliefs

So much for equality eh?

More strawman bullshit

Yes, you can be judged on your beliefs. what sort of dumb fuck can't grasp the concept of Personal Beliefs and RELIGION not being the equivalent of each other.

this again is the dumb fuck 'universal' nonsense that Right Whingers like to try and strawman as Left wingers position.
YES the LEFT Pick who they support because it is NOT the bullshit Universal Position You claim the Left have but NO left support.

this is the problem with morons that can only think is Binary Absolutes and not understand that variation and variety of positions dependant on circumstances.
A Nazis may be a minority but they do NOT get the protections For Minorities, But under dumbfuck didges logic they should.

Tommy Monk wrote:

They should stay in their own country rather than trying to illegally enter another country in pursuit of their own financial benefit... which is a financial burden to the people of the country they are trying to illegally enter...!

Financial benefit? They are in fear of their lives in Central America.

Don't ever come to America, tommy. Trump will see to it that you are arrested and never see the light of day again (that sort of thing is proper now that Trump is in office).

Didge wrote:Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Oh...so if you believed that you would get money if you robbed a bank, and you did so...it's discrimination if the police arrest you?  You've got a right to your beliefs?

See...you have a criminal mentality.  You are not decent enough for our civil society.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Oh...so if you believed that you would get money if you robbed a bank, and you did so...it's discrimination if the police arrest you?  You've got a right to your beliefs?

See...you have a criminal mentality.  You are not decent enough for our civil society.

All I can see, is you are making yourself out to be a dick


You said a person should be discriminated based on beliefs that they are evil

For example the Quran states very much about the endorsement of slavery and why its even still practiced today with ISIS

There is laws against stealing

Hence it would mean I would be breaking the law

So your view was utterly absurd

Like I say the many of you lefties on here are not progressive. You claim to stand for peoples rights, when you are no better than Totalitarian dictators, you wish to discriminate against people you do not like the beliefs of.

As stated, it just proves the regressive left are no better than the Far right, as both are driven by hate and not reason

We live in a free society and if you want to activelly discriminate against people, then I suggest you move to a country, that is a Totalitarian dictaorship. As you do not combat hate with even more hate. You combate hate with reason, to show why it is wrong.

All I can see, is you are making yourself out to be a cunt.

Didge wrote:You said a person should be discriminated based on beliefs that they are evil

You have missed the point completely (comme d'hab).  If you rob a bank, your arrest is because of your actions, which were preceded by beliefs.

Tokyo Sarah was kicked out of a restaurants because of her actions, and the actions of those for which she is the apologist...quite different from mere beliefs.  Members of the Trump administration are doing a piss poor job of running the country.  More importantly, they are destroying the Constitution, and committing acts of treason, coordinating with a foreign power with which we are at war.

The last time I checked, the penalty for treason is death.  She only got bounced out of a restaurant.  If you are gonna come 'round whining for that, what are you going to do when you see her and her cohorts lawfully hanged after impeachment and a criminal trial?

Original Quill wrote:All I can see, is you are making yourself out to be a cunt.

Didge wrote:You said a person should be discriminated based on beliefs that they are evil

You have missed the point completely (comme d'hab).  If you rob a bank, your arrest is because of your actions, which were preceded by beliefs.

You stated very clear, that people who have evil beliefs can be discriminated against

Now you again, after I continually make you look a complete hypocritical twat. Try poorly to worm your way out of the massive prejudice you would then allow to happen, to just about anyone, based on their beliefs.
So if you believe its okay to discriminate based on beliefs, that means anyone else can do so

Its very simple, either you can, or you cannot

There is no middle ground

Didge wrote:You stated very clear, that people who have evil beliefs can be discriminated against

Correct...if they act upon those beliefs.

We cannot be discussing abstract thoughts alone here, as we are considering a key functionary in the White House, involved in every executive action since the beginning.

The Press Secretary is the apologist for the President, who performs (and acts upon) unconstitutional actions, and is a traitor to the US.

I said in my previous post that any demonstration (such as booting her out of a restaurant) is OK.  But I would add, here, that is no substitute for a trial and a sentence (whatever that may be), from the top on down. These people are criminals, breaking real criminal laws.  Hiding behind their political cover should not work...lest it destroy the country, and all of its laws and tradition.

That is what Obama did, and it is the one criticism I have of his term in office.  Obama said of Cheney’s potential prosecution, ‘we should put it behind us’.  Alas, it was only an invitation for much more, and worse to come, in the form of Trump.  We must not make that mistake again.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:You stated very clear, that people who have evil beliefs can be discriminated against

Correct...if they act upon those beliefs.

.

Yes, we need to alk about whether its okay to discriminate against people who hold beliefs, construed to be evil

You have given an example, I have given examples

You want to be selective and subjective on what is accpetable to discriminate against, which is irrelevant.

The point is on your claim, based on evil

Evil is very subjective, based on the beliefs of people

For example, its seen as very evil to believe slavery is okay and even worse teach this

So based on your reason to discriminate against evil beliefs, you would then have to have no objection to others being prejuidced and to allow discrimination, against those they deemed hold evil beliefs.

Based on how the Quran endorses slavery, which slavery is beyond dispute as being evil. Your view would allow the discrimination and prejudice to be allowed against 1.5 million Muslims

Against All Democrats for their part in history with Slavery

See how many cans of worms, you have opened up with your can of stupidity?

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Correct...if they act upon those beliefs.

.

Based on how the Quran endorses slavery, which slavery is beyond dispute as being evil. Your view would allow the discrimination and prejudice to be allowed against 1.5 million Muslims

you make good points didge

the koran specifically teaches hatred and discrimination, so therefore any Muslim who eats halal or attends a mosque or any islamic prayer meeting must surely be seen to be ''acting on their beliefs of hatred and discrimination'', and can therefore be justified in kicking them out of any restaurant or any other establishment

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


Based on how the Quran endorses slavery, which slavery is beyond dispute as being evil. Your view would allow the discrimination and prejudice to be allowed against 1.5 million Muslims

you make good points didge

the koran specifically teaches hatred and discrimination, so therefore any Muslim who eats halal or attends a mosque or any islamic prayer meeting must surely be seen to be ''acting on their beliefs of hatred and discrimination'', and can therefore be justified in kicking them out of any restaurant or any other establishment

Thanks Gelico

Well if the slaughter of animals is deemed evil as well Gelico, then this would then Mean also religious Jews, with Kosher and just about every meat eater.

Like I say those on the regressive left. Continually prove there is very little progressive about them.

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


you make good points didge

the koran specifically teaches hatred and discrimination, so therefore any Muslim who eats halal or attends a mosque or any islamic prayer meeting must surely be seen to be ''acting on their beliefs of hatred and discrimination'', and can therefore be justified in kicking them out of any restaurant or any other establishment

Well if the slaughter of animals is deemed evil as well Gelico, then this would then Mean also religious Jews, with Kosher

and I would say exactly the same with that

I don't see how it is legal to make any animal suffer that much abuse and a slower, more painful, terrifying death in order to please some sky fairy

it's fucking ludicrous

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:


Well if the slaughter of animals is deemed evil as well Gelico, then this would then Mean also religious Jews, with Kosher

and I would say exactly the same with that

I don't see how it is legal to make any animal suffer that much abuse and a slower, more painful, terrifying death in order to please some sky fairy

it's fucking ludicrous

You see how we are again into the realms of subjective

I mean I eat meat and am hypocritica, in that, I also do care for animals, but not to the extent, where I would stop eating meat. Many are bred, to be eaten. I mean even stunning an animal is painful. I do think the religious animal slaughter is worse and there is no real reason for them not to stun also.

You see how, what matters to some people and how they would see something as evil, to then discriminate, which the left (except Eilzel) on here. Want to open the door to doing

Didge wrote:

gelico wrote:


and I would say exactly the same with that

I don't see how it is legal to make any animal suffer that much abuse and a slower, more painful, terrifying death in order to please some sky fairy

it's fucking ludicrous

You see how we are again into the realms of subjective

I mean I eat meat and am hypocritica, in that, I also do care for animals, but not to the extent, where I would stop eating meat. Many are bred, to be eaten. I mean even stunning an animal is painful. I do think the religious animal slaughter is worse and there is no real reason for them not to stun also.

You see how, what matters to some people and how they would see something as evil, to then discriminate, which the left (except Eilzel) on here. Want to open the door to doing

yeah, les has made some good points also

but with quills argument, let's take the clintons escapades which many consider to be evil. let's face it there are ardent christians who would even consider the fact that he spunked over lewinski to be some kind of evil against God or whatever so by that token the clintons, plus chelsea, plus any further relatives, plus anyone who did or still does work for them are all facilitating and abetting evil and should be chased out of every location they may turn up in.

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Correct...if they act upon those beliefs.

.

Based on how the Quran endorses slavery, which slavery is beyond dispute as being evil. Your view would allow the discrimination and prejudice to be allowed against 1.5 million Muslims

you make good points didge

the koran specifically teaches hatred and discrimination, so therefore any Muslim who eats halal or attends a mosque or any islamic prayer meeting must surely be seen to be ''acting on their beliefs of hatred and discrimination'', and can therefore be justified in kicking them out of any restaurant or any other establishment

\

no more so than ALL forms of Abrahamism
Kick them All out

Didge wrote:Yes, we need to alk about whether its okay to discriminate against people who hold beliefs, construed to be evil

No, that’s a red herring. It’s only '...if they act upon those beliefs' that any demonstration is justified. Evil doesn't exist until it takes place. Until then, the proper response is fair comment. We are talking about Adolph Hitler, not some idle philosopher.

Evil may be of the mind, but it is not actionable until it is connected with a deed, or deeds. It is in the cerebrality that evil takes form; but it is in the materiality that evil takes effect. We must be able to contemplate evil, in order to be able to judge evil. It is when evil is done, that discrimination and demonstration is justified.

That is why turning away Tokyo Sarah from the restaurant had real substance and life. She is a part of the evil doers...not merely one of the evil thinkers.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes, we need to alk about whether its okay to discriminate against people who hold beliefs, construed to be evil

No, that’s a red herring.  It’s only '...if they act upon those beliefs' that any demonstration is justified.  Evil doesn't exist until it takes place.  Until then, the proper response is fair comment.  We are talking about Adolph Hitler, not some idle philosopher.

Neglecting the fact Slavery has taken place and is taking place within Islam

You are just some pathetic Totalitarian Commie, you wants to be able to discriminate against those you do not like

As seens your own standards on evil and discrimination, do not stand up to scrutiny

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

No, that’s a red herring.  It’s only '...if they act upon those beliefs' that any demonstration is justified.  Evil doesn't exist until it takes place.  Until then, the proper response is fair comment.  We are talking about Adolph Hitler, not some idle philosopher.

Neglecting the fact Slavery has taken place and is taking place within Islam

You are just some pathetic Totalitarian Commie, you wants to be able to discriminate against those you do not like

As seens your own standards on evil and discrimination, do not stand up to scrutiny

Weak.  As to your first contention: This isn't about Islam.  As to your pathetic names and allegations: Adjectives and insults are not arguments...they are the last gasp of the defeated.  I gather you have seen your errors on this one.

Just as well.  It was a ridiculous attempt to score (misplace?) a 'mirror-image' metaphor over demonstrating resistance to political causes.  He forgot to mention that this demonstration was fully justified, as it was against illegal and unconstitutional use of power.

Next!  

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Neglecting the fact Slavery has taken place and is taking place within Islam

You are just some pathetic Totalitarian Commie, you wants to be able to discriminate against those you do not like

As seens your own standards on evil and discrimination, do not stand up to scrutiny

Weak.  As to your first contention: This isn't about Islam.  As to your pathetic names and allegations: Adjectives and insults are not arguments...they are the last gasp of the defeated.  I gather you have seen your errors on this one.

Just as well.  It was a ridiculous attempt to score (misplace?) a 'mirror-image' metaphor over demonstrating resistance to political causes.  He forgot to mention that this demonstration was fully justified, as it was against illegal and unconstitutional use of power.

Next!  

The reality is here, you have tried, as you usual do to get out of a very poor claim, which allowed discrimination to people based on beliefs, if seen as evil

Its there in black and white what you wrote

Yet you still try to worm and wiggle your way out of a concrete block.

Its hilarious

The point is on evil and you have agreed many times that slavery is evil

Thus based on your premise of what is evil, knowing yourself how you think Slavery is evil. Means you advocate discrimination againts Muslims. As the Quran endorses and encourages slavery.

There is no escpae here for you

As your views are 100% regressive, endorsing discrimination to people based on their beliefs.

Talk about weighed, meausred and left found wanting, proving its the Far Left, who are just as prejudiced as the Far Right

Two peas in a pod

Didge wrote:The reality is here, you have tried, as you usual do to get out of a very poor claim, which allowed discrimination to people based on beliefs, if seen as evil

That's a masterpiece of misrepresentation, as I have repeatedly emphasized that the distinction here is that Tokyo Sarah is a crucial part of the administrative department of the US government.  Indeed, the very topic belies that premise.  Of what relevance is a powerhouse like Sanders to to your reconstructed premise about powerless people bearing only beliefs?

This started with a story about Ms. Sanders and her exclusion from a restaurant.  You, then, tried to characterize her as someone who did no wrong, but was maltreated because of mere beliefs.

WONK...major misdirection.  She is not a person of mere beliefs, but the Press Secretary of the White House.  She participates in the making of policy, and indeed was uninvited from this particular restaurant because of her part in cruelly tearing apart thousands of peaceful, but defenseless families.

Your insistence in ignoring this major distinction, puts you in a class with Trump and his cohorts, who constantly lie to reframe a situation.  You will remember that you, along with Trump, insisted that nothing could change this tragedy short of an Act of Congress; something that was quickly belied by Trump changing it with a mere executive order.  You may claim not to like Trump, but you fall right in line with him.

Your attempt to make Tokyo Sarah out as an innocent soul, adorned only in her naked beliefs, is a red herring aimed at misleading the moral lesson here.  Sarah is only a believer like Adolph Hitler was a only a bookeeper.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its discrimination based on her beliefs

Which now means, you have no corse to argue when this happens to anyone else on beliefs

Hence the idocy of the left and how they are happy to be selective in thier discrimination based on beliefs

So much for equality eh?

Alas, discrimination on beliefs is what you do with evil people who have evil thoughts.  And if they carry out those beliefs--say, for example, kidnapping children--we put them in prison.

No matter how badly Quill tries to worm out of his view, its there for all to see...

He is also saying it is what people should actually do, as well

So Quill is clearly advocating discrimination against Muslims, Jews, Christians etc, based on evil beliefs held in their religious books and believes its what you do



You cannot make it up how stupid this boy is, that he proves, why the Far Left are as dangereous and prejudiced as the Far right. We have also seen this in history and today, where the left through Communism and Socialism, have locked up people, for their political views.

So clearly as Jeremy Corbyn, has called Hamas and Hezbollah his friends, both terrorist organisations. Where also he believe in Communist Russia, Cuba, Venezuela etc, where mass evil has been commited and is still committed. Quill is advocating that the entire UK. As a duty, must discriminate against Jeremy Corbyn, for his beliefs



Priceless

gelico wrote:

Didge wrote:

You see how we are again into the realms of subjective

I mean I eat meat and am hypocritica, in that, I also do care for animals, but not to the extent, where I would stop eating meat. Many are bred, to be eaten. I mean even stunning an animal is painful. I do think the religious animal slaughter is worse and there is no real reason for them not to stun also.

You see how, what matters to some people and how they would see something as evil, to then discriminate, which the left (except Eilzel) on here. Want to open the door to doing

yeah, les has made some good points also

but with quills argument, let's take the clintons escapades which many consider to be evil.  let's face it there are ardent christians who would even consider the fact that he spunked over lewinski to be some kind of evil against God or whatever so by that token the clintons, plus chelsea, plus any further relatives, plus anyone who did or still does work for them are all facilitating and abetting evil and should be chased out of every location they may turn up in.

Sorry Gelico Missed this

Didge, your dribbling. Get a tissue.

Muslims, Jews, Christians...and a new one, Corbyn...Hamas and Hezbollah, both terrorist organisations... communist Russia, Cuba, Venezuela... My god, give the man a bit of air.

Do you drink this early in the morning? What caused that outburst?

When you compose yourself, we can have a laugh about it.

Now after really ridiculing the idiot, lets have some more fun

Now we know, that under Obama, children, through a court case, was told, they could no longer hold Illigal immigrant children with their parents in adult detention centres. I Mean that is just evil and it was happenning under Obama.

Now I also thing its wrong and evil to seperate children from their parents, buuuuut, the country does it all the time and the west, to parents who are suspected and convicted criminals. Now children after often taken into care or placed with other family members. So to me, the illegal immigrant parents have been caught and thus, the law states they have commited a crime.

To me, what should be done, is a relative is informed from the country the child is from, and placed in their care. As we do already, with parents arrested for a crime. I certainly do not want to see the child in care or in any detention centre.

They certainly are not claiming assylum the parents, as they failed to report at the border. They actually entered illegally.

This crime has been in place as law for many years. It was the same under many previous Presidents

So either change your laws and allow every Tom, Dick and Harry to enter, rendering your intelligence against Terrorism redundent and spiral the country into meltdown. Or as I suggest, you put in place a better system for the children, which has them returned to other family memebers within their country of origin. Until their parents are granted bail or their case has been processed through the courts.