The This Is An Outrage thread


I looked again, but I’m going to have to wait until someone puts out the short version or something. All I can say is what I said above. I’m still not seeing why I should care beyond that. I’m opposed to Trump for totally unrelated reasons. If there are some internal reasons in their party why they have decided or are deciding to support Trump, that might be interesting, but not anything under my ability to control beyond supporting the punishment of lawbreakers under the law.


The grownup in the room.


That senior staffer is Henry Kerner, and he’s got his fingers in all sorts of pies.

McCain is an idiot with a penchant for getting shot down over enemy territory. He may be nominally in charge, but that’s not the same as running things.


I wouldn’t give Obama that much credit.


Why was that recommended to me?
Maybe, I should post it in here.


I think Tempo was responding to this:

Liberals don’t have a monopoly on sympathy. However, the MSM and Democrats are using this as an opportunity to ginning up support and outrage against Trump. They don’t care about the kids, not really, Chuck Schumer already rejected a bill proposed by Ted Cruz so he could keep the focus on Trump.


Right, shooting Republicans at baseball games or physical assaulting politicians on their lawns I assume would cross the line for you, but it doesn’t surprise me that you take the line “you reap what you sow”. Kind of reminds me of the “hate speech is not free speech” logic, which I see belonging to authoritarian left leaning ideology (and sorry to say in part fascist enforcement of ideology through intimidation) rather than the libertarian left I more identify with.

Civilized people in general can tell the difference between verbal confrontation and criminal harassment. If Americans have lost their civilizedness, it’s kind of hopeless. But I’m still vaguely optimistic. :rainbow: :idunno:

Then poured fuel on the flames by saying Democrats want illegal immigrant votes, they protect illegal immigrants with sanctuary city laws. They don’t care about Americns, they are evil, they need to be shouted down in their homes, kicked out of restaurants, confronted in the supermarket.

What happened to the right not to bake a cake? The restaurateurs can just join the Church of Anti-Democratism and get religious exemptions. Problem solved! :slight_smile:


Is that what you believe, a cake shop has the right to deny service of a generic product based on sexual orientation?

I don’t and have said as much. Do we now have it on the record that is your position?


Yeah, it always leads here and it’s always ridiculous. It’s a big part of their narrative.

Okay, so follow up to this. You specify “generic”. Is it your position that if the product were not generic - if it were special order - that they would then have the right to deny service? Or was this qualifier just in there for no reason? Serious question, just baring in mind I do have follow ups to this follow up.


Yes, because that is normally considered the line in regards the law. You can’t compel someone to write or create art that offends them. You couldn’t compel someone to write an article or a book they were in objection to, you can’t force an artist to create a painting of something they find offensive. You shouldn’t be allowed to tell a cake shop to write a slogan they object to, although there is a case related to just that making its way through the courts.

So, the use of generic product is not there for no reason.


So where is the line there? If they had to simply write “happy anniversary” for a gay couple, would that be enough? If they were asked to write two men or two women’s names on a wedding cake, without any further decoration, is that where the line is?


The line is anything that’s available as a generic product, must be made available to everyone. Specific custom requests are at the owners discretion.


Everybody’s a Nazi, okay? Get over it.

Anyway, I just wanted to draw attention to:

After what happened to him, he should know better.

This is why I never call for civility. One of the reasons, anyway.


Okay, so if Sarah Huckabee Sanders asked for her gazpacho without carrots… then?


Did you know, after they were kicked out, Sarah and her husband went home. The inlaws (who are liberals by the way) went to a restaurant opposite, whereby the owner of the Red Hen gathered a group of protesters to continue shouting and screaming at the now group that no longer even had Sarah Huckabee Sanders in it?



I have absolutely zero idea what to do with that information.


Try to seem outraged.


Sorry, forgot what thread I’m in.



What I don’t get is why you are even bringing up cakes and right of service when you don’t believe (correct me if I am wrong) that a bakery has a right to turn away customers based on sexual orientation.

It seems like tribalism to the worst possible extent, justifying actions taken in Sanders case, using arguments you dont believe in just because the opposing tribe used them in a case where the sides were reversed.

Shouldn’t one have principles which then get applied equally, no matter which side?


I didn’t follow this thing and had no idea who that Sarah was until I googled it…I kept thinking you all were talking about Bernie Sanders.


That’s kinda my point. I don’t think Sarah Huckabee Sanders should have been kicked out of the restaurant but the right getting up in arms about it in this instance is comical.