The left hates it when their narrative is proven wrong Their unhinged reaction is enjoyable.
The Good Samaritan paid for an unknown immigrant’s health care out of pocket," comedian John Fugelsang wrote on Twitter. “The Good Samaritan did not shoot anyone. Jesus was not a fan of killing for any reason, including self-defense. But if these ammosexuals had ever read the Bible, they couldn’t support the GOP or NRA.”
“I don’t know who needs to hear this but when a 22-year-old illegally brings a loaded gun into a mall and kills a mass shooter armed with an AR-15 after he already killed three people and wounded others is not a ringing endorsement of our implementation of the Second Amendment,” Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts said on Twitter.
By the way this is false. Everything Dicken did was legal. “moms demand action founder Shannon Watts” must live in New York where they prosecute people who defend themselves.
Speaking of crime in New York City see this from hard-core leftist Howard Schultz of Starbucks. Recall the hub-bub in 2018 about some drug addict getting kicked out of a Starbucks restroom and Schultz’s abject apology to the woke mob.
Schultz blamed elected leaders of the Democrat cities where the stores are closing "at the local state and federal level, these governments… and leaders, mayors & governors & city councils have abdicated their responsibility in fighting crime & addressing mental illness.
The leaked video of Schultz shows him addressing Starbucks employees. He told them that the company was “beginning to close stores that are not unprofitable.”
Schultz said he was “shocked” to hear from employees that “one of the primary concerns that our retail partners [baristas] have is their own personal safety.”
“And then we heard about the stories that go along with it about what happens in our bathrooms,” Schultz said.
Is he going to a 12 steps program? If so, I want to be around for step 5, where he bends over and gets kicked in the jackass for being an ignorant, but successful, blowhard.
Following up on my comment more generally, guess who’s running fact checking and content moderation at FB? A handful of top government spooks.
Aaron is CIA. Or at least he was until July 2019, when he left his job as a senior analytic manager at the agency to become senior product policy manager for misinformation at Meta, the company that owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp. In his 15-year career, Aaron Berman rose to become a highly influential part of the CIA. For years, he prepared and edited the president of the United States’ daily brief, “wr[iting] and overs[eeing] intelligence analysis to enable the President and senior U.S. officials to make decisions on the most critical national security issues,” especially on “the impact of influence operations on social movements, security, and democracy,” his LinkedIn profile reads. None of this is mentioned in the Facebook video.
Meta is so full of national security state agents that at some point, it almost becomes more difficult to find individuals in trust and safety who were not formerly agents of the state.
Studying Meta’s reports, as well as employment websites and databases, MintPress has found that Facebook has recruited dozens of individuals from the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), as well as many more from other agencies like the FBI and Department of Defense (DoD). These hires are primarily in highly politically sensitive sectors such as trust, security and content moderation, to the point where some might feel it becomes difficult to see where the U.S. national security state ends and Facebook begins.
anyone who uses social media like Facebook is crazy. If a friend or family member wants to use it politely decline and ask him to use an email service like protonmail.
Federal Judge Blocks Biden Admin’s Guidance Allowing Biological Males In Girls’ School Bathrooms
A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s Title IX guidance on gender identity and sexual orientation.
U.S. District Judge Charles Atchley in the Eastern District of Tennessee ruled last week that the administration’s guidance misquoted the Supreme Court to equate sex and gender identity, likely violating federal law.
As it currently stands, plaintiffs must choose between the threat of legal consequences — enforcement action, civil penalties, and the withholding of federal funding — or altering their state laws to ensure compliance with the guidance and avoid such adverse action,”Atchley, a Trump appointee, wrote in his preliminary injunction.
This really isnt much of anything, except for this response from Occupy Democrats:
BREAKING: Walgreens is hit with a wave of boycotts after it’s revealed that employees are permitted to refuse the sale of condoms and emergency contraceptives to customers because of “moral objections,” meaning religious bigotry.
Except that those employees are just following their beliefs as they’re allowed to, and it’s the customers who are objecting to those employees following their beliefs and demanding those beliefs be invalidated and not tolerated.
So, Occupy Democrats, who is it that’s actually guilty of religious bigotry here?
If a store offers a product for sale and the product is in stock, can the store (or by extension the store employee) legally refuse to sell it? Even if that is the case, according to the article, the policy is: “when a team member has a moral or religious conviction about completing a transaction, they are required to refer the customer to another employee or manager on duty who will complete the transaction”.
This policy sounds OK to me – the customer is delayed but gets what they want, the employee is OK because they weren’t forced to service the customer directly. Unfortunately before this employee referred the customer to another employee to complete the transaction, he “proceeded to embarrass Jess in front of other customers for her reproductive choice.” This couldn’t possibly be OK. And denying the sale and not following the policy (i.e., referring to another employee) is also not OK.
I understand and agree with your point. But I have a hard time taking this claim at face value, without hearing the other side of the story too. It may have still been inappropriate, but I’m skeptical that it was as bad as she claims. And the referring to another employee could’ve easily been left out of the complaint, or she reacted to the denied sale before it could be handed off to another employee. Again, I’m not making excuses, just pointing out there are too many missing details to accurately characterize that incident.
Huh? The only people engaged in religious bigotry are those refusing to sell the stuff. They’re trying to impose their religious standards on everyone else. Customers are boycotting because they don’t like having religion shoved down their throats.
The boycotters are objecting to the religious people trying to impose standards. The right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins–likewise, the right to swing your religion. You don’t get to impose your religious standards on others.
The boycotters (or the persons they’re ‘sticking up for’) are the ones who walked up to the other guy and put their nose in his fist’s path. Until then, and I suspect even afterward, he really didnt give two craps about what they wanted or didnt want to do as long as he wasnt being dragged into it.
I know it’s become far to common to expect that the world revolves around you. But if you are offended by someone, odds are they’re equally offended by you - and your feelings do not get any higher priority than anyone else’s. If you are the one who came up to them, you are being the aggressor who is infringing, no matter how innocent you want to insist on being.
Yet in typical Democrat fashion, instead of backing off and respecting the alternate perspectives, the only answer is to double down on demanding that your standard be the only acceptable standard.
