US Democrat Martha Coakley, hoping to win the big-deal Senate Seat in Massachusetts, has said that Catholics shouldn't work in emergency rooms.
How ignorant, prejudicial and hateful.
You know, if a Republican said that, say, Muslims shouldn't work in airport security positions (duh!) or that gays shouldn't work in the military (so as not to make straight soldiers uncomfortably distracted, which can be a bad thing when defending America in combat)... well, you know their political career would be dead on arrival.
You know, I'd suggest that bigoted Leftists like Martha Coakley shouldn't work in politics!
Wonder what the Kennedys, who claim to be Catholic, think of Coakley? Oh, wait... the Kennedys are CINOs, ie. Catholics In Name Only, and embrace all kinds of things that Catholicism holds to be unacceptable. So they won't care that Coakley said something horrible about Catholics, much like Democrats of whatever race don't care that Democrat Senator Harry Reid says horrible racist stuff. Why continue with the unbelievable charade? What gives them the right to claim to be Catholic if they don't believe in anything in Catholicism? It's delusional and smacks of an attempt to get the sizable Catholic community to vote for them.
Of course, Democrats will claim whatever it takes to get votes... or pass draconian, un-American, revolutionary legislation against the overwhelming will of the majority of the People.
The biggest lie that Democrats perpetuate is their name. They are NOT democrats. They're kleptocrats!
19 comments:
So you actually agree with her that people should be excluded from certain professions based on their religion?
Wow.
Idiot. Your reading comprehension fails, as usual.
Go play over at the Large Thriving Plants sandbox. You've got your match over there. Knowledge of big, fancy words and big, fancy concepts and an enjoyment of showing it off. That's why nobody with a working brain pays you folks much attention, except in terms of watching a freakshow.
Wouldn't surprise me if you were to, once again, go forth and defame me based on your failure of reading comprehension. But I'd ask you to refrain from doing so. For a change. Surely even you guys can be nice once in a while. It might feel good.
And... wow.
You admitted that Leftism is a religion.
Wooow.
Beware, the uncritical regurgitation of truncated and context-absent quotes.
Do you think that people who work in emergency rooms should be able to deny others treatment based on their religious beliefs?
BTW, it's "Enormous Thriving Plants". Accuracy matters. ;)
Now, Scented One. Play nice, and try to read a bit more carefully.
You suggested that Muslims shouldn't work in airport security. I simply observed that you believe in excluding folks from employment on the basis of religion.
You see, Scenty, we grown ups believe in freedom of religion, just like the US founding fathers; and unlike you, we do not believe it should impact on your employment prospects.
"That's why nobody with a working brain pays you folks much attention..."
Ummm...may I respectfully suggest you compare the volume and quality of commentary on our blog to what you're getting? ;)
You're wrong again. Your reading comprehension failed.
I was merely citing an example of what the Hard Left wouldn't go for, as opposed to discriminating against Christians. You misunderstood. Read it again.
You're lying again, so I again urge you to read it carefully and try, try, try to use your brain. Yes, it's hard, but the more you keep trying, the more you'll become able to do so. So might as well get started.
As for your volume/quality of commentary, big deal. Same old people babbling on and on, with multiple comments each per thread. It's just nuttin'-else-to-do babblery. Who needs that? Too much irrelevance there.
Besides, I said "Nobody with a working brain...". Again, you failed in your reading comprehension. Like Leftists typically do.
BTW, here's a fact: You believe it's ok to utter racial slur words. You're not worried about consequences for your doing it, because, obviously, Leftists get away with it very easily, just like Harry Reid.
So if you're going to spread lies about me, I'll spread facts about you that'll rightly expose the hairy, pierced nipples on the saggy man-titties of your character.
Now go have a beer. I'm gonna, myself.
Now, Scenty. Grown-ups compete with ideas. Little, tiny children do it with infantile name calling. Just saying.
If I misunderstood, I certainly apologize. So please state clearly: you do NOT believe Muslims should be allowed to work in airport security?
(Be very careful in answering this, and dtry not to lie. Because previous postings don't disappear, you know.)
"Same old people babbling on and on, with multiple comments each per thread."
What's different, I think, is that we welcome conservative commenters. We have several regulars, including some very smart and articulate people. We treat them with civility, and the discussion, while heated, is quite interesting.
Now, I know that your purposed with this blog is different. You don't actually want discussion; you simply need agreement. That's okay - everybody has to find SOMEONE out there to reassure them that they're right. But we're after something a little more interesting than an echo chamber.
Well, your attempts to poach my commentors, such as Glasnost, whom you've called intelligent and were desperate to have on your site, well, they've met with severely limited success at best. Very few reality-minded folks will deign to waste time with pointless, endless babble, such as occurs on Stage Left, which is indubitably Hard-Left and intellectually dishonest and hypocritical in nature. Frankly, I find the posting content to be extremely biased and annoying. That's why I don't waste time there.
And I believe it's already been demonstrated herein that there is NO echo chamber on TCS. Guess you selectively missed the evidence, or selectively ignored it. Most commentors don't necessarily agree with all points I make. Some of the more-right-wing commentors are, in some POV ways, more like you guys at SL, actually, not that they'd bother with SL. And some are even more rock-hard right-wing than I, though the ways in which they're right-wing, sometimes their views are shared with those who are normally left-wingers.
I could care less about how many folks agree with me. Getting agreement isn't my purpose in blogging. Apparently you cannot figure out my core purpose. Too bad. Not that it matters to me, for I accept that there's folks who will always think what they want to think, and ignore or deliberately misinterpret reality at their convenience and according to their particular ideological box.
Oh, and by the way, I kind of feel like we're kids, and arguing about stuff like whose bike is better than whose bike, or whose big brother could kick whose big brother's ass and silly stuff like that.
But then again, I didn't bring up the compare-our-blogs-and-comments-sections-and commentors idea- YOU did. And you call yourself more grownup? Listen, just 'cause you're significantly older and have been here and there, sorry, but that doesn't automatically mean anything other than you're older and have been here and there. Nothing guarantees greater understanding... except the use of the brain in service of gaining greater understanding. That's the key- whether and how and how much one uses one's brain. You either fail on that count or you do it right.
"Well, your attempts to poach my commentors, such as Glasnost, whom you've called intelligent and were desperate to have on your site, well, they've met with severely limited success at best"
"Poach" "your" commenters? Naw. Anyone is welcome at our site, as Glasnost would have been. But frankly, Scenty - we really don't need to "poach". I think I may have invited a couple of the brighter birthers over when you started editing and censoring my comments, so that I could have a discussion without my words being altered.
"Frankly, I find the posting content to be extremely biased and annoying."
Heh. No doubt. The difference, however, is that we invited folks who disagree with us to dispute our facts or our reasoning. We don't shut them down with childish name calling or ban them when they raise uncomfortable points.
(You have every right to do that, by the way - I'm not disputing that. I just personally believe that grown up discussion is more interesting.)
"Guess you selectively missed the evidence, or selectively ignored it."
Yeah, I guess I did. I once asked you to provide a link to one thread on your blog in which you held a civil and extended discussion with people you fundamentally agreed with. You couldn't then, and I rather doubt you can now. But that's okay. There's nothing wrong with an echo chamber, if that's what you want.
"Apparently you cannot figure out my core purpose."
Oh, no. I know exactly what your core purpose is. After a difficult childhood and youth, you've found a place where you can be an expert, and where people admire and listen to you. That's wonderful, and I don't begrudge it at all. And the reason I keep actually trying to talk to you is that you may eventually come to a point where you're internally secure enough to do more than simply gather bad evidence from bad sources to shore up your view of the world. That's a stage of maturity you may yet reach. But as long as your response depends on comments like "saggy little man-titties" and other silliness - you're not there yet.
No, dude, I don't think you're a sucky blogger.
You have a blog and you manage to keep fresh content on it every day. You respond to your correspondents, and you've built up a body of regular readers who like what you do. You've been recognized by others.
We both crap all over each other all the time, but I don't disparage what you've done. It's not easy to run a blog, and anyone who keeps it going for as long as you have is obviously working hard at it and doing something right.
I do think you need to challenge some of your own premises and be a bit more open to the possibility that you can be wrong, and not get so defensive or aggressive about it. I do the same thing. I'm working on it. You should too.
I go where the real-world evidence leads me.
That's what I do.
Some of what I do is, of course, holding a mirror up to those who need to see themselves behaving badly... and giving such folks a taste of their own medicine, too.
Of course, sometimes it appears that you can't tell the difference. But that's ok; many others can't. Many others can, though, obviously, mostly folks in my own camp who know precisely what I'm doing.
We like to chuck the Left's crap back at them, as the fun part of the blogging thing. It's non-violent, is equal and oppositely reactive, so it's all good...
It's a sort of war, in which no blood is drawn. We're sick and tired of seeing the other guys in the Big Media saying all sorts of false, nasty stuff about us and what we believe in, etc., so when the blogs came along, we went right to war...
Perhaps that's what you don't like? Oh, well, too bad.
As long as the Left is going to lie and cheat and demonize, we will return fire. It's as simple as that.
Believe it or not, I wasn't always like this. I was actually of the belief that we should all be civil, rational, respectful, honest, cooperative, etc... But since the Left is absolutely the opposite of all that good stuff, and because that's how they win elections, court cases, etc... well, then I realize that, hey, dude, it's war... and if we don't fight back and win, we'll lose our countries, lose our rights, be enslaved... all by our very own people, egged on, encouraged, etc... by our foreign enemies who want to see this happen to progressively (that's the true meaning of "progressive"!) weaken the Free World so as to make it ever-riper for the picking! Real-life example: A Leftist I know well actually said to me, "We don't need a military" (he also habitually defames non-Leftists and anyone and everyone who disagrees with his ideology as "fascists"). Few things are more terrifying and chilling than such dangerous delusion, you see, and since so many Leftists say such scary things, well, that motivates me all the more to stand up for the Free World against those who threaten it either deliberately or inadvertently, either from afar or from right here in the neighborhood.
Of course, even that war... is based on an overwhelming mountain range of evidence that accumulated over many years that led me to an inevitable conclusion, and that is that our own people are waging war on the very way of life our Constitutions and bills of rights have afforded us for so long...
And, though I can't prove it, I still can't afford to assume that you're not one of their propagandists trying to mess with my head as well as with others', so as to hopefully get us to stop bombing y'all as hard as we are...
We'll stop when the others stop. The others started it; they can finish it by ceasing and desisting already!
Oh, and it's much better and more effective than simply yelling at Warren Kinsella on the TV as he spews his horseshit.
And... heh-heh... Warren Kinsella finally heard me. And got mad. And tried to get me to click a hyperlink to his site so he could try to figure out who I am via my IP address, use it against me, perhaps in one of his many, many SLAPP suits... didn't fall for the trick, and that made him madder, directly demanding my real name, after which, having failed, he went away. Anyway, he got my message, knows what I think of him.
Ain't the blogosphere wonderful?
"I go where the real-world evidence leads me."
If that were true, Scenty, you wouldn't react with so much hostility when you're wrong, and defend your errors by editing, censoring, deleting and finally banning folks who point it out.
I understand you need to exclude information that contradicts the way you see the world - it's essential to you. And that's fine. But you'll know you're REALLY there when you can discuss on the basis of facts - not insults, errors, and imposition of silence.
Give my regards to your trainer.
S/he trained you well.
I hardly see any need to take lessons from a professional psychoaffector who loves to exercise his trade on his ridiculously considerable free time, trying to mess with the heads of conservative bloggers.
Can't fool me anymore. I've studied you long enough to be able to recognize your tactics BVR.
Oh, sorry. That's a jetfighter acronym for "beyond visual range".
"without violating their own human rights (religious beliefs)"
I think you need to polish up that conflation. The non-discrimination clause in the charter was never designed (nor can it reasonably be read to) establish a right to abuse the workplace as a venue of evangelism. "Reasonable accommodation" is certainly a tenable solution to the inevitable friction between rights, but let's not pretend that it grants unlimited deference to ones desire to proselytize at the workplace, particularly in an emergency environment or while employed to provide medical services.
While your defense of accommodation is an admirable one (and the unintentional implied comparison to physical/mental impairment amusing), I think you've picked a realm in it is least suited to be applied to champion it.
As for internal consistency, I think Balb's observations are astute. Your willingness to discriminate solely on the basis of religious belief with respect to non-Christians in some employment situations seems terribly incongruent with your objection to issues where ability to perform required duties without abuse of employment position is at play. That isn't something that disappears with the employment of "jetfighter acronyms", commenter-poaching paranoia, or propagandist-accusations.
Post a Comment