Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

This whole conversation and the back and forth are making my point for me. Parents don't let your kids be exposed to this partisan crap.

Instead teach them we are all part of the same team and the art of compromise and respect for each others beliefs. You know, how to act like mature adults.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm quite certain if you were in charge I'd be locked up and beaten because I was a 'dirty, filthy' _______( enter your term of choice here ).

Hypocrisy indeed.

Paradox of Tolerance

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).

TLDR for challenged:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Would you like to know more?

I don't have to TOLERATE intolerance, bigotry ect.

a reply to: queenofswords

Now you're just spouting unsubstantiated BS.

PFFFF...another hypocrite, right here! I was parroting the poster to whom I was replying!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

For what? Sue me. Yeah, great response. Lets clog up the court system with issue that are non-issue.

Force my employees? To do what? Their job? So, if Sara Sanders comes in it is ok to not serve her. What if I was your boss and said don't wait on blacks or Chinese or gays? That would then be racist and homophobic right?

Your argument sucks because you have none.

a reply to: xuenchen

I actually kind of feel for Sarah in this case. I don't agree with her at all but she was there in a non-political capacity with family... I'm unsure if there were kids there but if there were I mean one should practice a little more sensitivity.... yea I'm not with the restaurant on this one...

a reply to: introvert

Of course you can and do it well... have a beer...

originally posted by: DanteGaland
Paradox of Tolerance

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).

TLDR for challenged:

If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Would you like to know more?

I don't have to TOLERATE intolerance, bigotry ect.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Explain why they are a hypocrite...this should be good...

originally posted by: JBurns
Again, US citizens are separated from their children all the time. If a single parent commits a crime and is arrested, the children have to be cared for. If family/etc aren't available/are unwilling to care for the minors then they're placed into state custody.

Those ignoring this fact are exposing this disingenuous arguments. Plenty of US citizen criminals face this same consequence of breaking our laws.

Further, that vast 80% of unaccompanied minors are sent there WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY by their parents back home in their real/actual country. The parents are choosing to split with 80% of these unaccompanied minors

Obviously all illegals need to be detained (and their children housed/cared for) until they can be repatriated to their home country/sent home or until a legitimate and valid asylum request can be granted. Again, asylum requests would be practical if all the fraudsters and scammers and freeloading illegals weren't abusing the system to gain admittance to our country.

We don't need or want those criminals here.

See this should make sense to ANYONE who thinks logically, and does not base everything on pure emotions.

Everything stated here should be logical common sense on the same level of common sense as not petting a rattlesnake.

a reply to: ker2010

Name calling is the provenance of less than mature people who may never become fully adult. Adults shake hands when the game is over and the other side has won. Neither the Republican politicians nor the Democrat politicians are capable of that simple thing we hopefully teach our children is how they should act. Had Hillary won, it would be the same. A pox on both houses.

a reply to: loam a reply to: matafuchs


Let me get this straight. You have no problem with posters calling the restaurant owner, and me, hateful bigots, socialist filth, disgusting, disgraceful, anti-American piece of leftist trash. But you have a problem with me parroting such language back onto Sanders and Nielson? Is that right?

So...is it really safe to have a political discussion with friends or family over dinner in a restaurant anymore?

What if the chef or waitress overhears that you support someone they hate?

Do we all now have a 50-50 chance of getting loogies in our chowder or getting shown the door based upon where we decide to eat and what we may say over dinner?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Honest broker bonus points +1000.



Agreeing to disagree used to be a primary feature of our culture. It's why people came here.

Glad to see there are still adults in the room.

originally posted by: ker2010

originally posted by: JBurns
Again, US citizens are separated from their children all the time. If a single parent commits a crime and is arrested, the children have to be cared for. If family/etc aren't available/are unwilling to care for the minors then they're placed into state custody.

Those ignoring this fact are exposing this disingenuous arguments. Plenty of US citizen criminals face this same consequence of breaking our laws.

Further, that vast 80% of unaccompanied minors are sent there WILLINGLY and KNOWINGLY by their parents back home in their real/actual country. The parents are choosing to split with 80% of these unaccompanied minors

Obviously all illegals need to be detained (and their children housed/cared for) until they can be repatriated to their home country/sent home or until a legitimate and valid asylum request can be granted. Again, asylum requests would be practical if all the fraudsters and scammers and freeloading illegals weren't abusing the system to gain admittance to our country.

We don't need or want those criminals here.

See this should make sense to ANYONE who thinks logically, and does not base everything on pure emotions.

Everything stated here should be logical common sense on the same level of common sense as not petting a rattlesnake.

This is the sort of stuff I find fascinating.

You talk about logic and common sense, and that sounds good on the surface, but you are, in fact, using a logical fallacy, which is illogical.

So shouldn't anyone who thinks logically actually not take your opinion in to account?

a reply to: ker2010

Sure. Let's consider another Huckabee as we evaluate your claims.



What's fairly obvious here is that that Huckabee is a part of a concerted and not particularly well disguised effort to brainwash people into having a grossly distorted perception of the criminality and therefor irrationally exaggerated fear of Hispanic people, particularly hailing from Central American countries, who cross the border illegally or are otherwise in the country without a visa/on an expired visa, by associating them in peoples' minds with MS-13 and other violent criminals.

That's Dehumanization and Fearmongering 101.

And then building on that manipulation, the concept pushed here is that Democrats, by virtue of their policy differences, are advocates for MS-13.

Clearly Huckabee is all about using fear and bigotry to gin up gin hate for political advantage... right up until it comes time to start whining about other peoples' bigotry and hatred. Because he's a #ing hypocrite.



And those two examples are separated by two tweets and three hours.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Maybe one has evidential basis and one does not.

Well their yelp page is wonky right now due to this incident. (See for yourself: Yelp for this establishment)

The issue I have with this isn't that she was asked to leave, I feel that an owner should have that right. My issue with this is that these people that cry foul if a transgendered black person was asked to leave if they worked form DHS, but since Sanders is a white woman that works for the current administration, then it's OK. That's my issue, it seems like the only reason this happened was because it was basically allowed to happen at the Mexican restaurant just a few days ago.

I wonder what would happen if these places were listed as "No-Go" places by the Administration. I wonder how these places would cry discrimination at the top of their lungs if that happened.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Yes. You are a hateful bigot. You have shown it over and over trying to make comparisons that do not work. The point is...like some many things, there are double standards.

The restaurant was wrong to deny service to someone because of their job. Hate of their employer. No moral or religious grounds just hating someone based on association.

The baker. It was a religious question to them. Not about gays but gay marriage. The baker self admitted he would make ANY Other kind of cake for them just not something he does not believe in based on faith. Not because of hate.

Do you see the difference? You are also calling for intolerance and that Sara Sanders and her kids should not be waited on because of political views. More restrictions based on YOUR feelings and thoughts about things.

Run for president if it is so easy and make up your own laws.

a reply to: theantediluvian

He may be right on both points.

😎