It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sarah Sanders says she was thrown out of Virginia restaurant

page: 46
80
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


We fight a lot.

But just for you. . .



"If you agree with someone 100% of the time, then one of you isn't doing any thinking."
-anon




posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Aww ... thank you Cowboy.


Now ...

"Who's this anon person, eh? Do you have a citation on that, hmmm? I call that fake news!"

(Heheh.)




posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: seagull

I know.

Believe me I know.

I've been an adrenaline junky myself for most of the last decade.

I've noticed over the last few days ... if you have a reputation for being on "one side," and then seem to start speaking for the "other side" ... "both sides" are now furious at you.

That tells me where I am ... in the majority middle.


Not everyone on "the other side" is furious at you.
We all just need to learn to do a personal outrage check...BEFORE we react to whatever we're told by either side is outrageous.

It's not going to be easy to do...at least at first.
We're all in need of a lot of deprogramming.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Welcome, sir. We've missed you.

I've lost count of the number of times over the years I've been here that I've been called liberal, or conservative. Or warmonger, and dove. Sometimes in the same thread!!

While I freely admit to being somewhat right of center, I'm also a registered Democrat... A distinctly rare breed these days, seemingly.

So, when I piss off both sides, I can generally be assured that I'm, at least somewhat, remaining true to myself. Y'know, somewhat bemused, and confused.




posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull


Maybe it's because we're all adults? Maybe. But mostly it's because we agree to disagree.

My friends are, without exception, like that as well.

A lesson some, too many, need to learn, apparently.


This should be engraved somewhere.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven

Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions. Either way, all they needed to rule in favour of Phillips was the hostile against his beliefs. They didn’t even bother to consider whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech, mainly because they didn’t need to.

Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The opinion that those quotes are from.

The opinion that 6 of the 7 justices who supported the ruling agreed to.

It seems like you disagree with the SCOTUS.


No I don’t. The Colorado civil liberties association were hostile towards philips because of his religious beliefs.

Yet, you claimed this:

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Greven

Kennedy is not the entirety of SCOTUS. There are other opinions.

6 of 7 justices agreed with Kennedy's opinion, the one which read:

“Few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise in protected speech.”

The thing you disagree with.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I'm an independent. Have been for decades.

No one puts Baby in a corner!



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Gryphon66

Too easy.

That is, quite simply, not exciting enough for today's outrage driven society. Or so it seems, at times.

Apparently, if you aren't outraged about something, you're not trying hard enough.

It's rather sobering, and not a frightening at times, to see just how easily people are lead to being outraged. Half the time, they don't even seem to know why they're outraged. Just that they are.


I've gotten a lot of flack about my language in this thread. The thing is though, I've hit that breaking point, others have already too, and others will in the future. I'm not going to go shoot up a group of people, but I'm personally done being tolerant of those who support Trump (you'll also note, that I'm generally much more civil outside of the mud pit, which I almost never post in).

I'm not willing to die for Trump, in support of him or against him. He's going to be out of office in 2 years, and he might be a lame duck in a couple months. What concerns me is the cult of personality that accepts his behavior... unless moderation suddenly begins to take hold in the US (which our system is not currently set up to promote), someone an election or two after Trump is going to be the one that demands action is taken. And one of the few things we can do now to prevent such a leader in the future is to call out the behavior now that is inappropriate and use social pressure to start moderating the populace.

Edit: This is part of why I think China has the right idea with their citizen score. I'm not saying I agree with their scoring parameters, but I do agree with the idea that outside of a few provisions for anonymous publishing, I think that we need to start removing anonymity on the internet. Every social media, forum, etc... post should have a persons real identity attached to it. Then we can start judging people by what websites they visit and what they write. That will in turn cause people to publicly moderate their opinions more and help to counter the extremism that anonymity promotes.
edit on 24-6-2018 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"If you agree with someone 100% of the time, then one of you isn't doing any thinking."
-anon


If you agree with Nazi's 50% of the time, you might want to start doing some thinking.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: DBCowboy
"If you agree with someone 100% of the time, then one of you isn't doing any thinking."
-anon


If you agree with Nazi's 50% of the time, you might want to start doing some thinking.


*shakes head*

You've already lost the argument and apparently you don't even realize it.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
*shakes head*

You've already lost the argument and apparently you don't even realize it.


Why? Because I think people should think through the consequences of a zero tolerance border policy that only serves to throw people into camps?

There are much better ways to deal with an immigration "problem". We've been trying to enforce the border with various agents, at various levels of security for decades now and it hasn't worked. What's the definition of insanity again?

Maybe it's time to try open borders. Stop criminalizing migration, get everyone who comes here into the tax base, give them political representation, ease the burden on our courts, get them into the financial system, give them a legitimate path to citizenship, get them in jobs that have upward mobility.

In short, let anyone come here, but make it very hard to do any sort of financial transaction without being involved with the banks. Get the banks to only sign up honest people, not drug dealers and gang members. That alone keeps most of the criminal element out. It's also cheap, and creates a finite number of points of contact where criminals can even set up in the country. Which is way better than trying to police a huge border. As a side bonus, it totally shuts down the human trafficking business.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

There are consequences for open borders.

None of them good.

But it is you who calls me a Nazi because I would not endorse open borders.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I've missed me too, LOL.

You know me Seagull ... I will relish pissing everyone off, LOL.




posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan


originally posted by: Aazadan

In short, let anyone come here, but make it very hard to do any sort of financial transaction without being involved with the banks. Get the banks to only sign up honest people, not drug dealers and gang members. That alone keeps most of the criminal element out. It's also cheap, and creates a finite number of points of contact where criminals can even set up in the country. Which is way better than trying to police a huge border. As a side bonus, it totally shuts down the human trafficking business.


I guess I'll need to push past all of the happy unicorns farting rainbows to make this point for you:






edit on 24-6-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

No shoes, no service is mandated for health and safety reasons. It is grounded in reality, not opinion. Religion is a matter of opinion.


Religion is a protected class, and the SC just ruled on it, not sure your point... No Shirt, No shoes, No service is rarely mandated though used.

BTW a person with no shirt or shoes is a health problem?



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IAMTAT

Yep. All the customer service training cliches about "90% of problems are because of the wrong tone of voice" are true.

That is EXACTLY what it is ... deprogramming. And the issue is that we are embedded in constant programming 24/7/365.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DJW001

No shoes, no service is mandated for health and safety reasons. It is grounded in reality, not opinion. Religion is a matter of opinion.


Religion is a protected class, and the SC just ruled on it, not sure your point... No Shirt, No shoes, No service is rarely mandated though used.

BTW a person with no shirt or shoes is a health problem?


The SCOTUS did not rule on religious exceptions to the law. They ruled that Colorado had not remained neutral to religion.

And yes, the no shirt/no shoes restrictions are hold-overs from the 1960s ... public health issues due to hygiene, disease etc.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
There are consequences for open borders.

None of them good.

But it is you who calls me a Nazi because I would not endorse open borders.


No, there is a lot of nuance and room for opinions between zero tolerance and open borders. I call people Nazi's who support indefinite detention of brown people in concentration camps.

My preferred option is open borders as I outlined above. The position I cannot accept is zero tolerance. Somewhere between those two is an acceptable compromise. That whole quote you posted earlier about agreement works both ways, if I shouldn't agree with a politician 100% of the time, they shouldn't agree with me either. And I can accept that that means, there shouldn't be agreement with my positions.

The guiding philosophy in my life is moderation, and that extends to moderation on what I believe.

Something in between zero tolerance and open borders is totally acceptable. And whether or not I agreed with the final result of that, I could call it a just policy.



posted on Jun, 24 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'll take it, but I wouldn't be me if I didn't remind you it's against T&C to do that, LOL.

Yes. That is the tip of the iceberg in what is probably the Mother of all Conspiracies.
edit on 24-6-2018 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling



new topics

top topics



 
80
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in

join