The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 10:41:09 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Forum Community
  Forum Community (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, YE, KoopaDaQuick 🇵🇸)
  The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Sam Spade Memorial Good Post Gallery  (Read 90468 times)
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,313
United States


P P P
« on: February 20, 2015, 11:04:19 AM »

Seriously? I mean, the natural extension of this is to ask what if there was no doctor available. So she would only have begrudgingly treated a child? At best?

If you're a doctor you have a responsibility that overrides (breathe Libertarians) your "rights". You don't want to risk interacting with people about whom you have a religious objections? F*** off somewhere else then.

She's a truly horrible person and no it's not because she thinks differently to me, or whatever weak an defenceless straw men you wish throw, it's because it was a basic dereliction of her responsibilities as an emergency physician - and whatever she believes about the parents, she had no right (not a specific constitutional right, so I guess I lose huh?  But a moral right) to refuse and pass on treatment on their baby.

For those who are defending her actions "hey, but she found a doctor to treat the baby" (or you know, she could have cut the crap and just done it herself) - I assume you'll be cool when you take your newborn to the hospital (btw, when infants are at their MOST vulnerable) and the Doctor goes "cha, you no wha? Uh uh... I don't like who you are" - I'll find someone else to care for your child .... 'cause her right to judge is more important that your child's immediate well-being?
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,313
United States


P P P
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2015, 03:17:41 PM »

My top 5 Party Choices:
1. Likud (I voted this way in the poll and my sig should make it obvs)
2. The Jewish Home
3. Kulanu
4. Yisrael Beiteinu
5. Shas


In other words, kill all Palestinians, amirite

You support Communism, you shouldn't talk about killing. Your movement has more blood on it's hands then any other ideology.

Yeah, but the difference is that the people killed by say, the Bolsheviks, weren't people who were systematically denied the right to have electricity in their homes, meaningful work, or adequate food. The Bolsheviks and co. actually killed people who did things that were pretty abhorrent and that would never have been held accountable for them otherwise. Were they always right? Definitely not. But they never set out to systematically eradicate an entire group of people because Russia was "god's gift" to them or whatever bullsh**t you Zionist-fascists go on about.

Killing is not in and of itself immoral. Everything is contextual. Wiping out the white armies that would overturn Russian democracy and enslave the people =/= wiping out Palestinians because they had the gall to live somewhere that a group of chauvinist imperialist-lackeys decided was their land.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,313
United States


P P P
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2015, 03:41:26 PM »

No one is telling you what you can't say. People are just calling you a racist when you say racist things.

I think it's ironic that Internet "progressives" who routinely call Republicans "Rethuglicans" are now lecturing people that the word "thug" is racist.  Especially when the word "thug" derives from India, where it described professional robbers and murderers who strangled their victims.

The PC police need to be stopped at every turn, especially when they are the ones who are warping the meaning of neutral words, claiming they are "racist" when they are not.

Here is a fun and interesting fact about language: the signified meaning of words changes, depending on the context. When a DailyKos user calls the Republican Party, the Rethuglican Party, there is no racial connotation because Republicans are typically white. When a CNN news anchor calls African-American rioters "thugs", it racist because it is referring to African-Americans. It is racialized because the term "thug" is rarely used to signify anything that is outside the context of Black culture. The DailyKos use of "thug" is used because it is a pun.

Referring to a group of white Harley-Davidson riding types as "thugs" is an archaic usage of the term. Referring to a group of Blacks as "thugs" is the contemporary usage of the term. I don't need to point out that rappers frequently refer to themselves as "thugs" and that the term has been popularized because of hip-hop. This does not mean that the term is socially acceptable: the Black community says "nigga" as well.
Logged
SWE
SomebodyWhoExists
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,313
United States


P P P
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2015, 12:39:47 PM »

Why King Memorial? Did King leave?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 12 queries.