XPost: alt.politics.congress, alt.politics.corruption, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: alt.politics.election, alt.politics.misc, alt.politics.obama   
   XPost: alt.politics.scorched-earth, alt.politics.socialism.mao,    
   lt.politics.trump   
   XPost: alt.global-warming, alt.conspiracy, alt.apocolypse   
   XPost: alt.politics.usa, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.infowars   
   XPost: alt.beam-me-up.scotty.there-is-no.intelligent-life.down-here,   
   alt.politics.guns   
   From: NOT-SURE@idiocracy.gov   
      
   On 7/6/22 1:47 PM, -hh wrote:   
   > On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 1:11:34 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >> On 7/6/22 12:28 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>> On Wednesday, July 6, 2022 at 11:07:06 AM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>>> On 7/5/22 4:55 PM, -hh wrote:   
   >>>>> On Tuesday, July 5, 2022 at 4:38:58 PM UTC-4, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:   
   >>>>>> [.....]   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> An awful lot of words to try to avoid the point being made, namely that   
   >>>>> they're just a selfish hypocrite:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Case in point:   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>>> The problem that Scotty has is that he *claims* that he boycotts   
   >>>>>>> companies which "attacks any of my RIGHTS", while not wanting to   
   >>>>>>> realize that an infringements of rights that you're not presently using   
   >>>>>>> is still an infringement. Likewise, he shows that he only cares about   
   >>>>>>> just himself...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>>> At the same time I look at all the RIGHT we have as being worthy of   
   >>>>>> action, as long as I agree they are "RIGHTS we actually have" that are   
   >>>>>> either enumerated by the Constitution or NOT.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> So then why are you okay with supporting businesses who grant women   
   >>>>> fewer rights than men?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>> General statement with no facts or basis... What RIGHTS and who is   
   >>>> specifically being denied them, as far as women go, Democrats and their   
   >>>> United States Supreme Court Justices can't define who/what women are...   
   >>>> are you suggesting you can define who and what women are and aren't?   
   >>>   
   >>> Oh, so you're going to try that narrative? That was a Republican "gotcha!"   
   >>> attempt at Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's hearings. As she said, that's   
   >>> a medical question best left to those professionals.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Please jump in and tell me so I know who's RIGHTS are being denied to   
   >>>> them and exactly what that RIGHT is so I can ponder why those persons   
   >>>> have been denied the RIGHT that I wasn't denied. That sounds like it's   
   >>>> very serious since I don't want those same people denying me that very   
   >>>> same RIGHT.   
   >>>   
   >>> Their bias is against multiple non-Christian centric communities which   
   their   
   >>> religion considers to be sinners, and if you cared about freedoms/rights as   
   >>> much as you've *claimed* that you do, you wouldn't need to ask: you'd   
   already   
   >>> be aware of this. So is your excuse that you endorse those same biases, or   
   is   
   >>> it that you're incredibly shallow and don't do any research? Choose your   
   poison.   
   >>   
   >> Amendment I   
   >> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or   
   >> prohibiting the free exercise thereof;   
   >>   
   >> What RIGHTS did this Company deny to "multiple non-Christian centric   
   >> communities which their religion considers to be sinners"   
   >   
   > I've already outlined it, because I'm addressing broad principles.  If you   
   > want every last gritty detail, go look it up.   
   >   
   >> Do I have to speak to you if you don't meet my standards of pleasant   
   >> company?   
   >   
   > Depends on context.  Simplistically speaking, if you're public facing, then   
   yes.   
   >   
      
   Then a mentally ill child who has been traumatized and can't speak is   
   violating the laws by NOT speaking to you?   
      
   Or maybe you're violating laws by trying to force that child to speak...?   
      
      
      
   >> I'm NOT sure what you want a fast food store to do to appease your   
   >> sensitive personality? Should they ignore their own to make you feel   
   >> better?   
   >   
   > I'm not the one bragging about boycotts.   
   >   
      
   But you do suggest that they have violated a person's RIGHTS and support   
   suing them... That's not really a big difference is it?  What RIGHTS   
   have been so offended that you would force them to engage with? DO they   
   have to believe in your sexual delusions?   
      
   I don't boycott, I don't organize, I simply follow my own standard of   
   behavior and respect reality.  Which is what you attacked, by saying   
   that it was self interest... to which I responded that my self interest   
   is me NOT deciding for you what you believe. Which is more of a Liberal   
   egalitarian and Libertarian approach than you giving money or using your   
   money to help force me to follow your beliefs...   
      
      
   Because as with the Progressives FAKE "egalitarian" FACADE your interest   
   in how I am offended and you making the decisions is duplicitous an   
   isn't egalitarian in any way...  it's simple LEFTIST FASCISM being   
   exported.   
      
   It's who Democrats really are.   
      
   --   
   -That's karma-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)