Liberals Go Ballistic on Whole Foods Market

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Vegita wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I mean, think about it. You heard the word retarded and apparently for some reason black people popped into your head. Talk about a Freudian slip.

I think he was being sarcastic and referencing the thread about race having an inpact on IQ. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

V[/quote]

I understand the sarcasm. There was just no logical reason for him to interject race. For some reason he associates “genetically retarded” with “black people”. It’s something he subconsciously does.

I know his retort was sarcastically attempting to frame the guy insulting him as racist. Why he has the association is the question. Why when addressing someone who called him retarded does he reference blacks?

I also think it’s ironic that white liberals play the race card.

Edit: I may be a dumbass as I have not read the other thread.

42

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
belligerent wrote:
They don’t have to boycott anything. I would ban them from the store if I was CEO.

why are you so mad that they’re proposing a boycott? Its their right.
[/quote]

Because it is the CEO who is right and the boycotters who are wrong. The fact that the boycotters feel “betrayed,” that the feel the CEO owes them free healthcare at his expense, is reason not to give a shit abougt them.

43

[quote]belligerent wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
belligerent wrote:
They don’t have to boycott anything. I would ban them from the store if I was CEO.

why are you so mad that they’re proposing a boycott? Its their right.

Because it is the CEO who is right and the boycotters who are wrong. The fact that the boycotters feel “betrayed,” that the feel the CEO owes them free healthcare at his expense, is reason not to give a shit abougt them.

[/quote]

complain complain complain

44

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:

Proposed nationalized healthcare - Socialist

you mean the public option? do you realize there is a pretty significant difference?

and before anyone trolls out the death panels, im not in favor of it.

All the versions of the proposed bill nationalize parts of the system in one way or another, with the public option being the most obvious. The end result of any of these bills will be the insolvency of the private health insurance system, prompting the government to step in and nationalize, just like they did with the banking and auto industries. Which, BTW the Dem leadership has made it clear is their end goal (single payer, and Barney Frank is on record saying exactly that). Thus, socialist.

And FWIW, I don’t believe the “death panels” are written or intended in the bills, but something similar (rationing) will result as an unintended consequence.[/quote]

The majority of my family is tied into health care organizations, lobbys, and actual health care professionals. We’ve had long conversations over this subject at family get dinners, needless to say my family who work as lobbyists and in big the HMOs are not the slightest bit scared of public option spawning into a fully nationalized system and a death toll to private care.

of course the public option would have rationing, the government can’t purchase infinite care. But I have yet to see anything in the bill that would bar people in the public option from purchasing additional care from the hospital if they wish.

But i do think the fear of rationing in this debate is a reflection of a lot of american’s attitudes on health care, blame it on sensationalized tv shows or just lack of eduction, i see it day in and day out at work, people thinking if they just throw millions of dollars and resources at someone who is not going to live regardless, that somehow the person will live based on money spent.

anyways, you do realize how powerful the health care and big pharma lobby are? Theyre not scared of barney frank and theyre not going to just pick up and go home because he said so.

45

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
belligerent wrote:
PB-Crawl wrote:
belligerent wrote:
They don’t have to boycott anything. I would ban them from the store if I was CEO.

why are you so mad that they’re proposing a boycott? Its their right.

Because it is the CEO who is right and the boycotters who are wrong. The fact that the boycotters feel “betrayed,” that the feel the CEO owes them free healthcare at his expense, is reason not to give a shit abougt them.

complain complain complain[/quote]

Irony is if this boycott is effective it won’t hurt the CEO nearly as much as all their employees. They’ll lose their jobs and healthcare, CEO will still be rich.

46

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I mean, think about it. You heard the word retarded and apparently for some reason black people popped into your head. Talk about a Freudian slip.[/quote]

Do yourself a favor and wander over to the race and intelligence thread

47

[quote]borrek wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I mean, think about it. You heard the word retarded and apparently for some reason black people popped into your head. Talk about a Freudian slip.

Do yourself a favor and wander over to the race and intelligence thread[/quote]

I apolgize. I didn’t know the full context of the comment. It seemed entirely out of the blue.

48

Even Chairman Mao sounded more genuinely (in the traditional sense) liberal than today’s leftists: “Let a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend.”

Whereas today’s leftist, while insisting that he loves diversity of ideas, in fact cannot tolerate expression of ideas he doesn’t like.

Now of course Mao, after listening to the hundred contending schools of thought, had them all sent to prison camps. The only difference is the amount of power held, not the intolerance to the expression of differing ideas.

49

I vote with my wallet all the time. Cash is the great equalizer and the fuel by which political power runs.

Works all ways. There are people who will absolutely not shop at WalMart for a host of reasons, while I will frequent it for the same and other reasons.

The Dixie Chicks spoke out against former President Bush and when folks decided not to support them by not buying records or attending their concerts, the people were speaking. Of course, the Chixie Dicks cried “What about freedom of speech!!!”. Two points: 1) The people were exercising exactly that-- their freedom to speak out against which that they did not agree, and 2) the D.C’s don’t understand what the First Amendment really means.

I do not and will not buy Sara Lee products because of their contributions to Anti-Gun causes. I won’t buy another new American car because of the bailout. I choose non-Union over Union labor every day of the week.

Freedom to ‘vote’ with your wallet is AWESOME.

50

However, the fact that persons would “vote with their wallet” merely because a person expressed an opinion they don’t like, is a sad commentary on those persons.

51

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
However, the fact that persons would “vote with their wallet” merely because a person expressed an opinion they don’t like, is a sad commentary on those persons.[/quote]

In a not-so-public context I would agree with that. I use subcontractors all the time who are Left of Lenin. They wear their politics on their sleeves, but they are good people and competent in their skills.

In the celebrity public light, though, those people sway an intangible but real influence on potentially millions of people. That is real political sway, and certainly partly responsible for the President we currently have.

The CEO of one of the largest supermarket chains in the world? Maybe, maybe not. He expressed his opinion and people certainly have the right to respond to that. Some people identify themselves by their politics. I certainly choose my battles (eg. Sara Lee boycott), but I’m just a lowly middle-class caveman consumer.

I still listen to Bruce Springsteen even though I can’t stand the fool. Will I buy his latest CD? That still remains to be seen. I see it as a donation to his cause, and he certainly has real influence vs. some little schmuck like me.

52

Oh, they have the right, I was not disagreeing with that.

It is the mentality of being intolerant of others expressing views that they disagree with that I find pathetic and, in the long run, a disturbing trend, as this end of the spectrum gains the political power to in fact silence those who express opinions they disagree with.

Regardless of the initial non-success – other than establishing the precedent of being able to do it – I don’t think recent events will prove to be the last time we see the White House or other government body calling for expressions of politically-undesired speech to be reported to them, nor do I think that the part of the spectrum I am talking about is going to stop their efforts to have banned from the airwaves presentation of viewpoints not biased their way.

53

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Oh, they have the right, I was not disagreeing with that.

It is the mentality of being intolerant of others expressing views that they disagree with that I find pathetic and, in the long run, a disturbing trend, as this end of the spectrum gains the political power to in fact silence those who express opinions they disagree with.

Regardless of the initial non-success – other than establishing the precedent of being able to do it – I don’t think recent events will prove to be the last time we see the White House or other government body calling for expressions of politically-undesired speech to be reported to them, nor do I think that the part of the spectrum I am talking about is going to stop their efforts to have banned from the airwaves presentation of viewpoints not biased their way.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this :wink:

silent opposition = subjects (as opposed to “citizens”)

54

This from a friend of mine, and former chairman of the state Libertarian Party:

[i]It’s amazing.

Mackey started the store from next to nothing, long before a store like this was common. It’s an incredibly designed and presented food shopping experience with extaordinary choices. He guided it’s development. The “progressives” obviously love it for its varieties, choices and good shopping values.

But, being progressives, they cannot tie two thoughts together.

Rather than learn from a person who has accomplished a success, they will boycott the store they like because the CEO does not support a health plan that is the equivalent of a Soviet grocery store, complete with three mouldy cabbages on otherwise empty shelves, in a dimly lit, filthy store, staffed by surly gov’t careerists.

Quite a display of pea wittery.
[/i]

55

Well, to the pea brains, if only the government were in control of everything as they’d like, then everyone would be eating nothing but the finest organic food, available at a very low price in highly convenient stores with smiling government employees cheerily handing them everything they need.

They actually do not understand that such would not and cannot be the case. They really don’t.

56

Freedom fries baby

57

[quote]borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?[/quote]

Ever seen how libs scream while conservatives are trying to speak? Go to any university campus and have a forum on conservative values. Then you’ll REALLY see the ‘free speech’ advocates! LOL!!!

58

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?

Ever seen how libs scream while conservatives are trying to speak? Go to any university campus and have a forum on conservative values. Then you’ll REALLY see the ‘free speech’ advocates! LOL!!!

[/quote]

Didn’t you have a thread here recently implying that anyone who supported gay marriage was an “America hater”?

59

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?

Ever seen how libs scream while conservatives are trying to speak? Go to any university campus and have a forum on conservative values. Then you’ll REALLY see the ‘free speech’ advocates! LOL!!!

Didn’t you have a thread here recently implying that anyone who supported gay marriage was an “America hater”?[/quote]

And you’re point is?

60

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?

Ever seen how libs scream while conservatives are trying to speak? Go to any university campus and have a forum on conservative values. Then you’ll REALLY see the ‘free speech’ advocates! LOL!!!

Didn’t you have a thread here recently implying that anyone who supported gay marriage was an “America hater”?

And you’re point is?

[/quote]

Just making a mental note. Carry on.