"Cry 'Havoc!', and let slip the dogs of war".
- Thread starter morekaos
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
instead, they turn the blame to all men. blaming all men is much too broad, and a rational thinker would see this. blaming all immigrants (as you think i am doing) is also too broad. i blame criminal illegal aliens, like this sad individual fits the bill.
and again, i have no problem with immigrants. i have problems with illegal immigrants that come here, commit crimes, and on top of that are protected by sanctuary cities in some cases.
By the ?author ? that you are attacking , you mean sally tibbets? grieving cousin , let?s make that clear
And anyone can see that you are putting your own interpretation in her mouth . Toxic means just that ? those who are bad from the larger sample but you choose to interpret it as ?all men?
And yes , this is how it always works . Just good upstanding citizens only worried about the criminals , just that when you repeatedly showcase criminals of a particular ethnicity or background over everything else because it helps create the narrative you so desperately want to believe , it stops being objective .
Did you care at all that nearly 3,000 Puerto Rican?s are dead from hurricane Maria ? Was that an avoidable loss ? Could the number have been smaller if we had restored power less than the year it took for this federal government to do it ?
Yeah , right ...
"attacking" is not even close to what my statement shows. denial is the second stage of grief. the author is in denial (stage 2) about what happened and is lashing out (anger - stage 3) at men and "toxic masculinity" as the culprit. do you feel patients are attacked when a therapist speaks to someone to try to understand their issues? you're getting very emotionally involved in this issue and that's not how to rationally understand what happened to this poor girl. btw, i don't blame the author for acting or feeling this way, but i don't have to agree with it and that's what my post says.
1980s Carl's Jr. for Carl Karcher's donation to anti abortion group.
1990s Dayton Hudson Company (now known as Target Stores) for donation to conservative groups.
2000s Chick fil A for owner being against gay marriage.
2010s In-n-Out for donation to GOP
Please Liberals, organize more boycotts, we need the business!
morekaos
Well-known member
Message from Molly Tibbets' family -- almost as if they were reading the nonsense being posted on this thread --
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-relative-stop-using-her-death-to-push-racist
"Sandi Tibbetts Murphy
August 24 at 12:27 PM ?
No.
No, no and no.
Especially for those of you who did not know her in life, you do not get to usurp Mollie and her legacy for your racist, false narrative now that she is no longer with us. We hereby reclaim our Mollie.
Mollie was a young, intelligent, caring woman with a ready smile and a compassionate heart. So many across the state of Iowa and the entire country embraced her, and us, as we all searched and hoped for her safe return. It was not to be. Mollie was killed, and a man has been arrested and charged with her murder. Yes, that man is an immigrant to this country, with uncertainty as to his legal status. But it matters not. He could have been a citizen, born in this country; he could have been an older, white man from anywhere; he could have been a man from Mollie?s world. He is a man, whose path in life crossed that of Mollie?s life, with tragic results. He is a man who felt entitled to impose himself on Mollie?s life, without consequence. He is a man who, because of his sense of male entitlement, refused to allow Mollie the right to reject his advances ? the right to her own autonomy. Mollie was murdered because a man denied her right to say no.
Our national discussion needs to be about the violence committed in our society, mostly by men, as seen by these grim statistics from the FBI:
? 89.5% of murders are committed by men.
? 98.9% of forcible rapes are committed by men.
? 80% of violence against families and children is committed by men.
? 85% of intimate partner violence is committed by men.
We must be willing to address the way we raise our boys and young men, so that violence is not a part of their response to this world. Like the recent murders of the Colorado family or the similarly tragic homicide of Kate Steinle, Mollie?s death is further example of the toxic masculinity that exists in our society.
Mollie?s murder is truly tragic and horrifically painful for all of us who knew and loved her, the extinguishing of a treasured spirit much too soon. It is not your right to exacerbate this grievous act by hijacking Mollie and all she believed with your racist fear-mongering. You do not get to use her murder to inaccurately promote your ?permanently separated? hyperbole. You do not have permission to callously use this tragedy to demonize an entire population for the acts of one man.
No. We reclaim our Mollie."
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...-relative-stop-using-her-death-to-push-racist
"Sandi Tibbetts Murphy
August 24 at 12:27 PM ?
No.
No, no and no.
Especially for those of you who did not know her in life, you do not get to usurp Mollie and her legacy for your racist, false narrative now that she is no longer with us. We hereby reclaim our Mollie.
Mollie was a young, intelligent, caring woman with a ready smile and a compassionate heart. So many across the state of Iowa and the entire country embraced her, and us, as we all searched and hoped for her safe return. It was not to be. Mollie was killed, and a man has been arrested and charged with her murder. Yes, that man is an immigrant to this country, with uncertainty as to his legal status. But it matters not. He could have been a citizen, born in this country; he could have been an older, white man from anywhere; he could have been a man from Mollie?s world. He is a man, whose path in life crossed that of Mollie?s life, with tragic results. He is a man who felt entitled to impose himself on Mollie?s life, without consequence. He is a man who, because of his sense of male entitlement, refused to allow Mollie the right to reject his advances ? the right to her own autonomy. Mollie was murdered because a man denied her right to say no.
Our national discussion needs to be about the violence committed in our society, mostly by men, as seen by these grim statistics from the FBI:
? 89.5% of murders are committed by men.
? 98.9% of forcible rapes are committed by men.
? 80% of violence against families and children is committed by men.
? 85% of intimate partner violence is committed by men.
We must be willing to address the way we raise our boys and young men, so that violence is not a part of their response to this world. Like the recent murders of the Colorado family or the similarly tragic homicide of Kate Steinle, Mollie?s death is further example of the toxic masculinity that exists in our society.
Mollie?s murder is truly tragic and horrifically painful for all of us who knew and loved her, the extinguishing of a treasured spirit much too soon. It is not your right to exacerbate this grievous act by hijacking Mollie and all she believed with your racist fear-mongering. You do not get to use her murder to inaccurately promote your ?permanently separated? hyperbole. You do not have permission to callously use this tragedy to demonize an entire population for the acts of one man.
No. We reclaim our Mollie."
where did i call myself toxic? the author is in the denial phase where they refuse to believe someone came here illegally and committed a crime, and that person along with people doing what he's doing should be to blame.fortune11 said:
instead, they turn the blame to all men. blaming all men is much too broad, and a rational thinker would see this. blaming all immigrants (as you think i am doing) is also too broad. i blame criminal illegal aliens, like this sad individual fits the bill.
and again, i have no problem with immigrants. i have problems with illegal immigrants that come here, commit crimes, and on top of that are protected by sanctuary cities in some cases.
Kings said:
By the ?author ? that you are attacking , you mean sally tibbets? grieving cousin , let?s make that clear
And anyone can see that you are putting your own interpretation in her mouth . Toxic means just that ? those who are bad from the larger sample but you choose to interpret it as ?all men?
And yes , this is how it always works . Just good upstanding citizens only worried about the criminals , just that when you repeatedly showcase criminals of a particular ethnicity or background over everything else because it helps create the narrative you so desperately want to believe , it stops being objective .
Did you care at all that nearly 3,000 Puerto Rican?s are dead from hurricane Maria ? Was that an avoidable loss ? Could the number have been smaller if we had restored power less than the year it took for this federal government to do it ?
Yeah , right ...
fortune11 said:
"attacking" is not even close to what my statement shows. denial is the second stage of grief. the author is in denial (stage 2) about what happened and is lashing out (anger - stage 3) at men and "toxic masculinity" as the culprit. do you feel patients are attacked when a therapist speaks to someone to try to understand their issues? you're getting very emotionally involved in this issue and that's not how to rationally understand what happened to this poor girl. btw, i don't blame the author for acting or feeling this way, but i don't have to agree with it and that's what my post says.
morekaos
Well-known member
Well, we have now plumbed the jagged edges of California couch potato hashtag activism and it ends on the shores of In-and Out. Just one bridge too far.
A call to boycott In-N-Out meets its own resistance
Anthony Grigore is a Democrat. But as he waited Thursday at an In-N-Out Burger in El Segundo for his meal, Grigore made it clear party loyalty would only go so far.
Just hours earlier, the head of the California Democratic Party called for a boycott of the famed burger chain after a public filing revealed that the company had recently donated $25,000 to the state?s Republican Party.
?Eating at In-N-Out is such a standard thing to do across California,? Grigore said, dismissing the boycott idea as a bit silly.
California has emerged as the center of the Democratic resistance since President Donald Trump took office. But this activism might have met its match when it comes to In-N-Out, a California institution that some hold with the same level of esteem as the Golden Gate Bridge and Joshua Tree.
https://pilotonline.com/business/consumer/article_39be46dc-6ae4-543e-be69-fde631ba765b.html
A call to boycott In-N-Out meets its own resistance
Anthony Grigore is a Democrat. But as he waited Thursday at an In-N-Out Burger in El Segundo for his meal, Grigore made it clear party loyalty would only go so far.
Just hours earlier, the head of the California Democratic Party called for a boycott of the famed burger chain after a public filing revealed that the company had recently donated $25,000 to the state?s Republican Party.
?Eating at In-N-Out is such a standard thing to do across California,? Grigore said, dismissing the boycott idea as a bit silly.
California has emerged as the center of the Democratic resistance since President Donald Trump took office. But this activism might have met its match when it comes to In-N-Out, a California institution that some hold with the same level of esteem as the Golden Gate Bridge and Joshua Tree.
https://pilotonline.com/business/consumer/article_39be46dc-6ae4-543e-be69-fde631ba765b.html
Every Liberal effort to boycott non-Liberal businesses has not only flopped but has backfired (gave them more business from the publicity):morekaos said:
1980s Carl's Jr. for Carl Karcher's donation to anti abortion group.
1990s Dayton Hudson Company (now known as Target Stores) for donation to conservative groups.
2000s Chick fil A for owner being against gay marriage.
2010s In-n-Out for donation to GOP
Please Liberals, organize more boycotts, we need the business!
The Democrats want to destroy businesses like In-n-Out for the same reason the Communist Party wants to destroy Taiwan: it doesn't fit their narrative and exposes their world view as fraudulent.
Democrats say without labor unions, employers will oppress workers. So non-union places like In-n-Out, Costco, etc. who pay above market and provide amazing benefits must be destroyed.
The Communist Party says freedom is incompatible with Chinese culture. So Taiwan, which has a democratically elected government, rule of law, and freedom of expression coexisting just fine with Chinese culture, must be violently crushed.
Democrats say without labor unions, employers will oppress workers. So non-union places like In-n-Out, Costco, etc. who pay above market and provide amazing benefits must be destroyed.
The Communist Party says freedom is incompatible with Chinese culture. So Taiwan, which has a democratically elected government, rule of law, and freedom of expression coexisting just fine with Chinese culture, must be violently crushed.
morekaos
Well-known member
By all means, feel free to boycott all you want. I thought it was funny that 1) a boycott would be called on by the DNC for a paltry $25000 donation to the Repubs and 2) most peoples commitment to the cause ended at their stomach. That anger runs only so deep...or apparently, not really deep at all.