So I Was Talking To a Progressive Part II

[rubicon]

So I was talking to a progressive the other day and he was muttering about injustice. I asked him what was wrong?

He said:

I just read that "Biology professor Bret Weinstein had settled his lawsuit against Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington. Mr. Weinstein became a pariah last spring when he criticized an officially sanctioned "Day of Absence" during which white people were asked to stay away from the campus.

He and his wife, an anthropology professor, Heather Heying alleged that Evergreen "has permitted , cultivated and perpetuated a racially hostile and retaliatory work environment" They claimed that administrators failed to protect them from "repeated provocative and corrosive verbal and written hostility, based on race,as well as threats of physical violence".

Evergreen announced it would pay $500,000 to settle their claims.

So I was talking to this progressive and I asked, Are you in favor of "Day of Absence"? He said, yes, unequivocally yes.

But, I said then why do you progressives chide people who speak to the benefit of "absence" when it comes to sex? Hmmmm

Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

So I was talking to a progressive and I asked "your party cites abortion rights as inseparable from women rights, and economic and racial justice, is that right? "Yes", he replied.

Then are you aware that statics report that in 2012 6,500 more black babies were aborted than born in New York City? Did you know that, nationally, black women abort their babies at a rate of 4 times that of any other ethnic group?

Do you suppose eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Saner would be proud of those numbers?

He replied, well woman have a right to abortions.

And I then asked, what are the moral rights of the unborn?

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

So I was talking to a progressive and I asked "your party cites abortion rights as inseparable from women rights, and economic and racial justice, is that right? "Yes", he replied.

Then are you aware that statics report that in 2012 6,500 more black babies were aborted than born in New York City? Did you know that, nationally, black women abort their babies at a rate of 4 times that of any other ethnic group?

Do you suppose eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Saner would be proud of those numbers?

He replied, well woman have a right to abortions.

And I then asked, what are the moral rights of the unborn?

Personal Best Regards:

It should be 100%

You KNEW I was going to say it...

[cologal]

So I was talking to a progressive and I asked "your party cites abortion rights as inseparable from women rights, and economic and racial justice, is that right? "Yes", he replied.

Then are you aware that statics report that in 2012 6,500 more black babies were aborted than born in New York City? Did you know that, nationally, black women abort their babies at a rate of 4 times that of any other ethnic group?

Do you suppose eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Saner would be proud of those numbers?

He replied, well woman have a right to abortions.

And I then asked, what are the moral rights of the unborn?

Personal Best Regards:

I would have answered none..

[MDLNB]

Talking to a progressive is an oxymoron. It won't happen. First you have to find one that will allow you to talk to them. They only want to rant at you and tell you have you are a bigot, racist, sexist, etc and mean and hateful. Then they will scream over any response that you have. You will not "talk" to a progressive. They have a lot in common with the little fat boy, Rocket Man over in NK.

[MDLNB]

Talking to a Progressive is an oxymoron. You do not talk to them. They scream at you and will talk over you. You do not have a conversation with a progressive.

[Don Baldwin]

Talking to a Progressive is an oxymoron. You do not talk to them. They scream at you and will talk over you. You do not have a conversation with a progressive.

And when they scream...ALL they scream is...you're a racist...or you're a homophobe...or you're a misogynist.

Nothing to prove you wrong. Because they have nothing to prove you wrong.

[mellincf]

So I was talking to a progressive and I asked "your party cites abortion rights as inseparable from women rights, and economic and racial justice, is that right? "Yes", he replied.

Then are you aware that statics report that in 2012 6,500 more black babies were aborted than born in New York City? Did you know that, nationally, black women abort their babies at a rate of 4 times that of any other ethnic group?

Do you suppose eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Saner would be proud of those numbers?

He replied, well woman have a right to abortions.

And I then asked, what are the moral rights of the unborn?

Personal Best Regards: You will no doubt be happy to hear that a few states are making male masturbation against the law, because they are so concerned about the "unborn". Isn't it great for strangers to make laws concerning your own body? Once you opened the door, you might not like the result. Anyway, with a million more babies born every four days, and since it costs $250,000 to raise a child on welfare to the age of 18, one would think conservatives would be all in for abortion.

[MDLNB]

You will no doubt be happy to hear that a few states are making male masturbation against the law, because they are so concerned about the "unborn". Isn't it great for strangers to make laws concerning your own body? Once you opened the door, you might not like the result. Anyway, with a million more babies born every four days, and since it costs $250,000 to raise a child on welfare to the age of 18, one would think conservatives would be all in for abortion.

You have a foolish excuse to justify baby murder. And your statement regarding masturbation is even more ridiculous. Conception requires an egg, but what would you liberals know considering your usual Liberal Arts degrees are based on basket weaving majors. A total waste of someone's money. Perhaps someone should have considered abortion, earlier?

I heard part of an interview on Tucker's show the other night where he asked a gentleman what determined life in a pregnancy. He responded that it must be "sentient." In case you do not know what that means: Sentient: able to perceive or feel things.
Tucker then asked him why it is OK to kill an unborn baby that is not considered "sentient" but not to kill someone in a coma? The resulting response was just useless babbling. I found that point to be very interesting. It sort of reinforces my thought that maybe we should legalize Post Natal abortion. Allow a parent the legal right to abort their child until he/she reaches the age of 18 years old. Or, maybe now the age of 26 since they are dependent on their parents in order to exist. In any case, the more abortions performed means the less libtards being turned out. That in itself almost/ALMOST justifies supporting unborn baby murder. Just my thought.

[rubicon]

So I was talking to this progressive and I asked him about the morality of abortion and whether or not a early stage fetus has moral value.

The progressive said that there are two different kinds of fetus; one with a future and one without. Then he went on to explain that the fetus without a future is also without moral value, while the fetus with a future has moral value. Therefore, killing a fetus with no future and no moral status is a wholly amoral act – there is nothing wrong or right about it because the futureless fetus has no moral status.

Well I said, do you see the problem? Problem? Yes with your circular thinking and logic that basically gives the mother all of the power to decide whether or not the child, the separate individual, growing in her womb has moral status.

So moral status doesn’t depend on whether or not you are aborted, it depends on whether or not you have a future, which ultimately depends on whether or not your mother decides to have an abortion. Hmmmmmmm

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

So I was talking to this progressive and I asked him about the morality of abortion and whether or not a early stage fetus has moral value.

The progressive said that there are two different kinds of fetus; one with a future and one without. Then he went on to explain that the fetus without a future is also without moral value, while the fetus with a future has moral value. Therefore, killing a fetus with no future and no moral status is a wholly amoral act – there is nothing wrong or right about it because the futureless fetus has no moral status.

Well I said, do you see the problem? Problem? Yes with your circular thinking and logic that basically gives the mother all of the power to decide whether or not the child, the separate individual, growing in her womb has moral status.

So moral status doesn’t depend on whether or not you are aborted, it depends on whether or not you have a future, which ultimately depends on whether or not your mother decides to have an abortion. Hmmmmmmm

Personal Best Regards:

So...you're saying white babies should be saved and minorities aborted? I agree... When do we start?

[rubicon]

So I was talking to a progressive and greeted with him, "a good morning". He replied , Trump sucks.

I said, Mainstream political polls that were wrong about the 2016 presidential race still use a methodology favoring Democrats, women and younger voters to calculate President Donald Trump's approval ratings, a new analysis contends.

The analysis, posted by Bombthrowers, charges the top polls oversample an average of 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans — chopping about 8 points off the president's approval ratings, from 46 percent to 38 percent.

For example, Bombthrowers's analyst James Simpson charged that a recent Economist survey on Trump's approval rating used 58 percent more Democrats than Republicans.

"In every poll, Democrat respondents outnumbered Republicans by significant amounts," Simpson wrote.

"The Economist poll was the worst. Only 24 percent of respondents (360) were Republicans compared to 38 percent (570) Democrats — which means that 58 percent more Democrats were polled than Republicans…

"On average, in these seven widely recognized national polls, only 29 percent (409 people) of the total 1,383 polled were Republicans, while 37 percent (518) were Democrats.

"Another way of saying it is that, on average, 29 percent more Democrats than Republicans were polled."

Simpson contends choosing "likely voters" is the best gauge, noting Trump pollster John McLaughlin and Rasmussen use likely voters and show Trump's approval rating higher than the others.

John McLaughlin, a pollster for Trump, put the Bombthrower report on his company's website and emailed it around Washington, the Washington Examiner reported.

"Not only does it affect [Trump's] job rating and favorable rating, it also affects the policies and issues these polls purport to measure," McLaughlin wrote, according to the Examiner.

"Maybe this is why so many Republicans, Independents and Trump voters seem to disregard media polls. It appears the media is once again sacrificing its credibility for its liberal, anti-Trump bias."


Personal Best Regards:

[rubicon]

So...you're saying white babies should be saved and minorities aborted? I agree... When do we start?

My friend if that is what got out of what was written you did indeed miss the complete intent of the post. In my view every life matters and that includes the "ünborn".
The intent of the post was to point out the fallacy of dismissing moral value

The point of the post was to underscore that those who invented "a right" that does not exist are immoral

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

My friend if that is what got out of what was written you did indeed miss the complete intent of the post. In my view every life matters and that includes the "ünborn".
The intent of the post was to point out the fallacy of dismissing moral value

The point of the post was to underscore that those who invented "a right" that does not exist are immoral

Personal Best Regards:

That's NOT what you said:

"The progressive said that there are two different kinds of fetus; one with a future and one without. Then he went on to explain that the fetus without a future is also without moral value, while the fetus with a future has moral value.

Blacks...99% anyway...have no "future"...not a productive one anyway. So, what's the point of letting them be born? They'll just leech off everyone, become violent, steal...ruin a neighborhood...a school.

[rubicon]

So I was talking to a progressive and explained:


Scott Adams wrote before Trump was inaugurated that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:

Act One - Trump is literally Hitler.

Act Two - Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three - Trump is not incompetent, but we don't like his policies.

We've seen this play out. From election night up through the first 100 days, the left was out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days, when Trump had failed to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people and put the gays into camps and force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the "Trump is Hitler" narrative.

And so from that 100 day point up until now, it has been the "Trump is incompetent" game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the left will have to say is "we just don't like Trump's policies."...Act Three.

And once that happens, the left is dead. Because, Trump's policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We SHOULD put America first. Build back our economy. Create jobs. Strengthen the military. Protect the border. Outside a few densely-populated liberal strongholds like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and - of course - Washington, D.C., Americans in general agree with all of this. So when all the left has to say is "Trump's policies are wrong," the left will literally be telling most of America, "you people are stupid."

Trump will win 47 states in 2020. The left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened. And you'll be able to look back and say, "hey, some of us told you all this back in 2017”.

The progressive replied: Trump sucks.

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

So I was talking to a progressive and explained:


Scott Adams wrote before Trump was inaugurated that, to his critics, the first year of Trump would be a play in three acts:

Act One - Trump is literally Hitler.

Act Two - Trump is not literally Hitler, but Trump is incompetent.

Act Three - Trump is not incompetent, but we don't like his policies.

We've seen this play out. From election night up through the first 100 days, the left was out rioting and acting as though Trump taking office was literally the end of Western Civilization.

But after 100 days, when Trump had failed to do evil-dictator things like round up all the brown people and put the gays into camps and force women to stay home and have babies, it became farcical to continue the "Trump is Hitler" narrative.

And so from that 100 day point up until now, it has been the "Trump is incompetent" game. Look at all the chaos. Look at all the leaking. Look at all the tweets. Now, we begin Act Three. With Priebus out and Kelly in, things will settle down. Pretty soon, all the left will have to say is "we just don't like Trump's policies."...Act Three.

And once that happens, the left is dead. Because, Trump's policies are policies that most Americans actually agree with. We SHOULD put America first. Build back our economy. Create jobs. Strengthen the military. Protect the border. Outside a few densely-populated liberal strongholds like New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and - of course - Washington, D.C., Americans in general agree with all of this. So when all the left has to say is "Trump's policies are wrong," the left will literally be telling most of America, "you people are stupid."

Trump will win 47 states in 2020. The left will be scratching their heads and wondering what the hell happened. And you'll be able to look back and say, "hey, some of us told you all this back in 2017”.

The progressive replied: Trump sucks.

Personal Best Regards:

Liberals promoting the minority majority in EVERY "white" country...WILL be the end of Western Civilization. Name me a "civilized" black or Hispanic country. Name a country that IMPROVED when taken over by blacks/Hispanics.

[rubicon]

That's NOT what you said:

"The progressive said that there are two different kinds of fetus; one with a future and one without. Then he went on to explain that the fetus without a future is also without moral value, while the fetus with a future has moral value.

Blacks...99% anyway...have no "future"...not a productive one anyway. So, what's the point of letting them be born? They'll just leech off everyone, become violent, steal...ruin a neighborhood...a school.

With all due respect, your position on the topic of race has created circular thinking and it does not bode well for support of your argument. In fact the kind of circular thinking you display with this race issue is just the kind of circular thinking my posts were underscoring as respects progressive and abortion. You missed it because in your view blacks have no worth so ergo what the progressive preach is right as to blacks but not whites.

My friend you alone defeat your own arguments because you are blinded with hate and you cannot reach any level of objectivity with such deep emotions. it causes you to lose insight

Personal Best Regards:

[Don Baldwin]

With all due respect, your position on the topic of race has created circular thinking and it does not bode well for support of your argument. In fact the kind of circular thinking you display with this race issue is just the kind of circular thinking my posts were underscoring as respects progressive and abortion. You missed it because in your view blacks have no worth so ergo what the progressive preach is right as to blacks but not whites.

My friend you alone defeat your own arguments because you are blinded with hate and you cannot reach any level of objectivity with such deep emotions. it causes you to lose insight

Personal Best Regards:

Hate? No...FACTS. They HAVE NO VALUE...99% anyway.

Lets go visit E St Louis and see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit S or W Chicago to see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit Detroit to see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit ANY MLK Blvs and see what "value" the blacks have.

SHOW ME their "value" as a PEOPLE...not the 1%...the VALUE of the 99% who live in the inner city slums and the "black part" of ANY town. The "people" who want NOTHING to do with white people OR Western Civilization...except for us to house and feed them. Almost HALF the black population receives a government benefit...almost HALF.

What VALUE do the blacks bring to a school that becomes dangerous and violent? A neighborhood, a town, a city...even COUNTRIES are DESTROYED when blacks take over.

IF there is a "hate"...it's of their character...their actions...just like MLK told us to judge them.

LETS GO TO MLK BLVD AND YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF JUST HOW RIGHT I AM. You can see first hand...their "character".

Caps for emphasis...not a looming stroke...

I'm happy as hell living in my "white paradise". If you'd like diversity...go to them...don't ruin our good thing...AGAIN with forced diversity.

Do you want busing? Bus in some blacks because we're too white here? They tried that once. Now, they build mandatory "low income housing" in the nice places instead of busing them in, they moved them in. Another neighborhood bites the dust.

[larbud]

Hate? No...FACTS. They HAVE NO VALUE...99% anyway.

Lets go visit E St Louis and see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit S or W Chicago to see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit Detroit to see what "value" the blacks have. Lets go visit ANY MLK Blvs and see what "value" the blacks have.

SHOW ME their "value" as a PEOPLE...not the 1%...the VALUE of the 99% who live in the inner city slums and the "black part" of ANY town. The "people" who want NOTHING to do with white people OR Western Civilization...except for us to house and feed them. Almost HALF the black population receives a government benefit...almost HALF.

What VALUE do the blacks bring to a school that becomes dangerous and violent? A neighborhood, a town, a city...even COUNTRIES are DESTROYED when blacks take over.

IF there is a "hate"...it's of their character...their actions...just like MLK told us to judge them.

LETS GO TO MLK BLVD AND YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF JUST HOW RIGHT I AM. You can see first hand...their "character".

Caps for emphasis...not a looming stroke...

I'm happy as hell living in my "white paradise". If you'd like diversity...go to them...don't ruin our good thing...AGAIN with forced diversity.

Do you want busing? Bus in some blacks because we're too white here? They tried that once. Now, they build mandatory "low income housing" in the nice places instead of busing them in, they moved them in. Another neighborhood bites the dust.


Don, they'll never get it until reality slaps them upside their stupid heads...

[Don Baldwin]

Don, they'll never get it until reality slaps them upside their stupid heads...

That is why we NEED to organize a "class trip" to MLK Blvd some Saturday night. So reality DOES slap them in the head. We can do a "Top 5"...bottom 5 technically...a top 5 sh!ttiest places tour. Memphis, E St Louis, S and W Chicago...you know "black villages".

[Chi-Town]

PBR, MDCPD, Donny B, and Lbud. On and on and on. Great thread about imaginary progressives.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk

[MDLNB]

PBR, MDCPD, Donny B, and Lbud. On and on and on. Great thread about imaginary progressives.

Sent from my SM-T310 using Tapatalk


Naw, you fit the bill exactly, even if you are a registered Republican, David.