Fired for associating with a Republican. Well, what did he expect?
[Update a while later]
This seems somewhat related–the anti-Catholic bigotry at US News:
I stopped being a Democrat when it became clear that I was expected to vacate any of my own thoughts and opinions in order to fall in line with the party, or be called moronic or hateful or bigoted or even evil. There was no way the party could be wrong on anything, therefore dissent indicated a problem originating with me. “I” had the problem; not the party.
Don’t snigger, conservatives, you have your narrow-minded purists, too. Perhaps you’ve never marched in lockstep with quite the same precision as the Democrats, but you’ve run your own purges, and handily. Because whom the godlings of ideologies would destroy, they first make mad.
Currently Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is being sized up for a suit of tar and feathers or, more precisely, she is being warned that one awaits her, if she does not quickly fall back in line and do what she was supposed to do, was expected to do when President Obama nominated her to the bench: rubber-stamp his dubious policies once they landed before her, as expected.
What the hell does Sotomayor think she’s doing, putting conscience and Constitution over Party?
What is this “Democrat Party” you speak of?
So remind me again, why should Rand support a rhetorical gimmick such the more official name of the Democrat Party?
Why should anyone call you Karl? Why shouldn’t they just make up their own name for you?
Well, for rhetorical purposes, Baghdad Jim.
Why should anyone call you Karl?
A lot of people have called me other things. It seems to be more bother than it’s worth so they give up after a time.
Jim: “The American Taliban better stop using the term Democrat or are they too busy throwing grandmas off cliffs?”
The same party that many persons of “Serb heritage” belong to.
Congrates Jim. You’ve found a way to avoid the actual issue of the post. There most be a “Look Squirel!” award you can be nominated for.
That’s all Jim has left, Chris. Everything we told him that would happen with Obamacare and all the other disasterous attempts at Socialism that Jim craved and the Obama regime instigated…..
has happened. And will continue to happen and get worse.
It’s all a ruin…..failed…..destroyed. And all Jim has left to rail about is nomenclature…names such as the Democratics.
The “actual issue of the post” is about how a Democratic state senator fired an aide, and how this proves that all Democrats are intolerant. Does it really deserve a response?
Well, someone thought it deserved a response.
“Does it really deserve a response?”
You sure must have though so because you jumped right on it. Too bad you addressed a frivolous side issue..
And now you get closer to addressing the issue but aren’t really there yet. Keep trying – your response might be relevant someday.
how this proves that all Democrats are intolerant
As usual, a straw man. No one said that.
It says something, and nothing nice, that you don’t consider a person being fired for befriending a Republican as something worthy of comment. I guess the ideals Democrats campaign on regarding how we should treat people different than us is just a bunch of BS.
As a small business owner, would you fire someone because a friend of theirs wasn’t in the same political party as yourself? Because it looks like you are cool with discrimination.
No one said that
You did, with the title of the post.
It says something, and nothing nice, that you don’t consider a person being fired for befriending a Republican as something worthy of comment.
It says something else that you consider the question of why the guy was fired as having been settled, based solely on his self-interested opinion.
Even if the guy is right, you could fill a newspaper with equivalently important stories about the behavior of the thousands of state legislators across the land, none of which will tell you anything very interesting about the parties those legislators belong to. Here’s one — a Democratic state legislator in Kentucky who fired her gun in the state capitol yesterday. Will Rand start a thread titled “The Gun-crazy Democrat Party” about that one?
You did, with the title of the post.
No, I didn’t. Your reading comprehension is worse than usual today, apparently.
You’re right, you didn’t say that all Democrats are intolerant, just that intolerance is characteristic of the Democrat [sic] party. Because a single state senate staffer claims to have been fired for socializing with Republicans.
Should stories about the GW bridge scandal be titled “The Power-Abusing Republican Party”?
Would you be happier if I’d titled the post “The Tolerant Left”? Because this was just a single example, and a small subset of the problem there. It’s not generally conservatives who unfriend people over politics, or try to shut down speech on campus. With the left, the personal is political. They have trouble separating them.
“. Here’s one — a Democratic state legislator in Kentucky who fired her gun in the state capitol yesterday. Will Rand start a thread titled “The Gun-crazy Democrat Party” about that one?”
Had a Republican done that, you most certainly would tar the whole party.
“Even if the guy is right, you could fill a newspaper with equivalently important stories about the behavior of the thousands of state legislators across the land, ”
And Democrats regularly take these incidents and turn them into national stories and relate them to the GOP as a whole. So why can’t other people do the same thing to Democrats? Why don’t Democrats hold themselves to the same standard?
“No one said that
You did, with the title of the post.”
You are very inconsistent with your use of the English language alternating between things must be explicitly stated to inferred meanings depending on what suits your mood. Like in this comment in another thread,
“Here I am, formally acknowledging that there are tradeoffs involved in increasing government power. I think that if you read Obama’s speeches you’ll find acknowledgement there as well.”
Does Obama explicitly lay out these tradeoffs or must we interpret his words to get that meaning and if someone were to interpret these words would you later claim he never said such a thing because it wasn’t explicit?