Five minutes of hate news

mrttao said:
"we are so sorry we got caught"
Click to expand...
No. This isn't a "sorry we got caught." Leftists never admit they are wrong. That goes double during the time period when the news cycle is active. Look at Bud Light! Still no apology.

Like I really do not know of any equivalent to this, where an apology happened so quickly, and not just an apology, a fix along with an analysis into where the problem came from and a pledge to fix the problem.

If the person was actually sincere, this is exactly the sort of letter that would have been written. If he weren't sincere, a leftist would never even send a letter. This is the sorta apology that leftists would get from companies that felt the need to bow down for imagined harm to leftists.

Congrats guys: we won. We finally won! Sure, we harmed Bud Light, but we didn't actually gain anything other than their harm. Here? Here we won!

We currently have the equivalent cultural power of twitter leftists in their heyday (maybe an exaggeration, but still!): your outrage and anger on twitter and elsewhere caused real change. Please continue to use it responsibly, as irresponsible use is how it is lost, but this is an amazing first use!
 
Abhorsen said:
No. This isn't a "sorry we got caught." Leftists never admit they are wrong. That goes double during the time period when the news cycle is active. Look at Bud Light! Still no apology.

Like I really do not know of any equivalent to this, where an apology happened so quickly, and not just an apology, a fix along with an analysis into where the problem came from and a pledge to fix the problem.

If the person was actually sincere, this is exactly the sort of letter that would have been written. If he weren't sincere, a leftist would never even send a letter. This is the sorta apology that leftists would get from companies that felt the need to bow down for imagined harm to leftists.

Congrats guys: we won. We finally won! Sure, we harmed Bud Light, but we didn't actually gain anything other than their harm. Here? Here we won!

We currently have the equivalent cultural power of twitter leftists in their heyday (maybe an exaggeration, but still!): your outrage and anger on twitter and elsewhere caused real change. Please continue to use it responsibly, as irresponsible use is how it is lost, but this is an amazing first use!
Click to expand...

Being able to use banks with out the fear of having your fincial ability destroyed on a whim should be the default position for civilization. The fact that it got to this point is honestly really horriying and we need to start putting in laws to prevent it from happening again.

For leftists who think this will never happen to you and glorify this shit...keep in mind for every child you have conservatives have more and religious ones even more then that. IF you think for a moment that those children do not notice who is fucking with their parents and grand parents and wont dream of pay back.

Your a fucking idiot, just take and accept this L or this power will be used against you.
 
I mean...they are fairly open about their view that children and their upbringing and education belong to the state and parents should have no influence on their kids because they will give them the wrong think.

So I don't think they care much about the birth rates of more conservative people since "they are coming for your children".
 
Bigking321 said:
I mean...they are fairly open about their view that children and their upbringing and education belong to the state and parents should have no influence on their kids because they will give them the wrong think.

So I don't think they care much about the birth rates of more conservative people since "they are coming for your children".
Click to expand...

wont work in the long term and will in fact back fire.

Raising children is hard as fuck and stealing children away from ones parents is blood feud level shit on the parents side and children grow to resent the heavy handed state that fucked them.

People keep saying that they can do this they can do that and the fact is all of the truely opressive shit comes with a price tag, the soviet union was opressive as hell one of the worst in human history it fell. The Nazis fell, the CCP will likely fall with in our life times.

Fact is things can get bad but true distopia is actually really freaking hard because human beings really don't like being micromanaged and fucked with on the reg.
 
Cherico said:
Being able to use banks with out the fear of having your fincial ability destroyed on a whim should be the default position for civilization. The fact that it got to this point is honestly really horriying and we need to start putting in laws to prevent it from happening again.

For leftists who think this will never happen to you and glorify this shit...keep in mind for every child you have conservatives have more and religious ones even more then that. IF you think for a moment that those children do not notice who is fucking with their parents and grand parents and wont dream of pay back.

Your a fucking idiot, just take and accept this L or this power will be used against you.
Click to expand...
If this actually mattered, there would be no left.

The politics of the parents do not matter. Kids are in fact unique individuals who form their own opinions.

Conservatives have been having more kids for a long time. If the kids mirrored their parent's politics, every election would be a landslide.

Democrats don't need to have kids. They'll indoctrinate yours.
 
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
www.lifenews.com

Gay Men Have Newborn Baby Killed After Their Surrogate is Diagnosed With Cancer - LifeNews.com

After pregnant Brittney Pearson received a breast cancer diagnosis and delivered the baby at 25-weeks, the two men who hired Pearson to be their surrogate ordered that the child be denied critical medical care, killing him. “Two men hired surrogate Brittney Pearson to create their ‘dream...
www.lifenews.com
Click to expand...
The problem here isn't surrogacy existing, it was the child abuse. That kid was born and even by Californias definition alive, and refusing the kid medical care is abuse.
 
Rocinante said:
Murder. You used the word abuse.

They murdered that baby.
Click to expand...
I mean, yes. That was the end result of the child abuse here. What, did you think I was somehow afraid to call it murder or something? I literally specified that the kid was alive; I was simply addressing the core problem problem. Also, I think the doctors should be criminally liable as well for not caring for the child as well.
 
Abhorsen said:
I mean, yes. That was the end result of the child abuse here. What, did you think I was somehow afraid to call it murder or something? I literally specified that the kid was alive; I was simply addressing the core problem problem. Also, I think the doctors should be criminally liable as well for not caring for the child as well.
Click to expand...
It was totally murder man, not just 'a consequence of abuse.' It was murder, and it was premeditated.
 
Abhorsen said:
I mean, yes. That was the end result of the child abuse here. What, did you think I was somehow afraid to call it murder or something? I literally specified that the kid was alive; I was simply addressing the core problem problem. Also, I think the doctors should be criminally liable as well for not caring for the child as well.
Click to expand...
Adding emphasis. Calling it abuse seems far more mild than "premeditated murder."
 
Rocinante said:
If this actually mattered, there would be no left.

The politics of the parents do not matter. Kids are in fact unique individuals who form their own opinions.

Conservatives have been having more kids for a long time. If the kids mirrored their parent's politics, every election would be a landslide.

Democrats don't need to have kids. They'll indoctrinate yours.
Click to expand...

Democrats actually used to have a lot more kids then they have today.

Its really been a more in the last 20 years or so that its gotten to be a rather insane edge in fertility and were already starting to see the results slowly pick up. Will it be a long fight yes, but they wont win everything and todays madness will pass into the sun set with time regarded as the failures of a more ignorant time.
 
Karmic Acumen said:
It was totally murder man, not just 'a consequence of abuse.' It was murder, and it was premeditated.
Click to expand...
I literally called it murder in that quote. I labeled the cause of it as well: child abuse. To be frank, there clearly would have been some form of child abuse if the kid had been carried to term as well. They thought of the baby as an object, a hallmark of child abuse, and the core of the problem here.

Just calling it murder, even premeditated murder, really misses the mark of why this happened and what the core problem was. It wasn't that the couple wanted to go around killing kids cause they were serial killers or fetishists: instead they thought the baby was an object/product, and treated it as one.

Though looking at another covering of the story:
www.dailymail.co.uk

Surrogate claims gay dads told her to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks

A California mother has claimed she was told to terminate her surrogate pregnancy at 24 weeks by the child's prospective fathers after she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

I have to take back what I said about the doctors, as I don't know that they did or didn't provide care (obviously, if they didn't, it's murder), and are likely being quiet about it to avoid a lawsuit. To be clear, we don't technically know if an abortion or birth was performed (the women is deliberately vague about this to avoid legal trouble with the abusive, murderous parents, AFAICT), but almost certainly a birth happened.

But for the gay dads, it's murder regardless (morally, if not legally) via broken egg theory. Weirdly, it might be both attempted premeditated murder and manslaughter: they tried to get the women to murder the baby, and in her attempts to avoid doing so, the baby died. But that's why we have felony murder, so that weird cases like this qualify as full on murder.

Obviously, if CA permits this (and they likely do), that's disgusting, and laws need to happen to stop this from happening. Yes, the libertarian is calling for laws. But yeah, laws in this regard would just be a legal reflection of the NAP and offensive to no decent person.

EDIT: CA certainly permits this. This is why we need a born alive act in every state and federally.
 
Last edited:
Pocky Balboa said:
LOL, Legal Eagle. That libtard twat couldn't even get the basics of the DeSantis v. Disney feud right, I'd take legal advice from Lionel Hutz over him.
Click to expand...
Legal Eagle also had very cringe take on jan 6th.
> totally authentic election where trump gaslit them into thinking it was stolen
> so can trump be held liable for their actions?

His videos can be interesting on anything apolitical. but the moment it gets political it becomes trash
 
mrttao said:
Legal Eagle also had very cringe take on jan 6th.
> totally authentic election where trump gaslit them into thinking it was stolen
> so can trump be held liable for their actions?

His videos can be interesting on anything apolitical. but the moment it gets political it becomes trash
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is what it is about him.
On non political things he is a great source, him Reketa Law and Attorney Tom are all good on non political.
Raketa on political and Tom avoids them
 
mrttao said:
Legal Eagle also had very cringe take on jan 6th.
> totally authentic election where trump gaslit them into thinking it was stolen
> so can trump be held liable for their actions?

His videos can be interesting on anything apolitical. but the moment it gets political it becomes trash
Click to expand...
Eh, I'd say even when he's being non-political, he's still wrong at a concerning rate.

Generally, a good rule of thumb for a lawtuber is their opinion on Rittenhouse and the McMichaels (the guys who shot Ahmaud Arbery). Both are pretty easy by law cases where the facts aren't much in actual dispute: Rittenhouse is legally innocent, the McMichaels are legally guilty. People who fail this test can be safely ignored when it comes to self defense IMO. Note I'm not talking about what ought to be the case, but what the law demands here, as I'm critiquing lawyers.
 
Abhorsen said:
Eh, I'd say even when he's being non-political, he's still wrong at a concerning rate.

Generally, a good rule of thumb for a lawtuber is their opinion on Rittenhouse and the McMichaels (the guys who shot Ahmaud Arbery). Both are pretty easy by law cases where the facts aren't much in actual dispute: Rittenhouse is legally innocent, the McMichaels are legally guilty. People who fail this test can be safely ignored when it comes to self defense IMO. Note I'm not talking about what ought to be the case, but what the law demands here, as I'm critiquing lawyers.
Click to expand...
It's been a while since I watched his video on Rittenhouse. But legal eagle did say that Rittenhouse using self defense was legally valid, he just also said that Gage Grosskrutz would also possibly have a valid claim of self defense if he had shot Rittenhouse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top