• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Remembering when a baker turned away Joe Biden and received praise from conservatives

Zyphlin said:
Again, incorrect. He was not asked to not come in a blanket fashion, he was asked not to come as part of his campaigning. And no, what he was going to do was not "eat a cookie", but rather to take a photo op with the baker and host a media event. Please reference the snopes link I posted earlier which clearly points this out. Just because you're dishonestly trying to misrepresent the situation and ignore the facts does not make the two situations the same, it just highlights how different they are based on the lengths in which you must distort in an effort to make your point.



Taking a photo op as part of a campaign is inherently political.

Hosting a media event as part of a campaign is inherently political.

The fact you're trying to declare either of those things as anything BUT political is outright laughable.



And the sky is blue. Never once have I suggested or implied that the owners issue was with political events in general. His issue was engaging in a POLITICAL EVENT for an individual who's politics he didn't agree with.



Sanders was asked to leave in the middle of her engaging in the businesses services. Biden was asked not to come use the business for his political campaign; there is no evidence what so ever to suggest that Biden was disallowed from coming to the store as a private individual, in order to partake in the businesses services as a private individual. Indeed, his team actually did THAT VERY THING after being told "no" regarding the use of the baker and his business for a political event.



Ignoring your desperate attempt to flounder and pivot the topic to something else, the fact that you're attempting to suggest that the playing of the national anthem is a "political event", but a media event promoting the campaign of a Presidential Candidate ISN'T, is ludicrous and simply shows that you are in no way looking to engage in any kind of good faith discussion on this but rather are simply hunkering into your echo chamber bubble and seekign to score your political points like a typical hyper partisan regardless of facts, reality, or logic.
Click to expand...

^^^^ /thread ^^^^
 
Zyphlin said:
Again, incorrect. He was not asked to not come in a blanket fashion, he was asked not to come as part of his campaigning. And no, what he was going to do was not "eat a cookie", but rather to take a photo op with the baker and host a media event. Please reference the snopes link I posted earlier which clearly points this out. Just because you're dishonestly trying to misrepresent the situation and ignore the facts does not make the two situations the same, it just highlights how different they are based on the lengths in which you must distort in an effort to make your point.



Taking a photo op as part of a campaign is inherently political.

Hosting a media event as part of a campaign is inherently political.

The fact you're trying to declare either of those things as anything BUT political is outright laughable.



And the sky is blue. Never once have I suggested or implied that the owners issue was with political events in general. His issue was engaging in a POLITICAL EVENT for an individual who's politics he didn't agree with.



Sanders was asked to leave in the middle of her engaging in the businesses services. Biden was asked not to come use the business for his political campaign; there is no evidence what so ever to suggest that Biden was disallowed from coming to the store as a private individual, in order to partake in the businesses services as a private individual. Indeed, his team actually did THAT VERY THING after being told "no" regarding the use of the baker and his business for a political event.



Ignoring your desperate attempt to flounder and pivot the topic to something else, the fact that you're attempting to suggest that the playing of the national anthem is a "political event", but a media event promoting the campaign of a Presidential Candidate ISN'T, is ludicrous and simply shows that you are in no way looking to engage in any kind of good faith discussion on this but rather are simply hunkering into your echo chamber bubble and seekign to score your political points like a typical hyper partisan regardless of facts, reality, or logic.
Click to expand...

Again, the right is not complaining because Sanders was not engaged in a political event. As my examples show, the rights anger has nothing to do with whether or not an event is political in nature. The right is angry because someone expressed opposition to someone on their side.

However, I am not surprised to see you, once again, trying to attack me personally. It is what you have done time and time again when I find your arguments lacking. It is what the right does. It is what the right has done with the Red Hen. It is standard operating procedure for the right.

The right just cannot handle opposition. They always freak out and get personal.
 
I've no issue with opposition. Now dishonesty? Yeah, that I have an issue with. And almost every post of yours in this thread is teeming with dishonesty.

From your shifting of the goal posts, such as how you finally backed away of claiming the denial of SERVICE was the problem and instead trying to focus and act like "the right" was just upset that it was done due to political views...

to your denial of simple and clear facts, such as the fact that no SERVICE was denied Biden or his team; and a campaign media event IS a political event...

to your attempts to obfuscate and distort instead of admitting your error, such as trying to change your stance to comparing it with the anthem protests or attempting to suggest me pointing out the dishonesty and inaccuracies of your worthless argument is attacking you.

You tried from POST #1 to depicted this as two instances that were SO similar that even suggesting there was a difference was worthy of derision, where the store owner in both instances attempted to withhold services in some fashion due to their politics, as a means of criticizing conservatives for reacting differently in both instances.

The problem is, the entire premise is wholly dishonest as no services were attempted to be withheld from Joe Biden as his team (as I will point out ONCE AGAIN, the owner actually engaged in business with them AFTER turning down the campaign opportunity). Contrary to what was stated in your OP, the baker did not reject a "political figure's business", he rejected the political figures request to be have his establishment used as the location of a media event for the Obama/Biden political campaign.

People treating a person deciding to pass on the opportunity to be part of a political event for political reasons, and a person deciding to ask a customer engaging in the businesses standard operations to leave for political reasons, as two very different circumstances is not worthy of an eye roll and derision but rather a head nod and "well of course".

Regardless of how anyone feel about the Red Hen and Sanders, regardless of whether they believe it was right or wrong for the business owner to do it, regardless of what they feel about the outrage or defense over it.....there is no reasonable, logical, understandable way that someone can suggest that such a situation is so similar to turning down having your establishment (which does not, as a matter of business, host events) host a political event for a candidate you don't support that the thought of treating them differently is worthy of mockery and scorn.
 
Amelia said:
We need a contest to see who the most ironic poster on DP is.

I think you have a shot.

Toodles.
Click to expand...

And one for the posts that are the Most Intellectual Bereft Partisan Hack as well... Although your posts would do well I am not confident that they would win.
 
Zyphlin said:
I've no issue with opposition. Now dishonesty? Yeah, that I have an issue with. And almost every post of yours in this thread is teeming with dishonesty.

From your shifting of the goal posts, such as how you finally backed away of claiming the denial of SERVICE was the problem and instead trying to focus and act like "the right" was just upset that it was done due to political views...

to your denial of simple and clear facts, such as the fact that no SERVICE was denied Biden or his team; and a campaign media event IS a political event...

to your attempts to obfuscate and distort instead of admitting your error, such as trying to change your stance to comparing it with the anthem protests or attempting to suggest me pointing out the dishonesty and inaccuracies of your worthless argument is attacking you.

You tried from POST #1 to depicted this as two instances that were SO similar that even suggesting there was a difference was worthy of derision, where the store owner in both instances attempted to withhold services in some fashion due to their politics, as a means of criticizing conservatives for reacting differently in both instances.
Click to expand...
I never claimed any similarity beyond the business owners actions being motivated by opposition to the customers politics. I referred to it as a denial of service because that is how it is being portrayed. I merely noted that it technically is not a denial of service.

I mentioned other times when the right got flustered in response to your argument that the political nature of the Biden event was enough to make the two events too dissimilar for a valid comparison. I view the political nature of Bidens desired visit as irrelevant, as the examples I cited show. The fact that an event was inherently political has never stopped the right from getting their panties in a wad.

And so, my position remains unchanged, no matter how hard you try to misrepresent it in your personal attacks. The right goes ballistic when there is newsworthy opposition to their political positions or someone who is on their side, no matter what the specific circumstances are. That is why the right, who as a whole believe that businesses should be free to refuse service to anyone, at anytime, for whatever reason they choose, are snowflaking because a business did not want to serve one of theirs.

The dishonesty comes from those who insist that the issue has something to do with whether anyone was denied service to their face, or the nature of the event, or whether it happened before anyone had eaten anything, or any of the other myriad reason which supposedly make the two events incomparable which, in actuality, are nothing but distractions meant to draw attention away from the rights snowflakey hypocrisy
 
LowDown said:
Let's talk about what's important after you're done clutching your pearls over this picayune stuff.

Pearl clutching is something that liberals haven't done in a while, having engaged in a campaign to embrace every kind of deviancy and eliminate all traditional moral values for the last 80 years. They don't do it very convincingly in this case. It's like Genghis Khan weeping over the death of a pet cat.
Click to expand...

what the hell are you babbling about?
 
Fledermaus said:
And I will come around AGAIN once a Democrat is in office if folks believe as you do....

If it was so effing bad when the right did it it is effing bad when you do it.
Click to expand...

The left didn't elect a man who spent 6 years accusing the previous Dem president of being a foreign born muslim with a fake birth certificate. Sorry, but you guys have taken politics completely into the gutter.
 
Puigb said:
The left didn't elect a man who spent 6 years accusing the previous Dem president of being a foreign born muslim with a fake birth certificate. Sorry, but you guys have taken politics completely into the gutter.
Click to expand...

So effing what?

Someone got elected that you don't like.

Whoop Dee Dooooooo.....

That gives you the right to attack family members?

Fair enough... Don't whine when it rolls back to your choice being office. I will remember this exchange. And I will joyfully remind you of what you sowed....
 
Fledermaus said:
So effing what?

Someone got elected that you don't like.

Whoop Dee Dooooooo.....

That gives you the right to attack family members?

Fair enough... Don't whine when it rolls back to your choice being office. I will remember this exchange. And I will joyfully remind you of what you sowed....
Click to expand...

Oh, I expect the next Dem president will be relentlessly attacked by Republicans and their goons in the media even worse than the Obama's were. What's your point? Still doesn't change the fact that you guys are the ones who have taken politics into the gutter even worse than what it was.
 
Puigb said:
Oh, I expect the next Dem president will be relentlessly attacked by Republicans and their goons in the media even worse than the Obama's were. What's your point? Still doesn't change the fact that you guys are the ones who have taken politics into the gutter even worse than what it was.
Click to expand...

You don't understand my point.

Sad.

Very sad.

But of course when the GOP trashes your party nominee's significant other the GOP can invoke the PUIGB rule which states the other side insulted our side therefore there is no requirement to be civil....
 
Bodhisattva said:
I am talking about facts and don't give a poop one way or another about Sanders... but your assumption that I am certainly says more about you than it does about me...
Click to expand...

You're wrong. You are being selective about which facts you consider. And facts often require some context, especially when someone like you is trying to make a case for hypocrisy. So, I'm sorry, but from a purely intellectual perspective, you seem to have leaned out a little too far over your skis (rhetorically speaking) with this rebuttal. Now, if you can confirm that you were among those who were critical of the baker who refused to serve Biden (or others, in various instances), then your judgmental "hypocrisy" labeling of others might have some credibilty. But please, don't ever again embarrass yourself by trying to criticize "hypocrisy" without first taking CONTEXT into consideration, along with the "facts". If you're going to play intellectual games with people, you shouldn't make such transparently ANTI-intellectual arguments.

And, frankly, I really don't care if you are a Trumpster, or a Never-Trumper, or a Bernie Sanders-styled socialist. Dumb arguments come in all ideological persuasions.


Bodhisattva said:
I never implied that... but saying that what happened to Sanders is justified because Republicans did it in the past is the epitome of immaturity...
Click to expand...

No one said it was "justified", only that it was hypocritical of Trumpians who are now feigning outrage over what that restaurant owner did to Sanders, when these are the same idiots who whined 1st Amendment freedoms when venders were refusing to serve on the basis of sexual identity.
 
ultmd said:
You're wrong. You are being selective about which facts you consider. And facts often require some context, especially when someone like you is trying to make a case for hypocrisy. So, I'm sorry, but from a purely intellectual perspective, you seem to have leaned out a little too far over your skis (rhetorically speaking) with this rebuttal. Now, if you can confirm that you were among those who were critical of the baker who refused to serve Biden (or others, in various instances), then your judgmental "hypocrisy" labeling of others might have some credibilty. But please, don't ever again embarrass yourself by trying to criticize "hypocrisy" without first taking CONTEXT into consideration, along with the "facts". If you're going to play intellectual games with people, you shouldn't make such transparently ANTI-intellectual arguments.

And, frankly, I really don't care if you are a Trumpster, or a Never-Trumper, or a Bernie Sanders-styled socialist. Dumb arguments come in all ideological persuasions.




No one said it was "justified", only that it was hypocritical of Trumpians who are now feigning outrage over what that restaurant owner did to Sanders, when these are the same idiots who whined 1st Amendment freedoms when venders were refusing to serve on the basis of sexual identity.
Click to expand...

You say I am wrong and go on a huge speech about context but dont even know if I was critical of the baker who refused Biden? :lol:
 
Fledermaus said:
You don't understand my point.

Sad.

Very sad.

But of course when the GOP trashes your party nominee's significant other the GOP can invoke the PUIGB rule which states the other side insulted our side therefore there is no requirement to be civil....
Click to expand...

Again, the Dems didn't elect a man who said the previous president was a foreign born muslim with a fake birth certificate. That was your side.
 
Fledermaus said:
Lies about GWB's servi ce...
Click to expand...

Hey, it was Donald Trump who once said GWB lied about the war and should be impeached. Are you saying the man who YOU voted for and currently support was lying about GWB?
 
Fledermaus said:
Blah blah blah. More prattle trying to excure your bad actions by blaming them on Trump's election.
Click to expand...

Both sides are bad.

But your side is worse. You guys elected someone so awful your own political party had to beg you guys throughout the primaries to NOT vote for him. Ironically though, they are the ones responsible for the rise of Trump. Trump and the GOP deserve each other.
 
Puigb said:
Both sides are bad.

But your side is worse. You guys elected someone so awful your own political party had to beg you guys throughout the primaries to NOT vote for him. Ironically though, they are the ones responsible for the rise of Trump. Trump and the GOP deserve each other.
Click to expand...

Blah, blah, blah... Accusation of being Nazis. Accusation that the right wants to starve the elderly... Or children. Lies about photos purported to be of children taken from their parents... Lies about caged children that were actually caged under Obama's watch...

The list goes on.

Keep babbling about who is "worse".
 
Fledermaus said:
Blah, blah, blah... Accusation of being Nazis. Accusation that the right wants to starve the elderly... Or children. Lies about photos purported to be of children taken from their parents... Lies about caged children that were actually caged under Obama's watch...

The list goes on.

Keep babbling about who is "worse".
Click to expand...

I don't know about all that, but Nazi's are marching saying "heil! Trump" for some reason. I wonder why they like him so much...
 
Fledermaus said:
And there we are...

Some communist groups sided with Hillary and Bernie.

You have a point?
Click to expand...


you brought up nazi's, not me. But why didn't Nazi's like Bush, McCain, or Romney like they do Trump?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom