Sarah Huckabee Sanders Thrown Out Of Restaurant -former Federal Ethics Head says...

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol@ this clown. No it's hypocritical on both sides.

If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Killing it with facts.

Ok...BAM! FACTS!

Sanders Harrasment by Leftists Fascists. More FACTS!!!!!!

Originally posted by Robtard
^ Killing it with facts. Trumpers got what they wanted, now they're complaining because one of their own was the target.

"So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men." -The Captain

^Does not know what hypocrisy means

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

....where did I put that Kettle Pot Black Meme?

Probably in a Quan thread....but it DEFF FITS HERE!
Cause Adam just SHIT****POSTED a DIARRHEA Pants Load of Hypocrisy in this one.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Nah, it's hypocrisy. Do better.

Sad Part is...He can't.

Sad for Him that is.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Sad Part is...He can't.

Sad for Him that is. [/B]

I will say this: all the leftists who suddenly stopped being upset over the gay cake thing the moment the court ruled...are indeed not hypocrites if they are not upset over Sarah's treatment.

Those people are in the clear.

Stupid SCOTUS not Caving to Leftist Homosexual Political Pressure to Enforce their Fascist Dogma.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
If two parties bring a dispute before an arbiter, and that arbiter settles the dispute by siding with one party, then the other party is not a hypocrite for accepting the results of that decision.

That party can still oppose the decision on principle, but still accept the result, and act accordingly. No hypocrisy there.

But if the party who got the decision for which they lobbied, changed their position when they discovered there are unfavorable consequences of the decision that directly affect them, that is hypocrisy.

They were fine with the policy when it was one-directional: rules for thee, but not for me. But the moment the law of unintended consequences kicked in, and they learned that others could exercise the right they lobbied for against them, they suddenly have a change of heart.

Just wait until a Muslim denies a Cult of Trump member something on these rules they wanted, they'll explode even more than they're doing right now.

Or until a liberal cultist gets denied by a muslim for a gay cake.

Originally posted by Surtur
Or until a liberal cultist gets denied by a muslim for a gay cake.

Cakes cannot be gay. Only animals can be. Try harder.

He's already at maximum trying, he can't, it's why he's been shit-posting and flopping about ever since his precious Sarah H. Sanders got told to leave an eatery.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's already at maximum trying, he can't, it's why he's been shit-posting and flopping about ever since his precious Sarah H. Sanders got told to leave an eatery.

Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing.

...that's not helping foster any type of dialogue but on division.

Originally posted by Playmaker
...that's not helping foster any type of dialogue but on division.

Didn't you just tell him to admit to something?

Originally posted by ESB -1138
Didn't you just tell him to admit to something?

Because I would like to see Rob say that he thinks businesses have the right to association for any reason and shouldn't be forced to do so. That's all.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Because I would like to see Rob say that he thinks businesses have the right to association for any reason and shouldn't be forced to do so. That's all.

You mean the same guy who insulted you by calling you autistic? Yeah, good luck. But don't hold your breath.

Originally posted by Playmaker
Then admit that a Christian baker has every right to refuse to service a gay wedding and shouldn't be sued or forced to do so by threat of government force.

Repeat: We've already moved past that, that's the standard now.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
That would require Rob to be ideologically consistent for a change. Something he's incapable of doing.

Originally posted by ESB -1138
You mean the same guy who insulted you by calling you autistic? Yeah, good luck. But don't hold your breath.

I see you're still massively butthurt again me. It's not good to keep that chip on your shoulder for so long.

ps I asked him if he was autistic. Seems you considering being autistic as a negative. That's on you; not mwe.