Democracy means voting our way
Posted by aogFriday, 28 June 2013 at 19:09 TrackBack Ping URL

The story of the pro-abortion protests in Texas is another example of how the tranzis live in a bifurcated world. As the source notes,

So … when Tea Party activists do this in the future, liberals are going to be totally cool with it, right? Right?

Of course we know the answer — the Modern American Left is entitled to use thuggery, obstruction, and violence if necessary to get their policies implemented if the ballot box doesn’t work, and they bear no guilt or blame. All of that is born by their opponents, particularly the Tea Party, regardless of whether the latter actually does any of that.

Bret noted that he thinks this is all because the tranzi belief system is a religion and this is all religiously justified. If so, then abortion is the primary sacrament of that belief. No restrictions whatsoever will be tolerated. Part of the Texas bill was to force abortion clinics to obey the same health and safety regulations as other places that perform surgical procedures. Who could object to regulations promoting the health and safety of women, so they would know that they weren’t getting the equivalent of a back alley abortion with a coat hanger?

Pro-abortion activists, of course —

The bill’s opponents said it will likely cause all but five of the 42 abortion clinics in the state to close, because the building renovations and equipment upgrades necessary to meet the surgical-center standards would be too costly.

Regulations are good, until they get in the tranzi’s way. Then they are evil. One is left wonder, just a bit, if this whole “regulation” thing might just be an excuse, not a desire.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 12:47

aog wrote: “…the Modern American Left is entitled to use thuggery, obstruction, and violence if necessary to get their policies implemented if the ballot box doesn’t work…

We’re all entitled to “use thuggery, obstruction, and violence”, just most everybody else chooses not to. I’ve always wondered why? I mean, violence isn’t my thing, but I’m really surprised that the non-Left doesn’t utilize violence to further goals. I have to imagine they believe they’d lose if it came to violent conflict. Otherwise, why not?

erp Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 14:43

A matter having principles perhaps?

Bret Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 16:08

I guess so. That makes the MAL pretty tough to beat, then.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 16:33


All the conservatives I know consider it a slam dunk that they would win any violent conflict — they own almost all the guns, after all. The difference is that conservatives have as their goal a civil society, which precludes violent resolution of conflicts. The tranzis have as their goal power, by what ever means necessary. It used to be the case that the American Street believed in the former, but perhaps it is the natural decay of societies that there is far more tolerance for abuse as long as the bread and circuses are available (e.g., “Obamaphones”). It may end up differently this time, though, because the OPM is going to run out before the full rot has set in because our modern tranzis have been much better at spending money than their predecessors.

erp Saturday, 29 June 2013 at 18:59

Bret, yes.

Post a comment