Owner of the Red Hen Restaurant, Who Harassed Trump Officials Previously: Maybe That Server Was Right to Spit on Eric Trump

John Sexton digests this disgusting op-ed posted in the Washington Post.

Enemies of the people.

After recounting what happened to Trump, she writes, "no one in the industry condones the physical assault of a patron." That seems sensible but w'’re only halfway through the piece. Next comes the justification for the new rules:

...at bottom this isn't about politics. It's about values, and accountability to values, in business. On a variety of levels, pressure is increasing on companies to articulate and stand by a code....

The once-ubiquitous idea that companies exist purely and solely to provide profit to shareholders is withering away like corn husks in the summer sun.

The rules have shifted. It's no longer okay to serve sea bass from overfished waters or to allow smoking at the table. It's not okay to look away from the abusive chef in the kitchen or the handsy guest in the dining room. And it's not okay to ask employees, partners or management to clock out of their consciences when they clock in to work…

The high-profile clashes rarely involve one citizen fussing at another over the entrees. It’s more often a frustrated person (some of whom are restaurant employees) lashing out at the representatives of an administration that has made its name trashing norms and breaking backs. Not surprising, if you think about it: You can't call people your enemies by day and expect hospitality from them in the evening.

So when the day comes that the world feels returned to its normal axis, I expect we’ll see fewer highly charged encounters making headlines. In the meantime, the new rules apply. If you're directly complicit in spreading hate or perpetuating suffering, maybe you should consider dining at home.

Obviously this is a justification for abusing, both socially and physically, fellow citizens if they vote differently than you.

The short, begrudging, and mostly likely editorially-requested line that "obviously" you can't physically assault a patron doesn't fool anyone.

That short, passionless caveat is followed by a 800 words which follow the inevitable "but."

And as they say: Ignore everything before the but.

So it should fool no one.

Except, of course, it fools the soyboy beta cucks, who rush to the defense of every other anti-Trump zealot:

So, there you go, there's one half of the Power Bottom Couple that makes up the Hayes/Goldberg newsletter.

Here's the other half of that Power Bottom Duo, arguing that it's unfair to charge the Democrats with supporting antifa:

Jonah Goldberg and other liberals attacked Trump for daring to interpose antifa's bad behavior in talking about the riot in Charlottesville -- the white supremacists must be condemned with no external references, they insisted, or else you're attempting "Whataboutism" to cover for them.

And yet here, this fat, sweaty failure interjects "But what about the white supremacists" to mitigate antifa's domestic terrorism.

And is it true that you can't brand Democrats with supporting antifa?

Well, here's Keith Ellison, who came in second place for DNC Chairman:

And I don't hear Democrats rushing to condemn antifa without reservation and without adding in "and we condemn x, y, and z, too" -- which the leftists and their cuck allies insisted was the only way to do a Correct Denunciation when it came to the tiki torch brigades at Charlottesville.

Gee, all of a sudden Whataboutism isn't immoral, it's downright necessary!

And what about Jonah's and Steve's friends in the leftwing media, the same leftwing media they will be relying on for contracts as contributors now that they've burned all their bridges with the actual conservative movement?

Read this thread by @NicholasFondacaro to revisit NBC's and CNN's frequent defenses and justifications of antifa, and then ponder: Is Jonah Goldberg just appeasing his would-be paymasters by peddling the Chuck Todd/Chris Cuomo/Don LeMon line on antifa?

By the way, for those Cheap Date "Conservatives" who praised Jake Tapper for stating, in one sentence, on Twitter, that he found attacks on journalists "disgusting:" Did he actually bother to do a 3-4 minute piece on this on his actual show, or did he just offer an obligatory twitter mention to buy you idiots off?

You do realize that less than 1% of the public is on twtter and an even smaller amount is, if you can believe this, following Jake Tapper on twitter, right?

Maybe he could do an actual news story exploring antifa's rampant attacks instead of just appeasing the Cheap Date "Conservatives" with a one-sentence mention.

Which was supposedly so brave.

It's so brave to say that citizens should not be beaten in the streets by ISIS like perverse-morality police.

So brave.

And so brave for calling Jake Tapper so brave for DARING ALL to say this.

In one sentence.

On twitter.

Twitter isn't real you fucking pathetic shut-ins.

posted by Ace of Spades at 07:09 PM

| Access Comments