Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1114190)	1/30/2019 8:22:59 PM
From: longnshort	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 1579770

WATCH: Democratic VA Governor Endorses Murder Of Born-Alive Infants WATCH: Democratic VA Governor Endorses Murder Of Born-Alive Infants 8 dailywire Photo by Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images By BEN SHAPIRO @BENSHAPIRO January 30, 2019 On Wednesday, in a shocking revelation about the nature of the pro-abortion Democratic Party, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam, a supposed moderate, endorsed the notion that a woman should be able to let an infant, born alive, die on the table if she decided she did not want the child. Appearing on WTOP’s Ask The Governor, Northam was asked whether he supported a Virginia legislator’s statement that Virginia Democrats’ proposed legislation would permit abortion for a woman in labor. He stated: This is why decisions such as this should be made by providers, physicians, and the mothers and fathers that are involved. When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of the mother, with the consent of physicians, more than one physician by the way, and it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus which is non-viable. So in this particular example, if the mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen, the infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if this is what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physician and the mother. This is pure infanticide. It's also an argument for eugenic murder (see his comments about deformities). Northam is specifically talking about delivering an infant aliveand then asking the mother whether the infant should live or not. This is not an argument about the morning-after pill. It’s not an argument over whether a fetus feels pain. This is a statement that a fully-formed infant, born alive, ought to be murdered if the mother says the infant ought to be murdered. This is pure evil. And yet this is the position of Democrats across the country. Northam was speaking about a bill proposed by Virginia House member Kathy Tran, which would legalize abortion up to birth. Tran had explained just yesterday that a woman should be able to opt for abortion as she is dilating for birth. In New York, this is already the law – and Governor Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) celebrated that new law by lighting up state sites pink in honor of the killing of fully-formed infants. In Rhode Island, Governor Gina Raimondo (D-RI) has already signaled that she wishes to support a similar law. Northam excuses his evil by stating that men shouldn’t be making these decisions – as though having male genitalia excuses the moral fecklessness necessary to stand by and watch the killing of a newborn baby. But this is no excuse, obviously. The Democrats have decided that the era of safe, legal, and rare is over – the era of “Shout Your Abortion” is here. And if that means dehumanizing already-born children, so be it. Simply put, the American people do not deserve the care of a benevolent God if they embrace such evil.

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1114190)

1/30/2019 8:43:19 PM

From: longnshort

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Mick Mørmøny
TideGlider

Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1579770

Virginia Governor Advocates POST-BIRTH Abortion...

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (1114190)	1/30/2019 8:52:24 PM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579770

Seeing Racism Everywhere: Photo Of Soot-Covered Coal Miners Criticized For ‘Blackface’cmannphoto/Getty Images By ASHE SCHOW @ASHESCHOW January 30, 2019 153.4k views The New York Times isn’t the only outlet claiming white people with soot on their faces are actually portraying “ blackface.” For the Times, it was Mary Poppins and the chimney sweepers. For an opinion writer for the Arizona Central, part of USA Today, it was a photo of blue-collar workers having a drink after work. Opinion contributor Rashaad Thomas says he was in Phoenix recently at a holiday party. The restaurant he was in had photographs on the wall, as many do, but one in particular stood out to him. This photo showed a group of seven or so coal miners, covered head to toe in soot, their faces blackened to varying degrees, drinking beer at a pub. The photo also shows one man who doesn’t appear to be covered in soot and an unhappy woman. Thomas’ friends told him, “It’s coal miners at a pub after work.” He “asked a Latinx and white woman for their opinion.” The two said the photo appeared to be of coal workers having a drink after work. This didn’t sit well with Thomas, who asked to speak to a manager. “Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner. I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before,” Thomas wrote. This owner apparently told Thomas he would speak to other restaurant owners about the photo. Thomas asked him, while leaving, if he had done so yet. No, he had not immediately rushed to phone other restaurant owners during the holiday season about a complaint over an old photo of coal miners. Thomas was incensed, and took to the Internet with his opinion, asking: “Who determines what’s offensive?” He writes that the photo is offensive to him and reminded him of the movie “Birth of a Nation.” But since everyone else just sees soot-covered coal workers — including that “white owner,” it apparently wasn’t offensive. Then Thomas includes this pivotal line: “Fact: The photograph shows coal miners’ faces covered in soot. The context of the photograph is not the issue.” But the context of the photo is the issue. We can’t allow people to just deem things racist that aren’t actually racist. The media has been doing this for years. “At the downtown Phoenix restaurant, my concern that the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored,” Thomas wrote. “A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, ‘Whites Only.’ It says people like me are not welcome.” So, an old photo of men who had just completed working a dangerous job for low pay was “a threat” to the “face and voice” of someone able to attend a party and publish his thoughts to the Internet? At no time does Thomas say he was treated rudely or asked to leave, yet he says this photo, which few people would probably even notice or pay attention to, somehow said he was not welcome at this establishment?