Connect with us

News

San Francisco Weighing Yet Another Ban, This One is the Most Absurd Yet

Published

on

A proposal was introduced on Tuesday in the city of San Francisco that seeks yet another ridiculous ban on something completely harmless, which has become sort of a hallmark for liberals as of late.

First it was guns, then it was sodas, next came straws, and now we have folks wanting to ban employee cafeterias. Yes, employee cafeterias.

Why are they attempting to do this ban? To strip people’s freedom of choice and force them to go out to eat in an effort to boost the city’s restaurant industry.

Trending: IT HAPPENED: The Next James Bond Is Confirmed to Be A Black Female [Details]

“People will have to go out and (eat) lunch with the rest of us,” Aaron Peskin, a San Francisco supervisor who co-sponsored the proposal, told The San Francisco Examiner.

take our poll - story continues below

Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?

  • Which Democrat Presidential Hopeful Has The Wildest Campaign Promise So Far?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“This is also about a cultural shift,” Supervisor Ahsha Safai, who proposed the ban, told The San Francisco Chronicle. “We don’t want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community.”

But some employees at San Francisco tech giants targeted by the proposal need free or reduced-cost meals typically offered at the cafeterias, Sam Schneidman, who works in San Francisco, told KNTV.

Is it just me or is San Francisco fully transformed into some sort of wacky Communist wonderland?

Are you an introvert who feels happiest when you are keeping to yourself, minding your own business and living your own life? Tough noogies. You’re going to go out and mingle with the rest of the hive or else!

That’s essentially the message these people seem to be sending out. They want to force you to be part of the community. News flash. If you have to force someone to be part of your community by getting rid of something, that means your community sucks. Period.

“A lot of people who rely on the benefit aren’t necessarily highly compensated engineers and it’s something that a lot of tech workers depend on,” Schneidman told the station.

Anthony Myint, co-owner of the Perennial restaurant in the city’s mid-market neighborhood, told the Chronicle he expected a brisk lunchtime business, but instead sees only a few customers for lunch each day.

“We misunderstood the pervasiveness of the company cafeterias inside,” Myint told the publication. He probably would have chosen another location had he known, he said.

“You can’t compete with free,” Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, told the Chronicle.

This is just pure insanity. The whole reason behind this legislation serves to undermine the free market system. People have free choice and to take that away from them to force them to support businesses is morally wrong. If a company wants to be successful, they have to be competitive. If they can’t be competitive or offer people something enticing enough to draw them out, then they don’t need to be in business.

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.

Source: Sacramento Bee

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please hover over that comment, click the ∨ icon, and mark it as spam. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

News

Beto O’Rourke Drops Bombshell About Connection To Slavery

Where’s the liberal outrage?

Published

on

In a move that should, if the left were consistent, spell the end of his political aspirations, Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke revealed that both he and his wife are descendants of slave owners. Yes, a consistent application of the beliefs of the modern-day progressive should see Beto dropping from the race and spending the rest of his life attempting to atone for the sins of his ancestors. Probably not going to actually happen though. You know, because hypocrisy or something. via The Daily Wire: The failed Texas Senate candidate, who is losing ground in the presidential race, made the revelation in a Medium post, saying that he was recently given documents that revealed his family’s past. “A paternal great-great-great grandfather of mine, Andrew Cowan Jasper, owned these two women in the 1850s,” O’Rourke wrote. “There are also records showing that a maternal great-great-great grandfather, Frederick Williams, most likely owned slaves in the 1860s (“most likely,” because we are not certain that the Frederick Williams who is my ancestor and the Frederick Williams who owned slaves are the same person, but there’s enough circumstantial data to lead me to conclude that it’s likely).” “Records also showed that Amy had an ancestor who owned slaves and another who was a member of the Confederate Army,” O’Rourke added. O’Rourke’s claim comes after the media last week tried to tie Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition to reparations to the fact that his great-great-grandfathers owned slaves. When the media tried to push that narrative they were met with the fact that former President Barack Obama’s ancestors were slave owners. Sen. Kamala Harris’ ancestors also owned slaves. So where is all of the classic liberal outrage over these folks having this sort of bloodline? Surely they would have no problem striking at these kind…

Continue Reading

News

Trump Administration Set To Carry Out Major Crackdown On Asylum Abuse

This is going to make liberals absolutely furious.

Published

on

The Trump administration has announced some major changes in the country’s current asylum policies that will inevitably lead to a sizable reduction in the number of individuals that are eligible for asylum who are trying to enter the country at the southern border. If you listen closely, you can hear the left already throwing a total fit over this, ready to compare the president to a whole plethora of deplorable fascist world leaders throughout history. via Daily Wire: “The new rule, published in the Federal Register, would require most migrants entering through America’s southern border to first seek asylum in one of the countries they traversed – whether in Mexico, in Central America, or elsewhere on their journey,” Fox News reported. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) highlighted three limited exceptions: (1) an alien who demonstrates that he or she applied for protection from persecution or torture in at least one of the countries through which the alien transited en route to the United States, and the alien received a final judgment denying the alien protection in such country; (2) an alien who demonstrates that he or she satisfies the definition of “victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons” provided in 8 C.F.R. § 214.11; or, (3) an alien who has transited en route to the United States through only a country or countries that were not parties to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The statement went on to detail that a very small minority of these individuals actually receive asylum, however, a large number of requests burdens the system and undermines its humanitarian purposes. The statement also notes the large number of requests…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week

Send this to a friend