Winthrop restaurant cancels Trump event organized by Muslim hater

A group called MA 4 Trump was supposed to hold a get-together for supporters at JW's in Winthrop, but the restaurant canceled the meeting yesterday.

In a Facebook post, the restaurant wrote:

It has been brought to our attention that the event scheduled for tomorrow evening, which we have canceled, has caused divisiveness within our community.

We had no knowledge of what the event organizers intentions were other than being a fundraiser.

It was never our intention to be embroiled in any controversy, and for that we are regretful.

The restaurant then added:

JW's is a community restaurant, a Winthrop restaurant. We are a tightly knit group of individuals from all nationalities, religions and personal prefrences.The event was not booked nor cancelled with malice. The negative feed back , phone calls and in person complaints on BOTH sides of this political event has caused us with careful consideration to remove ourselves.

One of the group's organizers is Dianna Ploss, who last year served as press secretary to anti-gay gubernatorial candidate Scott Lively and who organized a talk in Newton titled The U.S. Constitution and Sharia. Can they co-exist? She did that in her role as leader of the Boston chapter of the anti-Muslim Act for America.

On her own Facebook page, Ploss this morning accused "the Marxists" of getting the event canceled, but said a new event would be held at the same time nearby.

Back on JW's page, a Trump supporter accused the restaurant's owner of being "a coward" for canceling the event in a back room with less than 24 hours notice and refusing to return her phone calls. JW's replied:

The advertising of this event by the organization was not true to what was discussed with us at JW's. We hold ourselves accountable for any last minute cancelations but as previously stated the uproar this has caused with in the community and at the restaurant has swayed us to no longer allow the event to be held here.

Neighborhoods: 

Topics: 

Ad:

Comments

Scott Lively is a vile human

By on

Scott Lively was never a legitimate political candidate. He is a vile hate filled human being that should not be "normalized" in our political system by accepting viewpoints based upon pure hatred and intolerance of others. The fact that Dianna Ploss served as this person's "mouth piece" means she condones his viewpoints. This is not OK and we need to wake up to the normalization of this hatred and intolerant rhetoric in our current political discourse.

up
50

Good

By on

No food for fascists. No venues either.

up
61

Think that one through

By on

You've called lots of people, including me, fascists for the crime of not being in lockstep with every last bit of crazy that pops into the collective head of the far left.

Now you're saying "no food for fascists." Should that be interpreted as your wish to see me die of starvation? Should I take it as a personal threat? Can I take it to my police chief as a reason for an unrestricted LTC, on the grounds that people want me dead?

Please say yes.

up
31

Silly Roman

By on

You too smart by half to jump from a no food comment in this contexst to the idea of starvation. That is what fascists do of course. Twist a singular statement that should be understood in context to an overblown meaning.

Not that you're a fascist. But if you want to engage in intelligent respectful debate then drop the hyperbole.

Starve?

By on

Why would you starve?

We're all in favor of you eating shit.

up
15

You can't come to my place/ Do you want me to starve????

By on

No, just go through the drive through again and stop with the false drama.

We can always count on you to defend the worst human being on the planet. No matter how low they always turn out to be your people.

A hat for Roman

By on

Now you're saying "no food for fascists." Should that be interpreted as your wish to see me die of starvation? Should I take it as a personal threat? Can I take it to my police chief as a reason for an unrestricted LTC, on the grounds that people want me dead?

Roman, there isn't enough aluminum foil in all the Market Baskets in New England to make enough of a hat for you.

Not that you're sincere; this is just more disingenuous shit-stirring Roman bullshit, you silly tiresome child. But why don't you take your beef, or rather lack of beef, to Bartley's? They don't serve fascists either. Go give them a piece of your mind, Roman!

up
10

Credit where credit is due...

At least one of the event sponsors appears to be an adult. From a facebook posting by Sheila Kearney Gill:

I am the one that spoke to the owner of JW’s.
There was complete transparency on what the event was for. To be clear, it was not a fundraiser, it was a meet, greet and a forum for communication.
I will repeat from my other post, I do not incorporate my political views in my business, I keep them separate.
We should not judge, or name calling. JW’s made a decision, do to a lot of backlash, I was told that by the banquet manager tonight. It’s unfortunate, but I respect the owner and his reasons. There maybe more to this than we know, so stop judging.
I’m personally involved with this situation more than anyone, the owner has known me since I was born, he’s my pseudo brother, I love and respect him, as he me.
This is a good man, with a beautiful family,and was helping me out when I asked him.
Stop judging Mikey’s decision.
This is a very impressive establishment, with beautiful atmosphere and wonderful food.
Let’s move on♥️

up
25

"let's move on"lol

By on

Actually what we need is a widespread discussion about the close relationship between love and hate, and what they mean, in your family, in your community, in this country. The problem is people don't want that. They want to espouse love, but meet not-so-secretly to have discussions that as-yet cannot be known to be free and clear of fantasies about a murderous 4th Reich. Getting your own house in order is a lot of work and it seems nobody wants to do it. And voting for the next corporate democrat isn't going to solve the problem either. The problem is much more serious than that, and it requires a confrontation with reality which so far nobody seems prepared for. But if you want to start talking about jobs and single payer healthcare, it will at least look like you are starting to understand.

Sycophants

Smart move by the restaurant, despite not vetting the nature of the event before booking. And the extremist comments on the restaurant's Facebook page make it easy to know the cultists to block. The pervasive ignorance, bigotry, hatred, and divisiveness in America, inherent in some of the comments, are beyond disturbing.

My favorite pathetic trick of denizens of the Trump

fever swamp is their projection of their own bigotry onto people who object to racism, xenophobia, homophobia, religious intolerance, and all the assorted other hatreds that our President has either tacitly or explicitly endorsed and incited.

"No, *you're* the bigot!" is the best they can muster. Sorry, mouth-breathers, but anti-intolerance is not intolerance. And you're not very fine people: you're a pox on our democratic society.

up
20

I know right?

How awful that we won't tolerate people who want to murder our friends and family members.

up
38

Projecting?

By on

Where did you get the idea they wanted to murder anybody? Last time I checked, criticizing an ideology isn't the same as wishing death upon its adherents.

We criticize bad ideologies all the time in the US, left and right. Or, at least we used to.

There is no obligation for

By on

There is no obligation for anyone to "tolerate" people who wish to take the rights away from or do harm to others through their words and actions. In fact, that's the one group of people whom no one should tolerate.

up
30

Unless they've got a bike lock

By on

then it's all good. Amiright?

Take it down a notch. "I disagree" is not violence. Never has been. Never will be.

I'm a suburbanite. Lot's of people here disagree with my lifestyle choice. A good number of them want to use the force of government to take away my right to that choice at the point of a gun. That's a pretty damn substantial disagreement.

But so long as it's just words, it's not violence and it's not harm.

People can believe in traditional marriage without causing harm to you. If you feel you are harmed by the opinions in someone else's head, then you're the one with the problem. You should address that problem in yourself before screaming for shunnings and bannings and blood.

up
22

About that

By on

If you feel you are harmed by the opinions in someone else's head, then you're the one with the problem. You should address that problem in yourself before screaming for shunnings and bannings and blood.

You should start with yourself as you have a very real persecution complex.

up
23

you think "the left" is out to get you

By on

"the left" as you have imagined it doesnt exist.

no one is "out to get you"

no one cares that you're a suburbanite. or, where's your proof that there are "people" who want to "force" you into not being one? (which means what, exactly?)

that's the definition of a persecution complex.
you, like the selectively sensitive right wingers who whine about "snowflakes", and like the president about anything at all, also project a whole lot.

for all you talk about people trying to "take your rights away because you disagree with them", that's exactly what you want to do with groups you disagree with. as one example, "believing in traditional marriage" is a euphemism for denying people the right to marry.

Yes, it is. Do you know why?

By on

Because that way, it isn't subjective.

Psychological harm is subjective. I do not consent to being judged by subjective standards when words like "violence" are being thrown around.

If you don't like what I've got to say, I don't force you to listen.

Wow

I do not consent to being judged by subjective standards

You are a delicate little flower, aren't you?

Hahaha

You are a delicate little flower, aren't you?

The poster does not consent to be judged by subjective standards so immediately a leftie jumps in and solely judges by subjective standards.

Trump ain't just gonna be winning an election in 2020 at this rate.

Pay attention

it would win Trump the election!

Pay attention.

President Donald Trump has already won the election at this point. The lefties have already gone too far with the whole intersectional victimhood thing. Every day it is a new paradoxical crisis. Today we witness a radical left muslim senator bashing Obama for being a manchild.... where instead she should have been apologizing for siding with the nazis with her whole jew hatred tear she has been on for weeks.

Keep it up lefties so Trump can win more prizes.

Thank you

Thank you, but this is bigger than me. I am just an observer.... who happens to be right all the time. I claim no special insight... unless casual objective analysis is special nowadays.

President Donald Trump won on the issues. He did not win by subjective analysis. The lefties are doubling down... and so early on.... with awful results... so early on.

"People can believe in

By on

"People can believe in traditional marriage without causing harm to you."

Sure, if they believe it but don't take any action upon their beliefs, that's true. But if they want the government to only allow for "traditional marriage" and vote for and promote candidates who are trying to accomplish this, they very much are attempting to cause harm to an entire subset of the population.

up
18

That would pass the laugh test if I weren't old enough to

By on

remember back to before 2003 when every state in the country had laws on the books that restricted marriage licenses to heterosexual couples. Somehow people managed to live their lives without that piece of paper. The world didn't end when Massachusetts started giving out marriage licenses to gay couples, but the flip side is that the world didn't begin then either. It wasn't the liberation of the death camps, and it's very dishonest to paint it as such.

I don't agree with taking that piece of paper away from people who have it, but I also don't understand how advocating for a policy like that could justify a rebuke with a bike lock when words work just fine. The answer to speech you don't like is more speech, not calls to violence.

up
11

And yet,

By on

Somehow people managed to live their lives without that piece of paper.

People who didn't have that piece of paper because they were discriminated against based on their orientation were not allowed to have the same rights or privileges (taxes? extending health insurance coverage to your spouse or partner? etc.) as those who did. That's harm. Don't act like that's not actual harm.

up
15

No they didn't

By on

remember back to before 2003 when every state in the country had laws on the books that restricted marriage licenses to heterosexual couples.

More bullshit by Roman. Prior to the Goodridge decision, few states (if any) bothered to restrict marriage licenses to hets as a matter of law; after Goodridge there was a veritable avalanche of such legislation in the predictable places, but it was never "every state in the country".

You probably fool first-timers with your authoritative-sounding pronouncements, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

up
10

typical

Somehow people managed to live their lives without that piece of paper.

downplay the importance of a legal marriage by completely ignoring issues like tax and estate law using rhetoric that appeals to "common sense" in order to tamp down an extremist opinion.

its getting fucking boring dude.

From 1 MPH to 60 in one pixel

By on

Roman: Here you are saying "take it down a notch." Yet in the same thread you jumped from a phrase about not eating in a single location place to starvation.

Being consistent in your practice and what you tell others to do would be helpful to your credibility.

Here, where most of us are ultimately anonymous to each, only our words create, maintain or destroy our credibility.

up
11

I'm gonna need a citation on that

I'm a suburbanite. Lot's of people here disagree with my lifestyle choice. A good number of them want to use the force of government to take away my right to that choice at the point of a gun. That's a pretty damn substantial disagreement.

Umm... really?

up
11

Force

A good number of them want to use the force of government to take away my right to that choice at the point of a gun.

In our country, the government is *granted* the power to use force to ENforce law, and they do it all the time.

The overwhelming choice in governmental force nowadays is guns.. although bayonets, fire and tasers may be substituted occasionally/historically... I guess. Or sanctions... lol Jimmy Carter. Heheheh. What a tool.

Whatever the government tells you to do is one, two or three steps away from guns coming out. Most of us just obey the law and no guns need be drawn ever. Sometimes things get complicated or misunderstood.

But do not pretend that the government is ever going to be all chill and laid back when they have been granted the power to point a gun at you to force you to comply with the law.

You don't like that?

Change the law.

Our founding fathers created a whole system to do so.

And watch out for what you grant the government. Jimmy Carter is not always going to be president.

Way to miss the point

I'm pretty sure Bob was scoffing at Roman's ludicrous assertion that anyone wants to make it illegal to live in the suburbs.

up
10

Mr. Popper knows...!

By on

Look up the "Paradox of Tolerance" by Karl Popper. It goes like this, if our tolerance is unlimited, to the point we tolerate the rabidly intolerant, and we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against that intolerance, then the tolerant society will disappear and we're left with intolerance. "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant." or something like that.

up
19

Maybe we can have Sheila

By on

Maybe we can have Sheila Kearney Gill talk with the lawyers of the Covington kids.
Calling her a Muslim hater seems to be a good libel case, although I'll give her credit for trying to rise above this.

No libel

By on

I wasn't referring to her, but to Dianna Ploss, whose public record is pretty clear.

So, speaking about Islam makes me what...?

By on

Have you ever thought about why People are up in arms when someone speaks about or questions Islam? Because it is written in the Quran and considered blasphemous, the penalty of which is death.
And, if you understood the Quran, Mohammad and Sharia, you would understand that the goal of this system is not just for those who practice Islam, but for everyone.

That's why organizations like, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), have helped spread the false "Islamophobia" narrative. They don't want anyone factually speaking about Islam. That's why CAIR Executives advise Twitter and Facebook Executives regarding what should and shouldn't be allowed on their sites. Geez! How does this work with our Constitutional guaranteed Free Speech?

You see, if you understood Sharia, you'd see it all around you every day. But, because you'd rather condemn me for making factual statements, you will never even look at it.

I bet many people on this thread are unaware of CAIR's origins and its' ties to both Hamas and the Holy Land Foundation Trial. I also bet that many on this thread haven't a clue that most of the Mosques in America are connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, a designated Terrorist Group in several countries.

America also wants to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the Terrorist Group it is. However, CAIR, along with many people on this thread, are making it very difficult. You can read about the Muslim Brotherhood here: https://www.counterextremism.com/threat/muslim-brotherhood

I bet that many on this thread are now going to attack me personally for making the above statements. Before you do, read it a few times. You'll notice that all I did was state facts...

You haven't read the Old Testament, have you?

By on

It's full of people being put to death and various horrible punishments for disobeying the law of God. You might want to read Genesis 19 about entire cities laid waste. Or how about Joshua 6:1-27?

Do you hate Jews as much as you do Muslims? Are you aware of the terrorist groups that helped create the state of Israel? Why aren't you up in arms about bet din?

And don't get me started on two thousand years of Christian brutality against Jews and even their fellow Christians (when did the Troubles end in Ireland)?

Somehow, most of us are able to overcome our awareness of past acts by religious groups and recognize that people are not vermin because they worship a particular way.

Except you and your fellow rabid Islamophobes. What happened to you that you hate so many people? It's sad you're a hater with no heart or soul. It's pitiful that you're a disgraceful bigot who tries to cloak your hatred between out-of-context facts, somebody who should be shunned by all decent people.

I could go on, but, eh, I've got better things to do.