• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rainbow Flag Will Fly Over Montreal City Hall During Olympics

LowDown said:
1.)Excluding all the nations that have problems with gay rights would destroy the Olympics and turn it into something else.

2.)But it could happen. The last time the US boycotted the Olympics, completely thereby missing the whole point, was under Jimmy Carter. And now we have Jimmy Carter to the 10th power. Carter's boycott was followed by a boycott of the Olympics in Los Angeles by Eastern Bloc nations in 1984. They set up their own separate games they called the "Friendship Games".

3.)And Carter's reason for the boycott in 1980? ..... wait for it ..... the Russians had invaded Afghanistan. :lamo
Click to expand...

1.) and there you have it, this is where the lies come in

who said exclude all the nations that have problems with gays right? not me. The US has a problem with gay rights lol that makes no sense

what i said is any country that has bigoted laws like russia should be ineligible for the olympics as in hosting

so there would be no destruction.

2.) once again didnt ask for a boycott

3.) meaningless to what i said

no need to thank me for catching you up
 
AGENT J said:
1.) and there you have it, this is where the lies come in

who said exclude all the nations that have problems with gays right? not me. The US has a problem with gay rights lol that makes no sense

what i said is any country that has bigoted laws like russia should be ineligible for the olympics as in hosting

so there would be no destruction.

2.) once again didnt ask for a boycott

3.) meaningless to what i said

no need to thank me for catching you up
Click to expand...

The US should be excluded for supporting the death penalty, and probably for its high citizen incarceration levels too. Also for starting wars with people that haven't attacked us. Actually if its based on merits. There would be no world Olympics. It's the one place/time for ALL politics to be OUT OF THE PICTURE!! And that's not intended as a support for Russia's position on this.
 
undefined
chromium said:
Those beliefs that wearing a rainbow pin should get you thrown in jail and subjected to neo-nazi brutality with no protection from law enforcement? No thanks, i don't tolerate that level of intolerance at all
Click to expand...

Wearing a swastika pin in Germany or Russia today will also get you thrown in jail.

Homosexuality isn't against the law in Russia. Homosexuality activism promoting homosexuality is outlawed in Russia. Not to many years ago, advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government was also illegal.

ilga-map-2012.jpg
 
Montecresto said:
The US should be excluded for supporting the death penalty, and probably for its high citizen incarceration levels too. Also for starting wars with people that haven't attacked us. Actually if its based on merits. There would be no world Olympics. It's the one place/time for ALL politics to be OUT OF THE PICTURE!! And that's not intended as a support for Russia's position on this.
Click to expand...

again never called for any country to be excluded from participation LOL try to keep up
 
AGENT J said:
again never called for any country to be excluded from participation LOL try to keep up
Click to expand...

Ineligible is an exclusion. Keep up with this. The Olympic Games is not the place for your tantrum.
 
Montecresto said:
1.)Ineligible is an exclusion.
2.) Keep up with this. The Olympic Games is not the place for your tantrum.
Click to expand...

1.)nope, once again didnt call for a country to be excluded

ineligible to HOST is what i said

2.) LMAO more lies and fantasy, what tantrum?

again please keep up
 
AGENT J said:
1.)nope, once again didnt call for a country to be excluded

ineligible to HOST is what i said

2.) LMAO more lies and fantasy, what tantrum?

again please keep up
Click to expand...

Well thankfully your not the decider. And the games will continue, to be hosted in rotation without your stamp of approval. You don't understand that it's game time your ****ting on though. Or maybe you just don't care. Besides, if countries were going to be intelligible to host for reasons you don't like, someone would want the US intelligible for reasons they don't like, and ultimately, we'd have no games. So you have no good point.
 
Montecresto said:
Well thankfully your not the decider.
2.)And the games will continue, to be hosted in rotation without your stamp of approval.
3.)You don't understand that it's game time your ****ting on though.
4.)Or maybe you just don't care.
5.) Besides, if countries were going to be intelligible to host for reasons you don't like, someone would want the US intelligible for reasons they don't like, and ultimately, we'd have no games.
6.) So you have no good point.
Click to expand...

1.) correct
2.) never called for them to be stopped, not one time lol in fact i said i wouldnt boycott because that would punish the people that qualified and nobody else
3.) wrong again
4.) also wrong again, please read the thread and keep up because your stramen and the lies you are posting are failing left and right, seems the only tantrum around here is in your posts lol
5.) more fantasy, i didnt say it be for reasons one doesnt like lol
6.) my point was fine, but yes the stuff you made up, assumed and guessed about wasnt good at all. it was completely inane and dishonest.

again please catch up
Maybe take a deep breath, calm done, read what i actually said or simply ask me and this way you will avoid your mistakes.
 
Kobie said:
Well, it didn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Neither does having some getting their panties all knotted up over that foreign activist can't enter a sovereign nation and break its laws by advocating a lifestyle that just happens to be legal in that country.

It makes no sense.

It's your usual agitators causing problems.

Smoking tobaco is still legal in America but activist aren't allowed to advertise cigarettes on television, in print or on billboards. Do you see smokers getting their panties all knotted up ?
 
APACHERAT said:
Neither does having some getting their panties all knotted up over that foreign activist can't enter a sovereign nation and break its laws by advocating a lifestyle that just happens to be legal in that country.

It makes no sense.

It's your usual agitators causing problems.

Smoking tobaco is still legal in America but activist aren't allowed to advertise cigarettes on television, in print or on billboards. Do you see smokers getting their panties all knotted up ?
Click to expand...

???

Did I mention anything about foreign activists going to Russia? NOPE.
 
AGENT J said:
1.) correct
2.) never called for them to be stopped, not one time lol in fact i said i wouldnt boycott because that would punish the people that qualified and nobody else
3.) wrong again
4.) also wrong again, please read the thread and keep up because your stramen and the lies you are posting are failing left and right, seems the only tantrum around here is in your posts lol
5.) more fantasy, i didnt say it be for reasons one doesnt like lol
6.) my point was fine, but yes the stuff you made up, assumed and guessed about wasnt good at all. it was completely inane and dishonest.

again please catch up
Maybe take a deep breath, calm done, read what i actually said or simply ask me and this way you will avoid your mistakes.
Click to expand...

The ONLY mistake here is in your choosing the Olympic Games to throw your hissy fit. Just stop. Let the games finish, and then blast away at Russia.
 
I'm catching a lot of grief here over my comments about gay rights, so I'm just going to set this straight, so to speak.

First, I am pretty neutral on gay marriage. I don't have a problem with everybody being treated equally. I've been pretty clear about that. One of my best friends (before we moved away from the Chicago burbs) was gay. He was also my boss and my gym partner. My wife and I had our wedding reception at his and his partner's house, which I helped build. Does anyone really think someone who is against gay people is going to spot or be spotted by one on the bench? Or share locker room space with them? I am really, REALLY tired of people telling me that I am against gay people because I am conservative or Christian. My point has been that the word "marriage" has meant and still means one man and one woman. Words have meanings, and that is what this word means. If gay people want to have a lifelong commitment and have all the benefits and negatives of being married so be it. But it is not by definition a marriage.

As for whatever laws exist in Russia concerning any of it, let's be clear about that. I am not Russian. I have never been to Russia, have no intention of going there and certainly have no interest, power or interest in their laws. If you are gay, want to be gay, or simply want to support gay people in Russia I suggest you go there and do that. Keep in mind that you may be imprisoned, killed, or just have people be mean to you if you do. I think it is important to point out that in this is exactly what Christians face in some places. I'm not going to any of those places either.

As for the definition of marriage, it has meant, over the course of my lifetime, one thing specifically. If you want to change that to fit your lifestyle, you can call your relationship whatever you want to, but I am not going with you. Likewise, those who want to change what the second amendment means will not get my support either. This is a subject I DO care about. I own guns, I reload and develop ammunition, I teach marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. I know what the founders meant by "shall not be infringed". I know why they stated it so plainly. And their opinions and reasoning for it are clearly outlined in the Federalist Papers. There is no question about it. Revisionists may try to redefine the meanings for their own purposes, but They. Are. Wrong. And redefining marriage as two men or two women is incorrect too.

So regardless of your feelings, reality is still reality. That does not equate to hate. It more closely equates to people not getting what they want thinking they can force their opinions on others under the guise of fairness. It does not make them any less wrong. And the constant insistance that everyone else change their minds and definitions of words to clarify your feeling is selfish and exclusive. You simply can not be equal and exceptional at the same time. So when you insist that I hate gay people after it has been made abundantly clear that I don't, it is not that you are gay or support gay people that riles me, it is your inability or unwillingness to listen to what I am saying that pisses me off. It means you are either deaf, blind or so sure that you are right regardless of evidence to the contrary that I simply can not take you seriously.

And that is the last I have to say on the subject. I'm done with it.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
The ONLY mistake here is in your choosing the Olympic Games to throw your hissy fit. Just stop. Let the games finish, and then blast away at Russia.
Click to expand...

LMAO well its a good thing that didnt happen and its just another made up post. Posting lies wont help your failed posts. AGain take a deep breath, calm done, read what i actually said or simply ask me and this way you will avoid your mistakes.

DO you have anything accurate or factual to talk about that i actually said?
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO well its a good thing that didnt happen and its just another made up post. Posting lies wont help your failed posts. AGain take a deep breath, calm done, read what i actually said or simply ask me and this way you will avoid your mistakes.

DO you have anything accurate or factual to talk about that i actually said?
Click to expand...

Go read post 290.
 
tech30528 said:
1.) My point has been that the word "marriage" has meant and still means one man and one woman. Words have meanings, and that is what this word means. If gay people want to have a lifelong commitment and have all the benefits and negatives of being married so be it. But it is not by definition a marriage.

2.) As for the definition of marriage, it has meant, over the course of my lifetime, one thing specifically.

3.)If you want to change that to fit your lifestyle, you can call your relationship whatever you want to, but I am not going with you.

4.)Likewise, those who want to change what the second amendment means will not get my support either. This is a subject I DO care about. I own guns, I reload and develop ammunition, I teach marksmanship and Revolutionary War history. I know what the founders meant by "shall not be infringed". I know why they stated it so plainly. And their opinions and reasoning for it are clearly outlined in the Federalist Papers. There is no question about it. Revisionists may try to redefine the meanings for their own purposes, but They. Are. Wrong.

5.)And redefining marriage as two men or two women is incorrect too.

6.)So regardless of your feelings, reality is still reality.
7.)That does not equate to hate.
8.) It more closely equates to people not getting what they want thinking they can force their opinions on others under the guise of fairness. It does not make them any less wrong. And the constant insistance that everyone else change their minds and definitions of words to clarify your feeling is selfish and exclusive. You simply can not be equal and exceptional at the same time.

9.) So when you insist that I hate gay people after it has been made abundantly clear that I don't, it is not that you are gay or support gay people that riles me, it is your inability or unwillingness to listen to what I am saying that pisses me off.

10.)It means you are either deaf, blind or so sure that you are right regardless of evidence to the contrary that I simply can not take you seriously.

11.)And that is the last I have to say on the subject. I'm done with it.
Click to expand...

1.) factually false
2.) factually false
3.) it is factually marriage and nobody is asking you to go along with it you are free to "feel" that its wrong
4.) I agree with you on this but this has absolutely positively nothing to do with the definition of marriage.

WHere they are tied though is this, in BOTH cases the states are trying to infringe on rights and overstep thier power, so you should support both otherwise its hypocritical

5.) this point fails every time somebody tries it not the same and its not being redefined, equal rights is being granted

6.) i agree and parts of your reality are factually false and facts trump your reality

7.) dont know you to know if its hate, its probably just topical ignorance

8.) good thing this factually isnt happening, your strawman fails

9.) dont know if you do or not, why did people say this? but the issues still seems to be you, some of the things you have said that you want people to listen to are factually wrong so its no surprise people are not listening to them. But again that doesn't mean you hate gays cause i dont know what else you said.

10.) or like above what you said was factually wrong like above so nobody takes it seriously

11.) good move, research this topic more so you can be more accurate
 
Montecresto said:
Go read post 290.
Click to expand...

read it, means nothing and doesnt erase the mistakes you made.
after you read the thread let me know when you can post anything accurate or factual on this subject that was actually being discussed
 
AGENT J said:
read it, means nothing and doesnt erase the mistakes you made.
after you read the thread let me know when you can post anything accurate or factual on this subject that was actually being discussed
Click to expand...

Telling you that it's immature to use the Olympic Games to throw your fit isn't a mistake. I already pointed that out to you. And clearly you don't care what you look like. Post 290 wasn't intended to erase anything. If you read it you would have seen that it was to inform you of your folly.
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
1.)Telling you that it's immature to use the Olympic Games to throw your fit isn't a mistake.
2.) I already pointed that out to you.
3.) And clearly you don't care what you look like.
Click to expand...

1.) since i didnt do that yes it is factually a mistake and dishonest lol
2.) yes you pointed your lie out and it failed
3.) no because im the person that has facts and your post do not

again reread and when you have anything accurate or factual to discuss your mistakes can be avoided and the discussion can actually progress instead od your fallacies just being destroyed by facts.


If you disagree simply quote this FACTUAL fit and my want to use the olympic games to do it lol i cant wait to read it, facts win again
 
AGENT J said:
1.) since i didnt do that yes it is factually a mistake and dishonest lol
2.) yes you pointed your lie out and it failed
3.) no because im the person that has facts and your post do not

again reread and when you have anything accurate or factual to discuss your mistakes can be avoided and the discussion can actually progress instead od your fallacies just being destroyed by facts.


If you disagree simply quote this FACTUAL fit and my want to use the olympic games to do it lol i cant wait to read it, facts win again
Click to expand...

Insisting that host countries meet your requirements is where you are both wrong and using the Olympics to advance your agenda. And, I'm just giving the other fellas you've been abusing a break from you. :)
 
Montecresto said:
1.)Insisting that host countries meet your requirements is where you are both wrong and using the Olympics to advance your agenda.
2.)And, I'm just giving the other fellas you've been abusing a break from you. :)
Click to expand...

Transaltion: no agent j i have nothign to support the fallacies i cliamed

we knew that already
WOW do you even know what was actually said or discussed?

1.)awesome you doubled down on your mistakes!!

nope not MY requirements go back and read because you keep gettin it wrong and its also not my agenda LOL

2.) this hasn't happened either, again like the FIRST question that was dodged dodged because your posted lied failed simply back your statement up
for the sake of your posts not failing anymore and getting destroyed please go back and read what i actually said or simply ask me my opinion
facts win again :)

how about this, ill just go directly at your posts to expose them, this is where fantasy, assumptions and making stuff up will make a post fail every time

What are "my" requirements?
What is "my" agenda?

this will be great

who wants to take bets this is all dodged?
 
Last edited:
Montecresto said:
It's no plot by any means, it's arrogance, and nationalism. Enjoy yourself.
Click to expand...

Yes, why else would gay rights groups protest a significant scaling back of gay rights and violent scapegoating being directed at homosexuals.

Clearly nationalism is the only answer ....

#murica is evil
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
Yes, why else would gay rights groups protest a significant scaling back of gay rights and violent scapegoating being directed at homosexuals.

Clearly nationalism is the only answer ....

#murica is evil
Click to expand...

It's the Olympics for Christ's sake. Can't believe the amount of politicizing going on while the games are running. Ok
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom