• 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!

'boycott a&e' facebook support page for phil robertson gets over 1m likes

Those "youth" will grow up and see the error of their ways.

Yes, because the ongoing trend is for each generation to progressively get less tolerant. :roll:
 
"The man can say and believe whatever he wants. He did. This is America. The first amendment is alive and kicking. The TV network can fire or hire whoever it wants. It's in the contract the shows participants signed. Legal and binding. This is America. Whether you agree or disagree with the man or the network you are allowed to voice your opinion without fear of incarceration. This is the wonderful country we live in. To me that's what is most important here. To everyone becoming divided and angry at each other because a celebrity said something on a multi-billion dollar generating TV show ( that thanks to all the controversy has generated even more profits ) I say congratulations. You just made rich people richer while alienating friends and dividing a nation. Try talking to each other instead of belittling and judging. You may find common ground that you didn't even know existed. After all, we are all just people. My opinion on what he said is my own and I will gladly discuss it in person or private message. But I will not post it in public where it can be misunderstood and manipulated. That's it. I'm done. That's all I have to say about that."

One of my friends on Facebook...
 
Yes, because the ongoing trend is for each generation to progressively get less tolerant. :roll:

Hate for GW Bush is what started it. The left was so strongly opposed to the US striking back after 9/11 and convinced he stole the election from Gore. Ever since then, its been that way.
 
Hate for GW Bush is what started it. The left was so strongly opposed to the US striking back after 9/11 and convinced he stole the election from Gore. Ever since then, its been that way.

Lol what?????
 
Hate for GW Bush is what started it. The left was so strongly opposed to the US striking back after 9/11 and convinced he stole the election from Gore. Ever since then, its been that way.

This is a complete non-sequitur.

1. Hate for GW Bush started WHAT?
2. "The left" was NOT "strongly opposed" to the U.S. "striking back after 9/11." "The left" was opposed to the Iraq War, not going into Afghanistan.
 
No they were not.

The vast majority of objection to the war came from "the left." The Democrats in Congress, being spineless, cowed wimps in the first few years after 9/11, who voted for the war were hardly representative of the actual "left" in this country.
 
The vast majority of objection to the war came from "the left." The Democrats in Congress, being spineless, cowed wimps in the first few years after 9/11, who voted for the war were hardly representative of the actual "left" in this country.

Sure!
Says you!
They were for it before they were against it huh?

iLOL

:doh
 
So who was protesting against the war if not "the left"?
The fact is that the majority on the left were for the war when it started.
 
The fact is that the majority on the left were for the war when it started.

Well then, :citation needed:

I'm certainly not claiming the entire "left" was in lockstep against the war; I am saying that the vast majority of objection to the war came from "the left," so to speak. I suppose part of that argument is how you define "the left."
 
Well then, :citation needed:

I'm certainly not claiming the entire "left" was in lockstep against the war; I am saying that the vast majority of objection to the war came from "the left," so to speak. I suppose part of that argument is how you define "the left."
My bad. I left out "in the Senate."
Like the following Senators.
Biden, Reid, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein, etc...
 
My bad. I left out "in the Senate."
Like the following Senators.
Biden, Reid, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer, Feinstein, etc...

In that case, see post 235.
 
This is a complete non-sequitur.

1. Hate for GW Bush started WHAT?
2. "The left" was NOT "strongly opposed" to the U.S. "striking back after 9/11." "The left" was opposed to the Iraq War, not going into Afghanistan.
Hate for GW is what grew the partisanship politics of today.
 
2. "The left" was NOT "strongly opposed" to the U.S. "striking back after 9/11." "The left" was opposed to the Iraq War, not going into Afghanistan.

Since you seen to be the designated leftist, maybe you can answer something for me:

Why were the same people who were anti-Iraq, pro for attacking Syria? Was it just the leftists politicians and not liberals in general?
 
You know how Christians "love the sinner, hate the sin".....


I love the Christians, hate the intolerance.....


I think some folks have conflated the terms "tolerance" and "advocacy". I can dislike something, SAY I don't like it and still be tolerant of it. When I try to stop it... like, say, trying to get someone thrown off their job, I drift towards intolerance.
 
I think some folks have conflated the terms "tolerance" and "advocacy". I can dislike something, SAY I don't like it and still be tolerant of it. When I try to stop it... like, say, trying to get someone thrown off their job, I drift towards intolerance.


I totally agree. Which is why I say you don't have to accept (you use the word advocate) certain aspects of other culture, but in some cases you should tolerate it. This of course depends on what we're talking about and all the extenuating circumstances that surround it.
 
I totally agree. Which is why I say you don't have to accept (you use the word advocate) certain aspects of other culture, but in some cases you should tolerate it. This of course depends on what we're talking about and all the extenuating circumstances that surround it.

Yes, the first time I really cared about gay marriage was when the DC government tried to end a Catholic run charity in the district because they didn't support gay marriage. It was then that I realized that the gay marriage lobby isn't actually about tolerance, it is about conformity. As I have argued before, I would have no problem with the gay marriage movement if their methodology were not so destructive and their arguments logically clean and taylored to gay marriage only. As it is it is a sloppy, roughshod movement that does far more harm than good.
 
Yes, the first time I really cared about gay marriage was when the DC government tried to end a Catholic run charity in the district because they didn't support gay marriage. It was then that I realized that the gay marriage lobby isn't actually about tolerance, it is about conformity. As I have argued before, I would have no problem with the gay marriage movement if their methodology were not so destructive and their arguments logically clean and taylored to gay marriage only. As it is it is a sloppy, roughshod movement that does far more harm than good.

While I advocate gender, sexual preference, and racial tolerance (among other things), I understand that movements can be hijacked. Even as an atheist we get "Atheism+". It's total, unadulterated crap.
 
It's funny how Christians pick and choose lines from Leviticus. If it's in Leviticus and it makes Christians look bad the reply is "Well Leviticus doesn't apply anymore". Well until someone mentions Homosexuality.

God's condemnation against sodomy predates the Law given in Leviticus. It goes all the way back to at least Abraham.
 
Back
Top Bottom