• 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!

LGBT+ pride marches in US interrupted by neo-Nazis and stampede

Really? Was there destruction of property or was there people being beat up? Or are you just offended by gay people being proud of what they are?

Fire away with you rhetoricals:yawn:.
 
Fire away with you rhetoricals:yawn:.

Nothing rhetorical about it. A simple yes or no question that you really want to avoid.
 
It's all 3. There are some Trump supporters that defend racism, some Trump supporters that reject that there is racism and there are some Trump supporters who will dismiss the racism presented.

The same can be said about those who seek to eliminate the President.

Should those people be ignored? Vilified? Exposed?
 
Which segment of mainstream Christianity or Judaism believes in killing infidels? Is that segment as prevalent as the segment of Muslims who believe in killing infidels?

Just pointing out what the bible says. Of course mainstream christians or jews or muslims don't believe in killing infidels. But, as so many posters here love to point out about the koran being so violent, well, so is the bible...
 
Really? Was there destruction of property or was there people being beat up? Or are you just offended by gay people being proud of what they are?

For example, I sayin' its OK for Red Sox fans to proclaim their allegiance in bastions of Red Sox-loving institutions and not Yankee-loving institutions. If Red Sox fans wish to do so in Yankees pride bastions, better expect some violence. And if a public display, better expect opposition from any group that disagrees.

Acknowledge you freedom. Don't flaunt it. Some folks still disapprove of your freedom and will be angered if you flaunt it.
 
Last edited:
The same can be said about those who seek to eliminate the President.

Should those people be ignored? Vilified? Exposed?

If one were trying to eliminate the president, that would be assassination and illegal. As far as I know, every case of that instance has been investigated by secret service.
 
If one were trying to eliminate the president, that would be assassination and illegal. As far as I know, every case of that instance has been investigated by secret service.

What word would you prefer? Remove?

Nice dodge though.....

Very telling.
 

The Old Testament that you quote was written by old Jewish men that strove to control the masses. The New Testament says just the opposite regarding the 'stoning' of sinners. From John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Jesus Christ prevented the stoning death of a known adulterer.

From Wiki:
A group of scribes and Pharisees confronts Jesus, interrupting his teaching session. They bring in a woman, accusing her of committing adultery, claiming she was caught in the very act. They ask Jesus whether the punishment for someone like her should be stoning, as prescribed by Mosaic Law.[2] Jesus first ignores the interruption and writes on the ground as though he does not hear them. But when the woman's accusers continue their challenge, he states that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone. The accusers and congregants depart, leaving Jesus alone with the woman. Jesus asks the woman if anyone has condemned her. She answers that no one has condemned her. Jesus says that he, too, does not condemn her, and tells her to go and sin no more.

So, unless you follow the Old Testament as a member of the Jewish faith, the New Testament has no reference whatsoever to the 'killing of infidels' and if you still believe it does, I would like to see that passage from one of the gospels in the New Testament to prove it.
 
For example, I sayin' its OK for Red Sox fans to proclaim their allegiance in bastions of Red Sox-loving institutions and not Yankee-loving institutions. If Red Sox fans wish to do so in Yankees pride bastions, better expect some violence. And if a public display, better expect opposition from any group that disagrees.

Acknowledge you freedom. Don't flaunt it. Some folks still disapprove of your freedom and will be angered if you flaunt it.

Again, you go out of your way to avoid answering the question.
 
Just pointing out what the bible says. Of course mainstream christians or jews or muslims don't believe in killing infidels. But, as so many posters here love to point out about the koran being so violent, well, so is the bible...

I agree the crusaders were as violent and religiously motivated as ISIS, for example.
 
The Old Testament that you quote was written by old Jewish men that strove to control the masses. The New Testament says just the opposite regarding the 'stoning' of sinners. From John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." Jesus Christ prevented the stoning death of a known adulterer.

From Wiki:
A group of scribes and Pharisees confronts Jesus, interrupting his teaching session. They bring in a woman, accusing her of committing adultery, claiming she was caught in the very act. They ask Jesus whether the punishment for someone like her should be stoning, as prescribed by Mosaic Law.[2] Jesus first ignores the interruption and writes on the ground as though he does not hear them. But when the woman's accusers continue their challenge, he states that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone. The accusers and congregants depart, leaving Jesus alone with the woman. Jesus asks the woman if anyone has condemned her. She answers that no one has condemned her. Jesus says that he, too, does not condemn her, and tells her to go and sin no more.

So, unless you follow the Old Testament as a member of the Jewish faith, the New Testament has no reference whatsoever to the 'killing of infidels' and if you still believe it does, I would like to see that passage from one of the gospels in the New Testament to prove it.

I don't follow the bible because it was just a book that is extremely outdated and full of fables.
 
I don't follow the bible because it was just a book that is extremely outdated and full of fables.

But apparently we are supposed to follow Biblical rules even though we aren't members of the cult.
 
Answer post 233

EDIT:BTW, what violence or destruction is caused by wearing a MAGA hat?

That isn't an answer, it is an irrelevant question.
 
What word would you prefer? Remove?

Nice dodge though.....

Very telling.

You mean hold the president accountable for his actions? Yes, the Dems are doing that.
 
TEN Neo-Nazis?

The sheer number isn't the issue. It's the fact that they seem to think walking around in public showing off swastikas is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. It's pieces of **** like that who should be in the closet not gay people.
 
Excuse me, but that's a dodge on your part.

No, I asked him a question. He answered with a question that has nothing to do with the topic.

Try to keep up.
 
You mean hold the president accountable for his actions? Yes, the Dems are doing that.

And you dodge the question again. Aren't you concerned with credibility?

This is a debate site.

It typically contains questions and some expectation someone will answer those questions if a discussion is to take place.

So to the statement you made:

"There are some Trump supporters that defend racism, some Trump supporters that reject that there is racism and there are some Trump supporters who will dismiss the racism presented."


I replied: (with correction to suit your demand)

The same can be said about those who seek to remove the President.

Should those people be ignored? Vilified? Exposed?​


And your answer is?
 
Back
Top Bottom