• 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!

Nazis are Getting Destroyed in their Private Lives

apdst said:
I propose we get rid of marriage licenses. What about you?

Representitive Gregg Albritton (R) of Alabama wants to abolish marriage licenses.

There was a bill in the OK legislature that would abolish marriage licenses.

Representitive Jim Lucas (R) of indiana wants to abolish marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

apdst said:
You asked. There it is. Besides, marriage licenses are issued at the state level, not the Federal level. There's nothing in The Constitution about marriage.

Do you agree with the abolition of marriage licenses.
Click to expand...

Look at apdst dishonestly diverting. You STILL didn't address the issue that I presented. So I will present it again. Let's see if you have the integrity to acknowledge it.

Is it conservatives who have tried to prevent gays from marrying due to their own morality, in essence trying to control others due to their own values?

All this requires is a "yes" or "no" answer, apdst. None of your diversions. None of your changing of the goalposts. And though I can't control that, none of your running away without answering. Just a "yes" or "no".
 
apdst said:
Freedom of speech is freedom from concequences. If there are concequences, then it isn't free.
Click to expand...

In other words...

Freedom of Speech cannot be achieved without protecting the right of Anonymous Speech!

Which means, if a Forum Moderator of this or any other Political Forum, uses their internal record access to get the forum anonymous avatar registration information, and releases it to those who would persecute them for their posts...

... if an agenda driven forum Moderator Doxes a Forum Poster...

... which I can PROVE happened to me on THIS forum and several others, because I deliberately created selective typo type of errors in my information and documented them, and those errors showed up in the subsequent discrimation attacks comming from websites like https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist

Then we need to have the National Level A.G. and DOJ prosecute those forum moderators and the forum owners and server owners, for violations of Constitutional Civil Rights!

-
 
Kurmugeon said:
In other words...

Freedom of Speech cannot be achieved without protecting the right of Anonymous Speech!

Which means, if a Forum Moderator of this or any other Political Forum, uses their internal record access to get the forum anonymous avatar registration information, and releases it to those who would persecute them for their posts...

... if an agenda driven forum Moderator Doxes a Forum Poster...

... which I can PROVE happened to me on THIS forum and several others, because I deliberately created selective typo type of errors in my information and documented them, and those errors showed up in the subsequent discrimation attacks comming from websites like https://twitter.com/YesYoureRacist

Then we need to have the National Level A.G. and DOJ prosecute those forum moderators and the forum owners and server owners, for violations of Constitutional Civil Rights!

-
Click to expand...
If you have evidence that any member of the staff here has released any personal information about you I suggest you contact one of us with this evidence. You're lobbing a hefty accusation of something that the site owner, myself or any members of this staff would not tolerate in the least. There will be no doxing taking place here as long as I'm on staff and if there is, that person will be removed without question.

If there is no evidence, I'd recommend altering the direction that you're headed in because baseless accusations of this nature is a fairly serious matter.
 
Here in PHX a moron alt-right guy posted on FB that he was going to plow through protesters in is 4x4 during 45's speech.

He got fired from his crappy job (angry nazi's always have crappy jobs) at a tire company. Boo hoo.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Look at apdst dishonestly diverting. You STILL didn't address the issue that I presented. So I will present it again. Let's see if you have the integrity to acknowledge it.

Is it conservatives who have tried to prevent gays from marrying due to their own morality, in essence trying to control others due to their own values?

All this requires is a "yes" or "no" answer, apdst. None of your diversions. None of your changing of the goalposts. And though I can't control that, none of your running away without answering. Just a "yes" or "no".
Click to expand...

Best thing you can do to him is shun him....he adds nothing to any conversation.
 
phattonez said:
This is a culture of intimidation and blowback. We may legally have free speech, but de facto we don't. This is especially problematic when it comes to people who post anonymously (and don't encourage violence, I might add) and then get doxed. We need to preserve anonymity, and the Founding Fathers who used that anonymity when it came to making remarks on the Constitution also seemed to think so.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is a right against the government ("state actors") and no more. It is also not an absolute right. The principle is simple: people should be free to say what they like, particularly to criticize or comment upon government, without fear of punishment by government for their speech (and particularly its contents).

If a supermarket fires an employee for painting a giant swastika on his car and parking it in the lot, that has nothing to do with free speech or it's "principles".
 
apdst said:
The Liberals are the folks that insist on forcing everyone to acquire government permission to get married. If you're mad because the government won't allow gays to marry, then you can blame the Liberals.

Margaret Sanger was a proponent of marriage licenses and parenthood permits. The purpose was to keep inferior races from breeding.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to get the government's permission to marry, what kind of bizzaro world do you live in where it's illegal to hold a private ceremony without permission?
 
Deuce said:
Nobody is forced to get the government's permission to marry, what kind of bizzaro world do you live in where it's illegal to hold a private ceremony without permission?
Click to expand...

Of course people are forced to get a marriage license from the government. Without a government imposed marriage license, a married couple can't file a joint tax return (more marriage laws by the government).
 
apdst said:
Of course people are forced to get a marriage license from the government. Without a government imposed marriage license, a married couple can't file a joint tax return (more marriage laws by the government).
Click to expand...

You're not forced to file taxes jointly.

You're asking for marriage benefits from the government but also demanding that the government not recognize your marriage. That's a strange request, apdst.

My employer offers health insurance. I need to fill out a form to get it. Therefore my employer is forcing me to get permission to have health insurance?
 
Deuce said:
You're not forced to file taxes jointly.

You're asking for marriage benefits from the government but also demanding that the government not recognize your marriage. That's a strange request, apdst.
Click to expand...

You get raped filing seperate.

Interesting argument from someone who demands marriage equality.
 
apdst said:
Freedom of speech is freedom from concequences. If there are concequences, then it isn't free.
Click to expand...

This has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever written. You really don't understand what freedom of speech is, in terms of what is protected by the Constitution, do you?
 
apdst said:
You get raped filing seperate.
Click to expand...
You pay your tax bill as required by law. If you want benefits the government chooses to grant to married couples, you're going to have to tell them you're married. They're not psychic. I don't see what the problem is. It's not getting permission, apdst. The government doesn't actually decide who you get married to.

Interesting argument from someone who demands marriage equality.
Click to expand...

Equality in that we all have the option to choose to get married, without the government discriminating on the basis of our gender.

Answer this: if my employer offers optional health insurance, for free, am I really "forced to get their permission" if the requirement is I fill out a form?
 
Last edited:
ModerateGOP said:
You are wrong. From what I've read that defense only works for government employees or members of the military. The only protection you have as as citizen from a private employer is if the company tries to fire you based on religion, sex, race, or sexuality. Otherwise they can fire you for whatever reason they can think of. Nazism is not classified as a religion.
Click to expand...

That is not entirely the case. Political opinions also can be a prohibited reason for terminating somebody.
 
Athanasius68 said:
That is not entirely the case. Political opinions also can be a prohibited reason for terminating somebody.
Click to expand...

Not by Federal law.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e and following) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin (including membership in a Native American tribe). It also prohibits employers from retaliating against an applicant or employee who asserts his or her rights under the law.

Unless a state has an added protected class. Never heard of political opinion being a protected class though.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I have a better idea. Understand that there are consequences for your behaviors and keep that in mind when you act.
Click to expand...

Sure. There are consequences for actions of people expressing their free speech rights.
Some people are fired. Others are run over.
At the end of day its all about suppressing speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom