Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

[rainbow]

No, Bush is a Progressive and a Marxist useful idiot. Obama is the Marxist.

Only the Retarded Rightwing Rimsters would think that.

Only a fucknut left-wing Marxist useful idiot wouldn't.

Right, so that would cover Bush, though the useful bit is problematic.

What about the majority of decent Merkins who voted for Obama and Bush?

Are they also Marxists?

Mostly just useful idiots.

Maybe in your circle of friends...

Not my experience with Merkins, however. Those I've met are mainly nice, rational people.

On the other hand there are those useless idiots who support Trump.

[tuco]

You are missing context and nuance.

Indeed, that is strong argument. Next one is, "write it in English" I guess. Just forget it .. impotence as usual.

[pErvinalia]

"As usual"?

[laklak]

They've got pills for that now.

[tuco]

Yes impotence of argument as usual. The status quo is indefensible hence the impotent defence of it.

The problem with pills dear laklak is that they are not freely available.

[pErvinalia]

What in the fuck are you babbling on about?

[Feck]

There are only a million and half Muslims in the US but if you had in the Mormons it is close to six million - the magic number.

/there are 1.7 BILLION muslims Most have been told that the prophet Mohammed was the 'Best of men ' Unfortunately That evil paedophile was a liar a thief, torturer and greedy hypocrite.
There are 1.7 Billion VICTIMS of Islam...... TRUMP should STFU

[Seth]

You can't really. You can get away with a little bit of vigorous banter. But if it starts getting nasty, then you'll get called on it.

Not really. I reported about six posts and not a fucking thing was done about it.

Regarding Seth, he thinks most people other than right-libertarians and him are Marxists (or are under the sway of some giant Marxist conspiracy).

No, just the Marxists and their useful idiots.

In every debate, when you present a counter fact to whatever the topic is, he has this handy catch all due to his insane conspiracy theory that he can deploy to just totally ignore counter-evidence.

You have never presented a shred of counter evidence.

That is, ad hom the author(s) as a Marxist. It's fucking retarded.

So if you're not a Marxist, why do your arguments always align with Marxism one-hundred percent of the time? You know, the whole "redistribute the wealth" rhetoric and your mindless class hatred of anybody who has more than you do thing?

[Seth]

That's looking at it the wrong way. It's the RACISTS who are intolerant. By definition.

Well, not that I expect you to either understand what I'm getting at or articulate a rational response, but...so what? Everybody (in the US at least) has an unalienable civil right to be intolerant, and to discriminate against anyone or any group that it pleases them to discriminate against. It's called "freedom of assembly," "freedom of conscience" and "freedom of speech."

When it comes to private, non-commercial relationships NO ONE has any sort of right NOT to be discriminated against or treated intolerantly REGARDLESS of the reasons the other person has to do so. There is no "right of compulsory association." There is, however, according to the SCOTUS, an absolute right to DISassociate from anyone for any reason.

[Seth]

You were aiming your vitriol at the wrong target. Being intolerant of racists is not equivalent to racists being intolerant of people because of some trait outside their control.

Why isn't it? Your argument falsely assumes that racist intolerance is never based in rational objective evidence of the inferiority (or unsuitability) of the group being discriminated against. You assume that every race and every group is morally equivalent and must therefore be treated the same as every other group. This is of course irrational, and therefore being intolerant of a racist who holds those opinions for rational and valid reasons is exactly equivalent.

[Seth]

I'm just saying, that by going off the hook at people who are intolerant of racists is focussing on the wrong offender. They are not morally equivalent.

They certainly can be, at least according to the cultural Marxists of the Black Lives Matters and other "blacks can't be racists" who claim that their racist bigotry is fully justifiable.

[Seth]

So some racist right wing fascist yob with boots and a swastika tattooed on his forehead goes around beating up Asian kids. There is public outcry but you support the yob?

Good job.

Support him for what? The criminal violence or his political and social opinions? The former, no, the latter, sure.

[Seth]

Well, to me it makes no difference if you call my argument idiotic or if you call me idiot. It offends me not either way. What offends me, for example, is banning, for example, alleged racists or trolls or basically anyone who (vocal) majority deems as "unwanted".

Banning is virtually never used here. Suspension, however, is.

Occasionally. Against specific persons and not others who have committed like offenses.

[Seth]

The idea that all forms of speech are equal is, frankly, naïve.

Only because you don't believe in free speech, you only believe in free speech for those things which you support ideologically.

[Seth]

[quote="tuco" Get your shit together ppl.
[/quote]

Dream on tuco, ain't gonna happen.