Trump May Not be a White Supremacist but He is In Fact a Bigot

Again, I'm a lapsed Catholic at best. the Issue I have is government forcing people to abandon free exercise because some more "oppressed" person is feeling butt hurt..

Free exercise of what? What the fuck are you talking about? Because religious liberty ends where civil rights begin. You just want to be able to justify your own bigotry and the bigotry of theirs because you're a piece of shit. Yes, it is that cut and dry. Get over yourself.


Make them put a sign outside their location, and of course they can't deny point of sale services (actual PA's), but fining them 149k is crazy. You crazy.

The fine was too small and should have included jail time since those people knowingly and deliberately violated the civil rights of others. Fuck those people. That penalty is all on them for subscribing to idiotic religious beliefs to justify bigotry.

And by the way, I thought their God "forgives"...apparently forgiveness doesn't extend to baking cakes, I guess...just another stupid religious argument flushed down the drain.


Those were not conservatives and libertarians in Charlottseville, they were actual white power nitwits.

LOL! Right, like how Bush was a Conservative until he fucked everything up, and then he wasn't. Don't fucking bullshit me. Those Nazis marching were wearing the same red hats you clowns wear. You're the same people. Difference is those guys had the courage to actually express their bigotry whereas you're too cowardly to do so.


And you also go with the "small government = no government" fallacy.

Small government is something Conservatives like to say in order to fool people into thinking they have principles. But "small government" goes right out the window; when a hurricane hits, when it comes to what a woman can do with her own body, when it comes to who people love and have sex with, when it comes to drugs, when it comes to legislating morality. Then Conservatives are all about "big government" and their principles are tossed aside. In case you're wondering, my argument is that you have no integrity and you just say things to make yourself look better. Whiny little bitch move, there.


My ignore list is either empty or has maybe one person on it, so again a baseless accusation from you.

Of course, I was speaking generally and in response to the poster who said they ignore my posts.



You want to put people in JAIL for not baking a cake in the same post you whine about "civil rights"?


LOL!!


Your conflating the mainstream right with Nazis is just you being afraid to have to defend your ideas against any challenges, because you know you can't.
 
There was never a question of his birth outside the US. Someone raised it with Obama, and his birth certificate was produced. End of Story.

But why was it raised by you people? Why did that standard all of a sudden appear for Obama when it never did before? These are the questions you keep avoiding for obvious reasons; those reasons being that it proves you are just a bunch of racist shitgoblins too embarrassed by your blind support for Bush and the predictably awful consequences of his and the Conservative Congress' actions prior to Obama. You all still maintain the same shit beliefs you did during Bush. You haven't changed any of them. So because you basically de-legitimized yourselves and Conservatism because of your support for Bush, you had to portray Obama as a usurper of some kind. Someone who wasn't American enough that you demanded his birth certificate because you're racist pieces of shit who can't handle the fact that a black guy was elected to clean up after the failures of your belief system.


Again, no question raised about his birth.

WHAT!? Of course it was raised, idiot. He was pressured into releasing his BC because of the quesiton of his birth. Let's not forget you said yourself that he had to "sufficiently" prove to you -according to your weird standard- that he was American. The quesiton of his birth came first. And you clearly were among those who were questioning that birth since you fully admit providing his BC was "sufficient" for you and your standard.

Just curious, why no mention of Trump's birth certificate? Oh right, because Trump's white. How silly of me to even pose such a ludicrous question in the first place.
 
You want to put people in JAIL for not baking a cake in the same post you whine about "civil rights"?

If you knowingly and deliberately violate someone's civil rights, yes, you belong in jail. Period. Full stop.


Your conflating the mainstream right with Nazis

Potato, potahtoe. Same shit, different polish. You can put all the lipstick you want on the pig, it's still a pig.


is just you being afraid to have to defend your ideas against any challenges, because you know you can't.

If any of you bothered to actually have integrity and principles, I am more than happy to debate my ideas. But you aren't doing that. You're bullshitting me.
 
There was never a question of his birth outside the US. Someone raised it with Obama, and his birth certificate was produced. End of Story.

But why was it raised by you people? Why did that standard all of a sudden appear for Obama when it never did before? These are the questions you keep avoiding for obvious reasons; those reasons being that it proves you are just a bunch of racist shitgoblins too embarrassed by your blind support for Bush and the predictably awful consequences of his and the Conservative Congress' actions prior to Obama. You all still maintain the same shit beliefs you did during Bush. You haven't changed any of them. So because you basically de-legitimized yourselves and Conservatism because of your support for Bush, you had to portray Obama as a usurper of some kind. Someone who wasn't American enough that you demanded his birth certificate because you're racist pieces of shit who can't handle the fact that a black guy was elected to clean up after the failures of your belief system.


Again, no question raised about his birth.

WHAT!? Of course it was raised, idiot. He was pressured into releasing his BC because of the quesiton of his birth. Let's not forget you said yourself that he had to "sufficiently" prove to you -according to your weird standard- that he was American. The quesiton of his birth came first. And you clearly were among those who were questioning that birth since you fully admit providing his BC was "sufficient" for you and your standard.

Just curious, why no mention of Trump's birth certificate? Oh right, because Trump's white. How silly of me to even pose such a ludicrous question in the first place.

The question was actually also brought up about McCain because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. a review of law saw it was considered american soil, and thus he was eligible.

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of SenatorJohn McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

As for the rest, its just liking the sound of your own voice in your head as you type. There is a level of class in brevity that escapes you.

Trump was born in NYC, and there was never a question over it. Someone raised it about Obama and it was answered.
 
You want to put people in JAIL for not baking a cake in the same post you whine about "civil rights"?

If you knowingly and deliberately violate someone's civil rights, yes, you belong in jail. Period. Full stop.


It is likely that the bakers did not share your view on the RIght of others to demand they bake a cake.

Thus, that is not "knowingly".


So, you excuse for your desire to throw your political enemies in jail is debunked.





Your conflating the mainstream right with Nazis

Potato, potahtoe. Same shit, different polish. You can put all the lipstick you want on the pig, it's still a pig.[/QUOTE]



I'm not going to list all the ideological reasons that what you claimed in moronic, because you know that what you said is moronic.




is just you being afraid to have to defend your ideas against any challenges, because you know you can't.

If any of you bothered to actually have integrity and principles, I am more than happy to debate my ideas. But you aren't doing that. You're bullshitting me.[/QUOTE]



Sure, that is why you are spending page after page telling marty what he said about Obama's birth certificate, because you are sooooo ready to debate real issues.
 
There was never a question of his birth outside the US. Someone raised it with Obama, and his birth certificate was produced. End of Story.

But why was it raised by you people? Why did that standard all of a sudden appear for Obama when it never did before? These are the questions you keep avoiding for obvious reasons; those reasons being that it proves you are just a bunch of racist shitgoblins too embarrassed by your blind support for Bush and the predictably awful consequences of his and the Conservative Congress' actions prior to Obama. You all still maintain the same shit beliefs you did during Bush. You haven't changed any of them. So because you basically de-legitimized yourselves and Conservatism because of your support for Bush, you had to portray Obama as a usurper of some kind. Someone who wasn't American enough that you demanded his birth certificate because you're racist pieces of shit who can't handle the fact that a black guy was elected to clean up after the failures of your belief system.


Again, no question raised about his birth.

WHAT!? Of course it was raised, idiot. He was pressured into releasing his BC because of the quesiton of his birth. Let's not forget you said yourself that he had to "sufficiently" prove to you -according to your weird standard- that he was American. The quesiton of his birth came first. And you clearly were among those who were questioning that birth since you fully admit providing his BC was "sufficient" for you and your standard.

Just curious, why no mention of Trump's birth certificate? Oh right, because Trump's white. How silly of me to even pose such a ludicrous question in the first place.

The question was actually also brought up about McCain because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. a review of law saw it was considered american soil, and thus he was eligible.

McCain’s Canal Zone Birth Prompts Queries About Whether That Rules Him Out

The question has nagged at the parents of Americans born outside the continental United States for generations: Dare their children aspire to grow up and become president? In the case of SenatorJohn McCain of Arizona, the issue is becoming more than a matter of parental daydreaming.

Mr. McCain’s likely nomination as the Republican candidate for president and the happenstance of his birth in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936 are reviving a musty debate that has surfaced periodically since the founders first set quill to parchment and declared that only a “natural-born citizen” can hold the nation’s highest office.

As for the rest, its just liking the sound of your own voice in your head as you type. There is a level of class in brevity that escapes you.

Trump was born in NYC, and there was never a question over it. Someone raised it about Obama and it was answered.


It was also raised about Ted Cruz because he was born in Canada.
 
neither is being gay.

Wrong. It certainly is. In fact, the basis for SCOTUS' decision on gay marriage was, as Justice Kennedy wrote, rooted in the 14th Amendment. The same 14th amendment that negated state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. The problem is you people don't know anything you're talking about. So you just spout off bullshit and hope you don't get called on it. What a bunch of whiny little bitches.


the rights we all share, we all share them. to pick and choose - well that's where the divide come from. at this point, no more unignore for you. you can be a scholob-sucker w/o me.

The right to pick and choose what? What are you talking about? Like it's so fucking hard for you to accept people are gay or have gender fluidity. If I can accept that your belief system revolves around a magic fairy who sits on a cloud and won't forgive people for baking a cake, then you can accept that people have different gender identities and sexual orientations. Seriously, is it so fucking hard for you to accept that? Why?
 
Someone could walk down any predominantly black neighborhood wearing a MAGA hat and expect the same treatment which you no doubt would wholeheartedly support.

Red hats are the new brown shirts.



Actually these are the new brown shirts.


antifa-domestic-terror-berkeley-2.jpg





They use street violence in coordination with local authorities and law enforcement to silence political opposition.



That's classic textbook brown shirts.
 
It's clear you either didn't read my post, didn't understand it, or do not know your history.

I don't care about the lengths you have to go to justify your bigotry. I really, really don't.


If you and your types keep carrying on the way your are, the national government will take your actions as an excuse to declare martial law, then you will see what real fascism looks like as they round up all Muslims and immigrants and put them in camps. If, at that point, Trump were thrown out of office and Pence is in charge, you can kiss good-bye all gay pride parade permits as well, COUNT ON THAT.

We already are in real fascism and we see it every day when the police kill minorities, round them up on "drug offenses" (after pumping those drugs into the those communities to begin with) and concentrate them in prisons (from which those same legislators profit) while also removing their rights to vote. So explain how that's not fascist, please.

And also, if you're saying that the current Conservative government would seek to use an incident in order to justify more fascism, then you're already admitting they're fascists. What do you think the Reichstag Fire was all about? Seriously, you say I need to learn history yet you don't even realize the stupid, contradictory shit you're saying. What a poser.


Do you even know what Dominionists are?This is all I meant about triggering an "Enabling act" like situation with your reasoning.

These people don't need an enabling act in order to justify fascism. For one, we already live in a fascist state and for two, they can just manufacture a crisis all on their own, like the Nazis did when they set the Reichstag ablaze 75 years ago. So if antifa doesn't give them a reason, they'll just create one on their own. Just like their predecessors did in 1930's Germany. That's why we can't even let them get that far, and why we should exterminate Nazis today the same way we exterminated them 80 years ago.


This is what the Deep State is pushing for, and you are helping them right along. I suggest you look into how elites program and manage the Hegelian Dialectic. You are being mentally programmed by the MSM and social networking sites which are run by private and state Intel. Wake the F up man.

LOL! Fuck you, you Nazi piece of shit. So we aren't supposed to take action against fascists because then the fascists will use that as an excuse to continue being fascists. Fucking idiot. Do you listen to yourself?


This is how your political identification is for your view points, when it comes to your so-called "paradox of tolerance." IOW, get the fuck over yourself before you are the cause of having our open society closed down. You are the ones they refer to as useful idiots, thanks for that.

Open society!? Huh? You realize fascists don't believe in an open society, right? They believe in an authoritarian society. That's why they're fascists. So if we aren't to punch and kill Nazis, what are we supposed to do?
 
Last edited:
The highlighting of the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I know it hurts to be fisked this bad over so many posts. May I suggest some preparation H?

Doesn't make what true? See, your problem is that you speak in such vague, general terms that you can wiggle around what you said in order to fit within the parameters (which also seem to be fluid). Is it not true that God forgives? If that's so, why wouldn't God forgive you for baking a cake? And why would you -or anyone- worship a deity that won't forgive you for baking a cake? You see how fucking stupid it all is?


Again, all that typing for no real point. It isn't up to me or government to interfere with someone's free exercise unless there is a compelling interest, and butt hurt isn't compelling.

If God forgives and Jesus died for everyone's sins, then how exactly is it free exercise to deny baking a cake?


It isn't about commerce its about each State being able to figure out its own laws within the bounds of the US constitution and their own State Constitutions.

So you're just re-stating that which you already believe but aren't defending it. Since commerce happening across state border is now the standard, why does the State have to figure any of that shit out, as it relates to commerce? You're telling me that people in New Mexico shop differently than people in Montana? That's your position? Really?

Do people in Massachusetts get a different kind of breast cancer than people in Alabama? Do people in Minnesota know different math than people in Kansas? This idea of "states' rights" is bullshit now, just as it was bullshit 150 years ago. Please explain and expand upon this thought. "Figure out its own laws within the bounds of the US constitution"...to what end? Do you think commerce doesn't occur across state lines? Because back in the 18th century, it wasn't the standard. It is now. So why are you applying 18th-century thinking to 21st-century problems? Do you treat cancer with leeches? Because that's what they did in the 18th century. So I'm wondering why you only pick and choose certain parts of 21st century thinking to apply to your personal life, yet you demand we adhere to 18th century thinking to apply to our government? Fucking stupid. Cue "the sweater song" as I pull at that thread and start walking away...


PA's don't mean "any business". And the Civil Rights Act is very specific to what it calls a PA.

Right...if you want to form a baking club of straight, white males only, you can do that so long as those folks pay a membership fee. So your crypto-fascist right-wing groups can operate with all the discrimination they want. But as soon as they make what the offer available to the public, that's where the accommodations for bigotry end.


hat is childish is you thinking using government to fuck with people you don't like is not fascist.

Fuck with people by having them accept gays? Like it's so fucking hard to accept that. Whiny. Little. Bitch.
 
The highlighting of the same thing over and over doesn't make it true. I know it hurts to be fisked this bad over so many posts. May I suggest some preparation H?

Doesn't make what true? See, your problem is that you speak in such vague, general terms that you can wiggle around what you said in order to fit within the parameters (which also seem to be fluid). Is it not true that God forgives? If that's so, why wouldn't God forgive you for baking a cake? And why would you -or anyone- worship a deity that won't forgive you for baking a cake? You see how fucking stupid it all is?


Again, all that typing for no real point. It isn't up to me or government to interfere with someone's free exercise unless there is a compelling interest, and butt hurt isn't compelling.

If God forgives and Jesus died for everyone's sins, then how exactly is it free exercise to deny baking a cake?


It isn't about commerce its about each State being able to figure out its own laws within the bounds of the US constitution and their own State Constitutions.

So you're just re-stating that which you already believe but aren't defending it. Since commerce happening across state border is now the standard, why does the State have to figure any of that shit out, as it relates to commerce? You're telling me that people in New Mexico shop differently than people in Montana? That's your position? Really?

Do people in Massachusetts get a different kind of breast cancer than people in Alabama? Do people in Minnesota know different math than people in Kansas? This idea of "states' rights" is bullshit now, just as it was bullshit 150 years ago. Please explain and expand upon this thought. "Figure out its own laws within the bounds of the US constitution"...to what end? Do you think commerce doesn't occur across state lines? Because back in the 18th century, it wasn't the standard. It is now. So why are you applying 18th-century thinking to 21st-century problems? Do you treat cancer with leeches? Because that's what they did in the 18th century. So I'm wondering why you only pick and choose certain parts of 21st century thinking to apply to your personal life, yet you demand we adhere to 18th century thinking to apply to our government? Fucking stupid. Cue "the sweater song" as I pull at that thread and start walking away...


PA's don't mean "any business". And the Civil Rights Act is very specific to what it calls a PA.

Right...if you want to form a baking club of straight, white males only, you can do that so long as those folks pay a membership fee. So your crypto-fascist right-wing groups can operate with all the discrimination they want. But as soon as they make what the offer available to the public, that's where the accommodations for bigotry end.


hat is childish is you thinking using government to fuck with people you don't like is not fascist.

Fuck with people by having them accept gays? Like it's so fucking hard to accept that. Whiny. Little. Bitch.

Again, a word spluge with no meaning. Try harder

Government getting involved denies free exercise, the burden is on the government to prove a compelling interest, and then if it is found mitigate the situation in a manner that is least intrusive on the party losing said right.

Not everything has to do with commerce, despite you idiots using it to get away with bullshit like denying free exercise.

The concept of State sovereignty in certain areas is the crux of federalism under our system. Again, if you want to change it, that's what the amendment process is for.

Or you just realize a contracted service that is non time sensitive and non-essential isn't a PA and doesn't mandate government interference.

Homosexuality is seen as sinful in most major religions. It is what it is, and these people are protected from government malice via the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

Again, don't like it? Amend the constitution.
 
It is likely that the bakers did not share your view on the RIght of others to demand they bake a cake.

What view are we talking about here? The "view" that baking a cake for a gay wedding is somehow a violation of your religious liberty. But nowhere do you say how that is religious liberty. You just say it is because you know it's a bullshit reason. And furthermore, I thought the whole point of religion was that God forgives you. But now you're here saying God doesn't forgive you for baking a cake. So why would you worship a deity that doesn't forgive, let alone forgive for doing something so insignificant to that God? Square that circle, please.


Thus, that is not "knowingly".

Yes, it absolutely is. These people knowingly violated the civil rights of others because their God apparently doesn't forgive them for baking a cake.

Fucking stupid.


So, you excuse for your desire to throw your political enemies in jail is debunked.

Political enemies? Huh? What are you talking about? My enemy are those who think religion supersedes civil rights. Your fucking God won't even forgive you for baking a cake, so why the fuck do you worship him, then?????? I thought your God was supposed to forgive everything. Isn't that why Jesus died? Apparently, what you say about your God -and your faith in that God- is all bullshit since apparently that God of yours will throw down a lightning bolt from his magic cloud at you for baking a cake.

Fucking stupid. None of you clowns have dared to even address that point. Probably because you can see that sweater unraveling from a mile away.


I'm not going to list all the ideological reasons that what you claimed in moronic, because you know that what you said is moronic.

Those who identify as Conservative were among those saying "Jews will not replace us" in Charlottesville and are the same ones saying that opposition to fascism only makes fascism worse...which is what the same people said to those who opposed fascists 80 years ago. Did we defeat fascism by doing nothing? No. We killed millions of fascists...why shouldn't we do the same today?


Sure, that is why you are spending page after page telling marty what he said about Obama's birth certificate, because you are sooooo ready to debate real issues.

I quoted that asshole's post from 2010 directly. He said that Obama had to provide "sufficient proof" in the form of a birth certificate and when he did, the issue was settled. But the issue was not settled because of the very fact that he needed "sufficient proof" in the first fucking place. So no, that human stain doesn't get to skate away when the passive-aggressive intent was crystal clear in his post.
 
They use street violence in coordination with local authorities and law enforcement to silence political opposition.

Now that's fucking funny.

Antifa coordinates with police departments to silence (?) opposition. I thought antifa hated police? That's what you all say. Now you're saying they coordinate with police? How do they do that, exactly? Can you give me an example? I doubt it.

One question; how is opposition (the fascists) silenced? Because we all saw that video of the cop standing by when that MAGA red hat Conservative pulled his gun on those protesters in Charlottesville.
 
Again, a word spluge with no meaning. Try harder

Nah, you just don't want to reconcile the fact that your religious argument in favor of bigotry is tripped up by its own rhetoric. God forgives and Jesus died for your sins, yet God won't forgive some redneck baker for baking a cake for a gay wedding? That makes no fucking sense at all. Much like every Conservative belief there is.


Government getting involved denies free exercise

Free exercise of what? Because I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about baking cakes for gay weddings in the Bible. And I thought God forgives and Jesus died for your sins...sooooooooooo that's not true then? Someone should tell that to the billions of Christians who appear to have been hoodwinked.


the burden is on the government to prove a compelling interest, and then if it is found mitigate the situation in a manner that is least intrusive on the party losing said right.

Already done. 1964 Civil Rights Act. NEXT!


Not everything has to do with commerce, despite you idiots using it to get away with bullshit like denying free exercise.

This specific instance has everything to do with commerce, so here you are, exercising sophism to pretend that denying a wedding cake to gay people isn't a commerce issue, when it is nothing but that. And why wouldn't God just forgive the bakers for baking the cake anyway? What's the answer to that question? I thought God forgives. Apparently that forgiveness doesn't extend to baking cakes...in which case, why would anyone worship a God who wouldn't forgive you for baking a cake? Seems pretty fucking stupid and bigoted, doesn't it?


The concept of State sovereignty in certain areas is the crux of federalism under our system. Again, if you want to change it, that's what the amendment process is for.

Ahhh, see here comes the goalpost shifting. So your argument moved from one of nothing but state sovereignty to one of sovereignty "in certain areas". What those "areas" are is unspoken, probably because you recognize you need to give yourself broad parameters in order to argue with someone who has a clear thought about this, where you do not. Whiny little bitch move, there.


Or you just realize a contracted service that is non time sensitive and non-essential isn't a PA and doesn't mandate government interference.

The CRA does not make such distinctions, nor should it. A public accommodation is a public accommodation regardless if it's contractual or not. And that's what the courts have all upheld.


Homosexuality is seen as sinful in most major religions. It is what it is, and these people are protected from government malice via the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment.

Well, good fucking thing we aren't a theocracy and thus, cannot legislate morality along religious lines. So it doesn't fucking matter what the child molesting-covering up religions do or think. None of that shit matters when it comes to the law. Your religion doesn't supersede the law no matter how much you want to make this a Sharia state.


Again, don't like it? Amend the constitution.

Reminder: you're the assholes who want to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
 

Forum List

Back
Top