Shades Of Nazi Germany: Biden Wants Americans To Report / Turn In 'Radicalized' Friends And Family To His Govt

[Uncensored2008]

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

So, you admit you want a race war then?

I mean, what you really want is genocide of whites, but as you attempt that, you'll get the race war you keep itching for.

 

[justinacolmena]

attempting to burn federal agents alive

I don't know what religion these people have, but “federal agents” don not get an automatic free pass to heaven.

 

[colfax_m]

Do

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

So, you admit you want a race war then?

I mean, what you really want is genocide of whites, but as you attempt that, you'll get the race war you keep itching for.

Do you really think that suppressing history is the best way to prevent conflict?

 

[easyt65]

attempting to burn federal agents alive

I don't know what religion these people have, but “federal agents” don not get an automatic free pass to heaven.

THAT is your response to foreign/democrat-funded/supported domestic terrorists attempting to burn fellow Americans - federal agents - alive on national TV?!

 

[martybegan]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

 

[martybegan]

It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.

I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.

No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.

Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"

No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.

What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

Close enough.

It’s not. It’s a conditional statement pointing out your own hypocrisy.

This is yet again your fragility showing.

It's a sad attempt at ignoring the crux of the argument, as usual for you

It’s not really a crux as you keep shifting it around.

The crux actually was me pointing out that conservatives aren’t nearly as into individual freedom as they claim to be.

And you are as usual wrong about that.

SJW's hate freedom, they want everyone to be JUST LIKE THEM.

Huh? SJWs are the ones supporting diversity. You are the one that wants everyone to be just like you.

Assimilate.

For a side that preaches diversity they only accept their own political viewpoint, another example of how Orwellian the left has become.

What's wrong with assimilating into American culture?

All the other ethnic groups in the past did it and still maintained their own brand of American culture, with a dash added.

Italian American, Irish American.

Asians are probably the best example of a current ethnic grouping assimilating and succeeding.

We don’t accept our own political viewpoint. If you want to go to church and have missionary sex with your spouse in pitch dark, so be it.

So be it. No one is trying to stop you.

The only viewpoint that we reject is that it’s the only way to live your life.

"bake that cake, peasant"

"kneel or else"

"vote democrat or else"

1. Baking a cake doesn’t make one gay, you realize that right? No one wants the baker to become gay.

2. What?

3. Now you’re just making shit up.

No one said it was about being gay, it's about being forced to do something against your religious morals.

Police: 77-year-old veteran attacked for wearing MAGA hat

.

 

[colfax_m]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

 

[colfax_m]

It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.

I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.

No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.

Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"

No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.

What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

Close enough.

It’s not. It’s a conditional statement pointing out your own hypocrisy.

This is yet again your fragility showing.

It's a sad attempt at ignoring the crux of the argument, as usual for you

It’s not really a crux as you keep shifting it around.

The crux actually was me pointing out that conservatives aren’t nearly as into individual freedom as they claim to be.

And you are as usual wrong about that.

SJW's hate freedom, they want everyone to be JUST LIKE THEM.

Huh? SJWs are the ones supporting diversity. You are the one that wants everyone to be just like you.

Assimilate.

For a side that preaches diversity they only accept their own political viewpoint, another example of how Orwellian the left has become.

What's wrong with assimilating into American culture?

All the other ethnic groups in the past did it and still maintained their own brand of American culture, with a dash added.

Italian American, Irish American.

Asians are probably the best example of a current ethnic grouping assimilating and succeeding.

We don’t accept our own political viewpoint. If you want to go to church and have missionary sex with your spouse in pitch dark, so be it.

So be it. No one is trying to stop you.

The only viewpoint that we reject is that it’s the only way to live your life.

"bake that cake, peasant"

"kneel or else"

"vote democrat or else"

1. Baking a cake doesn’t make one gay, you realize that right? No one wants the baker to become gay.

2. What?

3. Now you’re just making shit up.

No one said it was about being gay, it's about being forced to do something against your religious morals.

Yep. The baker wants everyone to be straight, just like them.

Because conservatives don’t actually like freedom. They want assimilation.

 

[martybegan]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

Because it's an inherently racist way at looking at the past.

It makes White males who want to be males and like boobs the perpetual bad guy, for just being white males who want to be males and like boobs.

 

[martybegan]

It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.

I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.

No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.

Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"

No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.

What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

Close enough.

It’s not. It’s a conditional statement pointing out your own hypocrisy.

This is yet again your fragility showing.

It's a sad attempt at ignoring the crux of the argument, as usual for you

It’s not really a crux as you keep shifting it around.

The crux actually was me pointing out that conservatives aren’t nearly as into individual freedom as they claim to be.

And you are as usual wrong about that.

SJW's hate freedom, they want everyone to be JUST LIKE THEM.

Huh? SJWs are the ones supporting diversity. You are the one that wants everyone to be just like you.

Assimilate.

For a side that preaches diversity they only accept their own political viewpoint, another example of how Orwellian the left has become.

What's wrong with assimilating into American culture?

All the other ethnic groups in the past did it and still maintained their own brand of American culture, with a dash added.

Italian American, Irish American.

Asians are probably the best example of a current ethnic grouping assimilating and succeeding.

We don’t accept our own political viewpoint. If you want to go to church and have missionary sex with your spouse in pitch dark, so be it.

So be it. No one is trying to stop you.

The only viewpoint that we reject is that it’s the only way to live your life.

"bake that cake, peasant"

"kneel or else"

"vote democrat or else"

1. Baking a cake doesn’t make one gay, you realize that right? No one wants the baker to become gay.

2. What?

3. Now you’re just making shit up.

No one said it was about being gay, it's about being forced to do something against your religious morals.

Yep. The baker wants everyone to be straight, just like them.

Because conservatives don’t actually like freedom. They want assimilation.

That's you placing thoughts in someone else's head.

You want everyone to comply with your beliefs OR ELSE, stop denying it.

You are a small insignificant pissant, who likes government bullying people who disagrees with them.

 

[colfax_m]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

Because it's an inherently racist way at looking at the past.

It makes White males who want to be males and like boobs the perpetual bad guy, for just being white males who want to be males and like boobs.

Snowflakes like yourself want to suppress any history that doesn’t paint white men as the saviors of the world.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I found a whole building full of domestic terrorists

Who do I report them to?

 

[colfax_m]

It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.

I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.

No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.

Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"

No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.

What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

Close enough.

It’s not. It’s a conditional statement pointing out your own hypocrisy.

This is yet again your fragility showing.

It's a sad attempt at ignoring the crux of the argument, as usual for you

It’s not really a crux as you keep shifting it around.

The crux actually was me pointing out that conservatives aren’t nearly as into individual freedom as they claim to be.

And you are as usual wrong about that.

SJW's hate freedom, they want everyone to be JUST LIKE THEM.

Huh? SJWs are the ones supporting diversity. You are the one that wants everyone to be just like you.

Assimilate.

For a side that preaches diversity they only accept their own political viewpoint, another example of how Orwellian the left has become.

What's wrong with assimilating into American culture?

All the other ethnic groups in the past did it and still maintained their own brand of American culture, with a dash added.

Italian American, Irish American.

Asians are probably the best example of a current ethnic grouping assimilating and succeeding.

We don’t accept our own political viewpoint. If you want to go to church and have missionary sex with your spouse in pitch dark, so be it.

So be it. No one is trying to stop you.

The only viewpoint that we reject is that it’s the only way to live your life.

"bake that cake, peasant"

"kneel or else"

"vote democrat or else"

1. Baking a cake doesn’t make one gay, you realize that right? No one wants the baker to become gay.

2. What?

3. Now you’re just making shit up.

No one said it was about being gay, it's about being forced to do something against your religious morals.

Yep. The baker wants everyone to be straight, just like them.

Because conservatives don’t actually like freedom. They want assimilation.

That's you placing thoughts in someone else's head.

You want everyone to comply with your beliefs OR ELSE, stop denying it.

You are a small insignificant pissant, who likes government bullying people who disagrees with them.

I’m not placing thoughts in anyone’s head. Do you deny that these fundamentalist Christians want everyone to be straight?

Be straight or go to hell, right? Be straight or else.

 

[colfax_m]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

View attachment 504311

Snowflakes.

 

[justinacolmena]

THAT is your response to foreign/democrat-funded/supported domestic terrorists attempting to burn fellow Americans - federal agents - alive on national TV?!

Said federal agents are definitely going to hell if they don't give us our guns back and wipe the mental health smut and character smears off our records.

They have too many "ways" to ruin our lives without being able to obtain a proper criminal conviction in a court of law.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

View attachment 504311

Snowflakes.

 

[martybegan]

No, its a response to saying only white men who want to be men and who like boobs are the only ones with privilege.

From a societal perspective?

Or are you going to blather on about individuals again?

Things like this impact society and individuals, you can't separate one from the other.

Yes, you can. Because a discussion about a societal effect does not specifically refer to any individual.

The fact that you can't separate them is because of your own emotional fragility.

If it impacts an individual, it impacts an individual.

ignoring it just means you don't care about said individual or don't want to.

It does impact individuals, but it doesn’t say which individuals it impacts.

That’s the part that you can’t understand.

That's just doubletalk, trying to ignore the actual impacts of SJW type government interference.

It’s not double talk. It’s rather important distinction that fragility can’t understand.

Saying that a trend occurs, that a benefit occurs does not mean it applies to everyone in that population.

This isn’t about you, snowflake.

Ignoring the actual consequences of a given act at the micro to justify a "macro" rule or regulation is an SJW staple.

I’m willing to accept that teaching history make not make white ancestors look as good as you want.

If you snowflakes can’t handle that, it’s not my problem.

CRT isn't teaching history, it's taking Marxist class theory and applying it to race.

Gotcha. There never was any white supremacy in this country.

You know you can’t just slap “Marxist” in front of everything to make it sound scary. It’s lazy.

You snowflakes just want to whitewash history because you can’t accept that white people did some bad things.

CRT is saying white supremacy is the only thing in our history that matters, or will ever matter.

As for the Marxism:

Critical Race Theory’s Marxist Roots - Frontpagemag

It doesn’t. It’s pretty ridiculous to let your opponents define you. No one would do that.

The reason you don’t like it is because you don’t want to acknowledge what actually happened in this country. You want to whitewash it. After all, white men still control the country. Why wouldn’t they attempt to suppress their own past?

Snowflakes.

it does. It decides that white males who want to be males and like boobs are the "ruling class" of Marxist theory, and thus are by their nature, the only oppressor around.

everyone else is a permanent victim.

Your side is the one that likes to destroy history, not ours. Try again.

If you look at the power structure of the country in the last 200 years and don’t see that it’s been run, especially before now, that it’s almost exclusively wielded by straight white men, then you’re delusional.

If pointing out that the country has been run by straight white men offends you, then so be it.

You snowflakes can’t suppress history forever.

That was true for the entire world, not just the US.

CRT says that somehow I perpetually owe other people something for things I didn't do, and since I am under 50 really haven't benefitted from.

We aren't ignoring history, we are saying using CRT as revenge against us is bullshit.

CRT doesn't what a color blind society, it wants payback for perceived wrongs.

More white fragility. You just want to ignore history because it makes you uncomfortable.

We should be colorblind and ignore the effects of centuries of oppression. That’s what you want, right?

Snowflakes.

Who's ignoring history? I'm saying CRT is the wrong way to look at it.

So what you are looking for is revenge then?

Fine. Don’t believe CRT. Not my problem.

Why do you snowflakes need to suppress it?

Because it's an inherently racist way at looking at the past.

It makes White males who want to be males and like boobs the perpetual bad guy, for just being white males who want to be males and like boobs.

Snowflakes like yourself want to suppress any history that doesn’t paint white men as the saviors of the world.

Using the term wrong as usual. CRT isn't history, it's bullshitting about history through a Marxist racist lens.

 

[martybegan]

It limited them to very specific businesses, not all businesses.

I never said it did. However, none of the distinctions had anything to do with "point of sale" or "contracts", which was your entire point.

My point is the original intent of a PA has been expanded wrongly to "any time money changes hands"

In any event, a person doesn't give up the right to free exercise just because they want to sell something.

No, that wasn't your point. You changed your point as the first one failed spectacularly.

In any event, conservatives aren't for expansion of freedom and liberty. They're just for the expansion of their freedom and liberty.

My point has always been about PA's being limited to actual PA's, go through my thread history if you think otherwise.

You are ignoring the freedom of the baker, making you guilty of your own accusation.

Your point was trying to differentiate “point of sale” and “contract” services and the thread history proves me on this one. You claimed this was part of the original CRA but it’s not. It does cover places that serve food. You know, like a bakery.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

But it’s not. It’s only about making sure that your side is protected in a way that is palatable.

That is an extension of the "what is actually a PA" argument.

Please show where I said "abolish all PA's". My point is and has always been to limit PA's to actual PA's, the original concept, not "any time money changes hands"

No, you didn’t say abolishing all PAs because that would be consistent with your stated beliefs.

Since that’s not your assertion, your stated beliefs are just pretext.

So you admit you lied? Thank you.

What? I never said you wanted to abolish PAs. Go back and reread Marty. Wear your glasses next time.

If this is about freedom, you’d support abolishing all public accommodations and going back to letting Woolworth’s be segregated.

Close enough.

It’s not. It’s a conditional statement pointing out your own hypocrisy.

This is yet again your fragility showing.

It's a sad attempt at ignoring the crux of the argument, as usual for you

It’s not really a crux as you keep shifting it around.

The crux actually was me pointing out that conservatives aren’t nearly as into individual freedom as they claim to be.

And you are as usual wrong about that.

SJW's hate freedom, they want everyone to be JUST LIKE THEM.

Huh? SJWs are the ones supporting diversity. You are the one that wants everyone to be just like you.

Assimilate.

For a side that preaches diversity they only accept their own political viewpoint, another example of how Orwellian the left has become.

What's wrong with assimilating into American culture?

All the other ethnic groups in the past did it and still maintained their own brand of American culture, with a dash added.

Italian American, Irish American.

Asians are probably the best example of a current ethnic grouping assimilating and succeeding.

We don’t accept our own political viewpoint. If you want to go to church and have missionary sex with your spouse in pitch dark, so be it.

So be it. No one is trying to stop you.

The only viewpoint that we reject is that it’s the only way to live your life.

"bake that cake, peasant"

"kneel or else"

"vote democrat or else"

1. Baking a cake doesn’t make one gay, you realize that right? No one wants the baker to become gay.

2. What?

3. Now you’re just making shit up.

No one said it was about being gay, it's about being forced to do something against your religious morals.

Yep. The baker wants everyone to be straight, just like them.

Because conservatives don’t actually like freedom. They want assimilation.

That's you placing thoughts in someone else's head.

You want everyone to comply with your beliefs OR ELSE, stop denying it.

You are a small insignificant pissant, who likes government bullying people who disagrees with them.

I’m not placing thoughts in anyone’s head. Do you deny that these fundamentalist Christians want everyone to be straight?

Be straight or go to hell, right? Be straight or else.

They preach that homosexuality, at least the acts of such, are sinful.

And to a Calvinist they are damned by birth so they probably don't care about how they act anyway.

The real question here is the government force. You are advocating government force in this instance, I am not.

 

[colfax_m]

The real question here is the government force. You are advocating government force in this instance, I am not.

“In this instance” is because this is an instance of people you identify with.

Why would you want government force to be used on your tribe?

Nah. You’re going to save government force to use against those who don’t think like you.