Life

"We" refers to anyone with an opposing position to you. And no, you deliberately take things out of context as I just pointed out why.

First of all, Muslim communities that believe that their local imams are preaching anything near radicalization should call it out and try to stop it.First ammendment doesn't cover people who incite direct violence. Plus, you can argue that it would also be treason. That's a starting step. I'm very hardline on this one. If anyone has any sense of moral obligation to stop radical Islam, it is any Muslim who won't be immediately killed for not being Muslim. Proof? Hey, let's look at St. Cloud! "Are you Muslim? No?" *stab* I'm going off of many sources including Sam Harris who is on your side of the aisle. Unless he's still gross and racist. Tell you what. Let's scale it down to... 10% at most (which is grossly wrong). That's still 160 million people. If we say 20% (which is the conservative estimate), that's nearly the population of the entire USA. Can I point something out here that's fascinating? There's more hatred for Jews than Muslims in the world and there are at best 15 million of us in the world. And every one of those 160~400 million Muslims who are fundamentalists would be OK with seeing us dead or would actively try. Remember when you went on a tirade about your safety from Trump? This is mine. I am fucking terrified because it is me and my family and NOT yours (because you are Muslim) that pays the price here. If this evil manages to fester in the Western World, it is my immediate family's safety that I am scared for.

I think this comment is far too stupid to go unnoticed.The KKK wasn't Christian driven. There is literally no proof of this whatsoever and you simply made it up because you hate Christians. The KKK was the domestic terrorist arm of the Democratic Party until about the 1950's. Ever since, the Klan has been effectively defunct. If I ran for President and David Duke endorsed me (he wouldn't because I'm a Jew), I'd turn around and say that the Klan endorsing me means absolutely nothing because they have as much power today as the Westboro Baptist Church (all twelve of its inbred members). As for Stalin, you're talking about a bunch of people against the Red Army. What are you, nuts? Where's the logic? I'm saying that Muslim communities should actively attempt to combat radical Islam by co-operation with the US government. Well shit, I can't ask for them to do that? Is that Islamiphobic? Can we admit that 25% of 1.6 billion people would be absolutely fine with bringing oppressive Sharia law into free Western countries? And can we admit that that is dangerous to gays, transgenders, women, Jews and other smaller minorities (before we get to the "everyone who isn't Muslim" level)? Enigmar, you should be fucking terrified of radical Islam. They throw gays off of roofs. They rape women and then honour kill them. For someone who only cares about LGBTQAII (slient P) rights, you should be vehemently against radical Islam.

Hillary's reaction to Heller vs. DC is a great starting place.Am I the only person who actually bothered to read the dissenting opinions? Raven, we're getting tired of your shtick. We get that you hate Trump. In fact, give me a list of things you don't like about Trump and I can play the same game as you (making snarky little comments like "wut" and [citation required]). It's not cute or funny anymore especially since we still treat you with respect. The vast majority of your arguments have been character attacks or "this is too stupid to even respond thoughtfully" style answers. You purposely continue to miss the general point of anything anyone says just so that you can attack arguments out of context. Let's take birtherism. People in general now see it as "well Hillary has been saying for years that nobody in her campaign had anything to do with it and now suddenly someone in her campaign did have something to do with it, that makes her a liar". Maybe not you because you know everything but you are one person (who I think is very misguided because you hate Trump so much that you're willing to justify Hillary's trangressions, which I don't do). That was clearly the context of that argument since CNN (which is Hitler) has been talking about it non-stop and she is getting lambasted on Twitter. I watched it happen in real time. My point is, stop being snarky and start showing some of the respect that we give you.

Great.Now actually do something. They should be on the forefront. Words mean nothing when you don't back up your rhetoric with actions.

I'm not convinced that it is a good idea for Hillary to have a debate with Trump.The whole idea is that Trump isn't going to stick to policies. So she can't beat him that way because A) her policies are atrocious and B) this election is not based on them whatsoever. So I can't say with any certainty that Hillary makes any significant change regarding debates. I think her best move at this point would be to refuse to show up because "she refuses to give a platform to 'bigoted white supremicist America'".

Everything.Birtherism. Her reaction to the bombings and CNN blatantly trying to edit material to bash Trump. Her health. The Clinton Foundation. The private server. Nothing she says sounds remotely truthful, even if it is.

She is less trustworthy than Trump but that's neither here nor there. But she is the politician and should have beaten him easily.

It might.But I'm of the opinion that they should be out on the forefront against terrorists. Shouldn't they be outraged that these people are perverting their religion rather much moreso than non-Muslims?

This is why I argue for equality, not equity.

Hillary Clinton is imploding with less than 2 months to go. This is glorious. In 49 days, Donald Trump is either voted to be the President of the United States or loses. Both sound amazingly impossible.

No guys, this is an intentional act of NOT terrorism. Didn't you hear what the mayor said? CNN is Hitler.

You can't just make up words. Bernie Sanders is a socialist. End of story.

Oh, I missed that.It has already been proven that this was a hoax, by the way.

Dude, we wrote the book on strictness in religion. Literally.There are 613 laws that need to be obeyed before you venture off into the territory of slippery slopes. I actually used to study Jewish law in High School. Trust me when I say that Judaism is far more strict than Christianity where Jesus told his followers that they don't have to follow the old laws.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/post/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/ Leaving this here. This election just took a right turn into hilarity.

In addition, I also have no idea of what you are accusing him of. Unless it is that he has a very fair defensible position. Which I've already mentioned goes against the idea of open conversation. Look, eclipse. If you don't like his argument, fine. If you want to warn him for trolling, fine. But do not expect me not to lodge a ticket about why I think you are mis-using your moderation powers if you take action.

Let's talk about me for a second. And I want people to understand this about me.Here, I exaggerate sometimes on my opinions but they are reflections of my beliefs. I'm willing to defend anything I put up and if I am proved wrong, I admit it to myself even if I might not type it out. I have personally conceeded some points to Raven but until this post, I have never admitted it. And I won't again. But his opinion is that third wave feminism represents feminism as a whole at this moment at time and it is a valid opinion that brings up debate. Ask a feminist that today and she'll say yes, never minding if she's Anita Sarkeesian or Christina Hoff Summers who hates third wave feminism. Third wave feminism "paced and led" feminism until it started wearing it as a skin. Throwing out an opinion (a very valid one) is absolutely acceptable and required to start a conversation. Especially if it is controversial. Is feminism bad? In it's current state, absolutely. And that state is third wave feminism which has hijacked the movement. You are making the assumption that we think all feminists are like that. No. But the fringe group is not fringe. It has a monopoly on social media. Who gets tweeted more: Christina Hoff Sommers or Lena Dunham? If someone gets a warning (me or him), I will lodge a formal complaint, eclipse. I don't think what you're doing is right and that's threatening him with a warning for an absolutely defensible and acceptable position that exists on social media.

That's not consistant logic, eclipse.He states a stance. In it, he refers to third wave feminism as feminism in general. That is mainstream feminism in social media. Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian... They are the figureheads of today's feminism in the social media. And since they have control of the feminist market even while being a minority, they have projected that stance that they are feminism and anything less is sexism. After that he is saying "I disagree with feminism because of that". If it turns out that people agree with him, great. If it sparks debate because someone doesn't agree, better. But it is a valid starting point for a conversation. You're trying to stop him because "not all feminists are like that". We know that. But social media doesn't agree. It's the same think with Radical Islam. We know that all Muslims aren't bad. But we can make the argument that Islamic countries are not good places to live with regards to human rights because of religion. Or that Radical Islam is bad. If you allow a conversation of the second topic, you have to do the same with the first. Otherwise, you're not logically consistant. And stifling conversation too.

They haven't taken responsibility for NYC yet. Maybe they won't.

I disagree entirely Eclipse. And I'll be very upset if you do because it is not trolling.He is equating third wave feminism ideology with the general ideology of feminism because that is what third wave feminism wants you to do that. Look at the Kristin Bell video. Women make $0.77 on the dollar! They want you to think that this is what feminism is. So he is doing just that. That's not trolling. Do not warn him for that.

But it isn't inherent to Christianity. That was the argument I was making.

See, that's not the point.The whole thing is that the Hillary camp and media was SO adamant to show that that Trump came up with the Birther movement. Then when it was proved that it really came from Sidney Blumenthal, the goal posts got moved so that they could still claim that Hillary herself had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, they don't realize that their original claim was that it wasn't even connected to the Clinton camp. That's what makes it funny.

Because she wanted to take a shot at at Trump but that Nyquill turned her brain into sludge.Also, stabbing spree in Minnesota was apparently preceeded by a call of "Allahu Akbar". But chief of police says that it is definitely an intentional act of NOT terrorism and probably gun violence. Nothing to see here, folks...

Y'all are going to love this. Hillary looks like she just woke up. When asked about the explosions, she uses the word "bombing" when referring to NYC and NJ. Then a reporter asks her this: "Donald Trump called it a bomb. Do you agree?" Response: "Let's not jump to conclusions and instead wait for the evidence." You just called it a bombing 30 seconds ago. But hey, it's an intentional act of not terrorism. How dare we all jump to conclusions! Someone needs to write "irony" across her forehead.