Life

He's really not wrong when he's talking to blacks in big cities.The black communities are worse off now than they were 25 years ago. If we want to blame "racism" and "white privilege", let's not forget that Democrats mostly held the power (entirely on a municipal level and with the exception of Bush, also federal). The Democrats do not care about the Black Communities as long as they can allow those communities to feel like victims and blame "white oppression". That way, they can continue gathering votes. If that sounds rather sinister to you, it's because it is. But the way that it plays out in the media is shocking. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-louisiana-flooding-visit-227209 Weren't liberals up in arms that Bush didn't fly down to New Orleans in 2005? Why the hypocrisy? I know that this is a play for votes for Trump but Obama decides to fly down to Baton Rouge after Trump's already there? And suddenly Obama is a hero? Really?

So, let's talk about the actual election. Trump actually had a really good week while Hillary had a terrible weekend. But when you need to backtrack and admit that you've used the Clintom Foundation as a "pay-to-play" organization, that's not really fraud because she's Hillary Clinton. In all seriousness, Trump's speach on race on Friday was spot on the money. The Democrats have consistantly failed black communities in large municipal centers. You'd think that Obama would have cared more because he's also black but... evidence says otherwise.

There are sizable Christian/Bedouin/Druze communities here. And Tel Aviv is a very secular city with a surrounding population of nearly 4 million people (that includes the suburbs of course). I'd wager around 80% of people living within that sphere are secular.Outside of Tel Aviv, you'll find more religious communities. Both the South and far North are heavily religious but the population is pretty sparce over those areas. Just pointing that out. Continue.

You think?- Karlos Williams comes to TC fat and then gets busted for marijuana. Cut. - Marcell Darius also gets busted for marijuana. Four game suspension. - LB corp is ALREADY busted up. Reggie Ragland's out for the year, IK Enemkpali is also done and we've already had to pick up two new guys (Kroy Beirmann and Brandon Spikes) so that we can have a LB-by-committee just to fill in for Ragland (who is a 3-down back). - Jordan Gay and EJ Manual are still taking up roster spots. Both Dan Carpenter and Cardale Jones (a goddamn rookie QB) have outplayed them. - We still don't have a WR3. Season starts soon. I'm so... disappointed? I mean, let's be real. This team looks so good on paper and they just want to shoot themselves in the foot.

Exactly.Like I've stated, money trumps all in my opinion and I'll even hire a transexual if I feel that they are the most efficient at the job. And I won't deny them benefits because they are transexual. But I don't have to like it.

I don't believe in those laws but I am forced to follow them.If I choose not to hire person X for whatever reason (even a bigoted reason) and my business suffers as a direct result, that is my fault. Forcing me to hire someone against my will simply removes my choice of freedom. Here's a question. I need to hire a new manager of whatever store and I have two resumes. Bob has experience as a manager and he also happens to be a white male. Jim does not and he happens to be black. Should I be forced to hire Jim simply because he is a minority? I don't believe so. And if Jim had more experience than Bob, then Bob's continuing his job search. Gender isn't a social construct. You're either male or female. You are either born with XX chromosones or XY. That's biology saying "hey, here's an absolute".Can't get more clear than that.

I made a mistake with my language. My bad.I meant to say "hardcore fundamentalist" and that is no small part of the religion. But you are right about it being up to the imam's interpretation. And that's a terrifying thought if the imam believes in it. As for the lines you brought up, it becomes so much clearly when viewed contextually. Not saying I back it, but I'm also looking at the Hebrew versions. The first one is refers to the priests of the temple (Kohanim). First of all, none of these laws can actually be put into practice until a Temple is built. Techically, my best friend's sisters should both be burned according to this line (his family are descendents of the priests). But the reason why the penalty is so harsh is because Judaism values a woman's purity much more than a man's. So that makes it a greater sin when she goes and sleeps around. Especially the daughter of a priest. Second verse refers to a person's monetary worth when they swear a vow. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons unto the LORD, according to thy valuation," - Vayikra 27:2 Back then, a man's monetary worth was more than a woman's because he could do physical tasks that women couldn't. That idea is still put in practice today and it's not sexist. Look at cases that assess for physical damages. Men are worth more based on the simple fact that they can perform more physical inclined work. Third quote is one that I won't disagree with. But there are laws that apply to women that men are not allowed to do. It goes both ways. The Haradim are the ones who pervert the shit and make it sexist but fuck them. I'll conceed the fact that the fall of Osman really helped accelerate the perversion of Islam as opposed to the rest of the world but I find it unreasonable to call Islamists blameless. It is the only religion that is openly waging war one other cultures (note the term "openly", I know they're not the only one). There needs to be a reformation in the religion and if it doesn't happen soon, I don't believe that it'll ever happen.

Not referring to this forum. This forum does not have freedom of speech and eclipse flat out said it. I choose to be here and therefore must defer to its rules, even knowing that it does not allow for free speech.I'm referring to the public sector. Standing on a street corner and proclaiming your opinion. Choosing whether or not to offer your services to someone else. If the government forces me to do so at the point of a gun, then it is tyranical. I personally believe that they are doing this simply to cause a scene. I could be wrong and they might seriously feel slighted. In that case, they're still making me feel uncomfortable.I look at Caitlyn Jenner or Zoey Tur and my first thought is "that's a man". In fact, I don't believe that less than 75% of people in the world think that either of them is a woman. But if you're going to slander my business because I don't automatically cater to you, then you are in the wrong. Not me. Personally (and I have already said this), I would serve them because capitalism overrules prejudice. That is why is great about capitalism: it does not discriminate. But if I feel that it is more cost effective to have different bathrooms for men and women, do not go out and force me to spend $20 million dollars to cater to 0.3% of the population.

So I misread your interpretation but only slightly.The way that culture in the USA is going will eventually fault the store owner for not supplying halal or kosher whatsoever. Look at Target. They now have to drop $20 million dollars on the washroom issue in order to build new "family washrooms" because the backlash from a few transexuals who wanted to make others uncomfortable so that they could feel morally superior.

Judaism contradicts that claim, even in the orthodox community.Marriage contracts are skewed against men. It's called a 'ketubah' (a document that the man MUST sign which says that upon divorce, he must still provide for his ex-wife to a point). That's one example. Or use the word I used. Tyrannical.If you infringe on my freedom because "I'm not being a nice person", you are arguing for authoritarianism. End of story. If I'm understanding you correctly, I disagree.Are you saying that Republicans are for or against religious freedom? Just to make sure.

So you are forcing me at the end of a gun to perform a service that I do not wish to perform.That is authoritarian and tyrannical.

Women in Syria in towns that ISIS has been kicked out of would disagree.The beauty of a face veil is that it hides signs of physical abuse. And women cannot ask for divorce in Islam. There is no religious law that protects them from it.

I agree that it's asinine. But that's the beauty of capitalism. If I refuse you service as the owner of a private business, I suffer the monetary consequence. That should be my right even though I personally will always choose the money.Do you believe that I should have that right or not? Even if it is asinine?

You bring up a good point, actually.Eclipse, we know that women in Islam are routinely forced to do what their husbands want. Again, I bring up Aynaz Anni Cyrus who will quote Sura after Sura to prove this. However, this is not the case with everyone. Some women do choose to wear face veils. And... well shit, now I'm divided on the issue. Something is telling me that this is against religious freedom but how much freedom actually exists in Islam? I'm still against it but again... shit.

I feel that this is important to throw out in the wake of a few comments that were levelled at me. Just to clear something up.Discrimination is unacceptable when it comes from a governmental stance. We can all agree on that. But private businesses cannot and should not be forced to conduct business contrary to their wants. Great example: Germany just banned all face veils. I don't like Islam and even I can't back this because it does infringe on personal freedoms.

Oh, I missed this.Basically, implementing that idea would shut down the vast majority of restaurants that sell meat that is not kosher or halal. Which is like... 90% in the USA? Not only that but if I am a private business, I should be allowed to sell my product to anyone I choose. If I own a bakery and I don't want to bake a cake for a transexual, they can go somewhere else. If I lose enough business because of that and have to close down, I have failed as a business. But the government shouldn't be forcing me to sell to person X because it infringes on my own freedoms. If a flower shop refused to sell me flowers because I was a Jew, I'd simply find a new store. If that shop goes out of business because of a "no Jews" policy, that's their fault. It's the beauty of the free market. Remember people: I am a minority also. And I probably have more greivences than all the rest of you put together (being a Jew, we are universally hated). I know what discrimination is.

Because the federal government cannot possibly be responsible for all the issues that affect states. It doesn't have the man power.A state deals with more local issues than the federal government does. It is a provicial government that can actually focus on communities than the nation as a whole.

Marriage equality didn't exist at the Federal level until 2014. So the federal level was also discriminatory until 2 years ago.I don't care about Glee because that is designed for entertainment. I'm talking about how a human being physically urinates. I don't care if they feel like a woman inside; if they urinate like a man, they should use a men's bathroom. The fact that I should even have to say that sentence feels like an absurdity. If they have a problem with it, they should find a private unisex bathroom.

Question: What horrible ideas are you talking about? Can you point out specific legislation in any given state that are discriminatory by intent?And don't bring up the bathroom idea because it's the silliest thing ever. Either you urinate like a man or a woman. Show me a way how a human being can urinate in a different way barring medical procedures or anomolies (like 1 in 100 million diseases) and I'll concede that point. State rights are not inherently racist or homophobic or discriminatory. Just because they may have had Jim Crow laws at one point does not mean that they only existed at the state level (Woodrow Wilson is a great example as are LBJ and FDR). Does Milwalkee have a racist municipal government too because blacks there are generally poor? Does Detroit? Baltimore?

This is why I enjoy debating you.I think you're wrong about Islam and I think you should watch that video I put up a while ago. You don't have to agree but I want you to understand my side. I get the other side. I thought I was liberal because I always accepted the idea of freedom of speech and other ideas that the left claims to have a monopoly on. Imagine my surprise when I found out that they're really right-wing. I quite literally felt cheated. I grew up in Canada where the Conservative Party is possibly more left wing than the Democratic Party in the US. Because I always voted Conservative (and Rob Ford too), I thought I was more left than I really am. Turns out that I'm a right-wing nut job.

Jesus, everyone is missing the point. I'm not saying that they love him now. I haven't said that. What I said was "the left in the 1930's loved Hitler at the time". Case in point: Berlin Olympics in 1936. That was Hitler's chance to show the world that Fascism was excellent. And many world leaders and others ran home gushing about how great Fascism was. Of course they changed their minds when Hitler started annexing Europe. And I don't resent them for it. Hitler fooled them hard. Cudos to Nazi Germany, right? How do I know this? Because when you're a Jew and go to Jewish school, you spend far too much time learning about the Holocaust than what is healthy. Yad Vashem does a great exhibit on German propoganda to the outside world. No, I'm not saying that the left wanted to kill Jews too. That's silly. But they thought Hitler was a pretty good leader until it showed that he pulled the wool over their eyes. I'm simply looking for a nice soundbite that shows it. Let's do this and for the last time.Transexual argument: I clearly stated that I was not going to attempt to change anyone's mind, simply defend my viewpoint. The issue is the fact that you used an ad hominem. "You're a bigot so you're wrong." When I'm off my phone, I'll find the post and quote it because I know I'm not doing it verbatim. Is it bigotry? Sure. Is it my opinion? Yes. Did I ever once state that I would draft legislation to ostracize transexuals or restrict their rights? No. Will I invite a transexual to my wedding to prove that I'm not bigoted? No. Did you use the fact that I may be bigoted as the reason for why I deserve to be treated with utter disrespect and as a rebuttal for why my opinion is worthless? Yeah. There's my issue. For someone who wants to be tolerant, it seems like that doesn't apply when it comes to different mindsets. On my lack of a response to the Conservative rebuttal: I got suspended for 5 days. I would have loved to contest it because those are new topics to this thread. But I physically couldn't. As for why I got suspended? My fault entirely. That's all you need to know. If you don't believe me, ask one of the mods (Integrity gave me the suspension, for example). Science on transexuality: I told you that I was flying and received a 1 day suspension once arriving home. Ask eclipse about that. I haven't not responded because I ignore your points. I haven't responded because of suspensions or physical inability. As for why I didn't respond once I could, there would have been no point since A) the conversation had moved on and B) I was apparently hurting feelings far too much. I would have loved to respond to those but I couldn't. Victimization: Whatever. The fact remains that I don't launch into character assassinations at the drop of a pin. You did that the second you heard me say "I don't like transexuals". I've simply pointed out that you don't like the idea that I have a radically different view of the world than you and attempt to shut down debate first. That's all I'll say on the matter. You can choose to respond but now I will ignore those comments. Conversation has moved on, Pheonix.

I don't really care about distancing myself from Hitler because I'm a Jew. The fact of the matter was, the left loved both him and Stalin in the early 1930's. That is fact.Also, this is to Pheonix. I don't respond to your posts in general anymore because I don't think you bring much substance to a debate. I get the same feeling from you that I do when I watch Cenk from The Young Turks. I have been respectful to you and have been only greeted with hostility for my views (you have called me a bigot). We don't agree on things. Fine. But at least respect the person who you're debating so that you can attempt to learn from the debate in general. Honestly, I thought you would be better than that because you're not stupid. It feels like intellectual dishonesty.

That's never been a conservative idea. Only liberals.Liberals loved both Stalin and Hitler (leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party) who were far left. Pol Pot was also left, by the way. In comparison, Ayn Rand was far right (to give you an idea of how left and right works). This is based on economics, however. Authoritarianism can be both left or right but most examples tend to emerge from the left. Conservatives have never been anti-freedom of speech as a general idea. Liberals are more in that camp but they usually do it "for the greater good" (a socialist idea).

So a rabbi in France was just stabbed in the middle of the street by a man who yelled "Allahu Akbar". Nope. No such thing as Radical Islam in first world countries. Meanwhile, Trump's launched his first true shot at Hillary. I like it but it's still not enough for me.

This is my favourite part. The first part was a list of other developing countries when I clearly mention that Radical Islam is an issue to the Western World. Western countries are more than likely developed (unless the definition changed while I wasn't looking).But for your question here. Could there be more than one variable aside from "radical Islam" for making those countries 3rd world? Ummm... no.