Crazy world we live in.

well, you have to look at the definition of marriage, what its intention is, what it was really originated designed for. If you put all that together then you will need to ask the question why in the heck will anyone want to get married to begin with, specially homosexuals who seek liberalizations. Homosexuals and heterosexual alike are free to live together with who they want without no binding/ownership document, for as long as they want. The problem is that we been giving marriage a new meaning, but it is far from what it really means. Your argument does not provide any substance to the very great point that this meme is presenting.

I disagree. You choose to believe that pride is about who they are attracted to - full stop.

But pride started when NY raided a gay bar because the law on the books was that homosexuals couldn't be served alcohol. People were arrested. Pride is not about rubbing it in your face - its about refusing to be a second class citizen. About refusing to hide.

Legal marriage allows for health insurance, adoption, next of kin status, etc. If it makes you feel better to call it a civil union, then do that.

Far from what it really means - in your opinion (and granted, a lot of peoples opinion)

What are you disagreeing to? Here is what I agree with you, people who live together for a certain amount of time, and they can prove that hey have been living together for that X amount of time, should have access to health insurance, adoption, next of kin status. That should not be exclusive to marriage, AND that is something that to me makes more sense than getting married. They need to leave those benefits out of marriage. So that both heterosexuals and homosexuals couples alike can live together without the binding of ownership that comes with marriage. Again, marriage AND divorce is a billion dollar industry in united states. People making lots of money out of suckers wanting to get married without fully understanding what it is. Do you agree with that?

Marriage is a contract. From that perspective, yes. But, we call making a lifelong (sort of) commitment to one person to be a marriage. We allow for non-religious unions in the form of the justice of the peace and nobody objects to those being called marriages. So, if you are saying they just can't call it marriage...well that's what it is.

I feel like what you are asking would require a whole lot of work to change legal code for no actual tangible reason.

It is a Faith concept.

Genesis Chapter 2
23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Matthew Chapter 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mark Chapter 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

"Homosexuality is a sin" [paraphrase: leviticus 18:22]
More paraphrases to come:
"Selling your daughter is sanctioned." Exodus 21:7
Exodus 35:2 clearly says anyone who works on the sabbath should be put to death.
Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean Leviticus 11:7. Stop eating sausage, playing football with traditional footballs, stop eating bacon, ham, etc.
Also, we're gonna have to start stoning people to death for planting different crops side by side.
Also, we get to burn our mothers who attend family gatherings fo wearing garments from two different threads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSXJzybEeJM

If you even understood who God was talking to and at what period of time he was talking to them, then you wouldn't be posting this comment to make a point about gay marriage.

Well you see, I don't really care as the bible as a literary construct is flawed by its own text. It makes the point that man is destined to sin; that it is inevitable. Yet, this piece of literature has been passed down by man for centuries, much of that time when the church governed the state. Its very existence is corrupted by its own definition.

It goes on to state that Satan is this great deceiver and he tempts man by the pleasures of the flesh, power, greed, lust, etc. If that's true, one is left to wonder: "What if the greatest lie ever told by the devil was the bible itself?" Especially since the greatest lies are the ones that are laced with truth.

Going beyond the metaphysical meta, one has to consider the errors in translation that would occur from language to language. How much of the bible is accurate as it was experienced? I get it, the book is about having faith in something greater than yourself. So, we must take it in context of what is said/written.

This leads me to Jesus. "He who is not without sin, let him cast the first stone." "Do unto others." "Love thy neighbor."

With these expressions that are repeated throughout Christianity in defense of itself, so too, should such passages be passed on to those who practice homosexuality. It is not for Christians to pass judgement on them for their souls. Nor is it for them to make them societal outcasts. Jesus would never do such a thing.

I remember the conniption that Christians had when it was suggested that Jesus was a jew.

I digress.

It doesn't matter in what context I am stating these things. Because the fundamentals of Christianity are not being practiced. There is no reason that Christians can provide why homosexuality is a "sin" when it is not listed in the ten commandments. The ten commandments are God's message to man and it is those by which Christians live.

Then again, catholics have these weird other classifications of sin.

"Well you see, I don't really care as the bible as a literary construct is flawed by its own text."

Says the guy who claims God doesn't exist ...

"This leads me to Jesus. "He who is not without sin, let him cast the first stone." "Do unto others." "Love thy neighbor.""

I probably shouldn't go on with this since you don't believe God exists, but here it is ...

Jesus was talking about forgiveness. When a man (or woman) seeks forgiveness from for their sins, Jesus will forgive each and every time. Those who "cast the stones" were judging based on Old Testament beliefs. However, Jesus was sent to wash away the old and bring in the new. This meant that the judgements and punishments and "rituals" performed in the Old Testament, were no longer necessary. Christ died and rose three days later to take all that away, so that now all we need to do is accept him and follow.

God wants us to love others, not their sin. We are to condemn their sin, as well as acknowledge our own. Hating the act of sin is not the same as hating the individual lost within that sin. I can hate homosexuality and all other sexual sins, but still love the sinner. I don't judge the sinner, God does. All I can do is acknowledge the sin.

"It is not for Christians to pass judgement on them for their souls. Nor is it for them to make them societal outcasts. Jesus would never do such a thing."

Exactly, which is why I mentioned that in the previous paragraph. Condemning the sin isn't judging it. We, as Christians, are to point out the sin and pray for them and God will do the rest. Sinners either reject Christ or they acknowledge their sin and seek forgiveness.

"I remember the conniption that Christians had when it was suggested that Jesus was a jew."

Jesus WAS a Jew. There's no dispute from me.

"There is no reason that Christians can provide why homosexuality is a "sin" when it is not listed in the ten commandments."

The Ten Commandments were a guide from God to the Jewish people who, before the commandments, had very little to go on in written form. There is more sin than just the Ten Commandments.

1/ "Jesus was talking about forgiveness. When a man (or woman) seeks forgiveness from for their sins, Jesus will forgive each and every time. Those who "cast the stones" were judging based on Old Testament beliefs. However, Jesus was sent to wash away the old and bring in the new. This meant that the judgements and punishments and "rituals" performed in the Old Testament, were no longer necessary. Christ died and rose three days later to take all that away, so that now all we need to do is accept him and follow.

God wants us to love others, not their sin. We are to condemn their sin, as well as acknowledge our own. Hating the act of sin is not the same as hating the individual lost within that sin. I can hate homosexuality and all other sexual sins, but still love the sinner. I don't judge the sinner, God does. All I can do is acknowledge the sin.

"It is not for Christians to pass judgement on them for their souls. Nor is it for them to make them societal outcasts. Jesus would never do such a thing."

Exactly, which is why I mentioned that in the previous paragraph. Condemning the sin isn't judging it. We, as Christians, are to point out the sin and pray for them and God will do the rest. Sinners either reject Christ or they acknowledge their sin and seek forgiveness."

This whole passage is bullshit. For a number of reasons... It isn't about forgiveness, he's talking about hypocrisy. All sin is the same in God's eyes. If you lust, you have sinned, if you murder, you sin. So, if you are not without sin, by all means, you have the means to condemn her. Otherwise you shouldn't.

Even Jesus said this as the pharises brought this woman before him. Jesus, after they left, said "Where are they? Who condemns you?"

"No one." she replied. And Jesus himself said "Then neither shall I."

Be more like Jesus, stop condemning people. Because they're involved in sin that's different than yours.

"bitch I'm an atheist"- Me

Yeah, and I'm agnostic. Point is, that people who use the bible to bash homosexuals are a joke.

agreed.

lmao same😂

If Christians were the only ones who had marriage, that would be fine. And if we didn't have a first amendment.

Yes it is man made BUT marriage has an intention at a purpose, and had it for a long time. Please educate yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage We can't make it whatever we want because 1) looses its definition 2) looses its purpose which was intended for. Look at my recent response to Sleeping_dragon so that you can see my angle.

Octavia, buddy, read my post again. I am not arguing same sex couples marriage, stop trying to derail the conversation. I am arguing the need to get married to begin with, there should not be one. Can you at least try?

yeah, marriage should not give those benefits, everyone should have access to the benefits. Marriage pretty much means that person owns you if you look at the definition from the article I provided to you. Why ain't you guys (LGBT) fighting for the benefits excluding marriage? You guys do not need to get married, you hetero AND homosexuals alike, have been living happily with one another without marriage. For me, I think when you break the bows of marriage you should go to prison, and divorce is not an option, but surely they have change the things around to make money out of fools.

I did not say you are attacking marriage, you are attacking the church people each chance you get, and marriage is a tool you often like to deploy. As you did earlier on in here which I made you see you were out of place and context. Scroll up I posted the link specially for you. "I am more moral than the God of the Bible" yes, thank you for proving my point.

Well evidently you did not read the article. Marriage goes against "personal liberty" all the way that is why, there should not be any desired for anyone to get married specially LGBTQ, and benefits discussed above should be fought with government so that everyone has them, AND that is not what is happening... Not sure why, but would be faster and easier. People suckered into getting married are getting used, people are getting rich because of that marketed fake marriage status that soon leads to divorce, and some other people get rich from that also. So idiots making others rich for just some fantasy. But I know what it is to you Octavia_Melody, oh yes, to you is all about going against the church, that is what boils you, how dare church people not accept homosexual behavior? How dare their god say that homosexuals have no room in their kingdom? This is you "I am above their God!" that is what you care about. How dare that pastor not marry a gay couple or that baker not bake a gay cake?! So attacking marriage is your way of sticking it to those church people. You really do not give a flying f_ck about gay people getting same benefits as married people.

Marriage isn't a right. Not according to the Constitution as it was written.

Speech, self protection, and the pursuit of happiness are rights.

I'm glad James Madison was on the job:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If one group has the right to marriage, other groups have the right to marriage.

I never said they didn't have the right to pursue their happiness. Even if that happiness is getting married. However, marriage itself is still not a right.

Funny how the left want to ban certain speech and guns, both of which are protected in the Constitution, but want to act as if marriage and owning an ID is a right. Picking and choosing what you want isn't how it works.

Back at you. I’m actually consistent though. I support the tight to bear arms, but I don’t believe that licensing or reasonable restrictions are a problem as long as the ability to bear arms in general is not infringed. You can’t mount a rail gun in your property. You can’t open carry a nuke. So there restrictions on type are within my interpretation. However, I’m not just saying it, I really am not for confiscation of guns. I prefer to trust individuals over the government.

Marriage isn’t a right. Ok. If it Were just the religious joining, sure. But there are legal statutes granted to a married couple. Restricting who can have that status based on sex and based on religion is an issue with the first amendment, especially when some denominations allow gay marriage. Either everyone has the right or nobody does.

I don’t want to ban speech. I agree with the current Supreme Court stance in that there is no hate speech, but calls to violence are not permitted.

Now telling the people spewing hate what I think of them - that is also protected.

Imagine a world where the government finally gets out of the marriage business so that marriage, which is a contract between a man, a woman and God, is performed for those who would rather express their love to their spouse to God and not the government.

And if a church, which there are several, decide that they want to alter the terms of the contract that only God can alter, then they can perform same-sex marriages.

After all the left has been trying to undermine marriages for decades until gays started raising the question. Now the left is all for gay marriages but still not so much for straight marriage.

If for whatever reason you feel compelled to profess your love before the state then states can institute civil unions for gay or straight.

I believe freedom and less government are always the best solution. Because now the Supreme Court has a power they never had before and that is to redefine marriage at their discretion, irrespective of the will of the people.

exactly

I don't think even his wife is sexual attracted to him, let alone his supporters.

'kay.

Hahaha

Is that the first stereotype you wanna go for?

What do you mean stereotype? Many, MANY Trump supporters carried this flag/bumpersticker/shirt/hat.

So? They have the right.

Exactly

Never said they didn't have the right.

I am confused, I never said they didn't? What's your point?

You act like they're idiots for doing that.

They are. But they have the right to be.

I agree with half of that sentence.

(Also, if Cerebrophage tries responding here, just know I blocked you and ignored your points just like you did with me)

Anyways, no not all of them are idiots. Perhaps a small majority are actually medically ignorant or stupid, but when you've lived in the deep south your entire life instead of judging them by their cover you can tell that they aren't stupid in the way you're putting it.

Whether I think they do or not is irrelevant. What difference does it make to you what I think?

Depending on who you are and what you think, it could mean a lot for not just me, but plenty of people.

Okay, and?

"And you gripe at me for using bad grammar. Lol.

That said, I don't accept your anecdotal evidence. Anyone can say that they themselves saw something. Doesn't make it credible. Do you have any reliable, centrist sources to back up that claim? I'm willing to bet you don't."

Once again...

1. Clearly you don't know what grammar is. I can find plenty of grammatical errors in your first sentence of the message I am quoting.
2. I find it laughable you consider your evidence "centrist", even though they are news websites that are entirely aligning themselves with the Liberal ideas.
3. Here's some evidence: https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/01/flashback-2020-six-months-of-antifa-blm-looting-rioting-and-chaos/
4. I have a friend of mine who lives in California, I don't think he has an account on IMGFLIP so I can't bring him on, but currently he is living through the hell of the leftist crap in California. From what we have talked about, and the evidence he has brought up, I can assure you he's not having a fun time.

1. Clearly you think I care - I don't.
2. Good job checking the first one. Did you check any of the others? 4/7 are labeled centrist. I throw the first one there for people who just check the first source and call the list liberal because they don't do their homework :) Thanks for playing.
3. See #2
4. Wait, you mean there's at least Democrats and Republicans in every Democrat and Republican State? Say it ain't so! lol.

"Except, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm outright rejecting your position. I know for a fact you didn't paw over any of that data. So you lost all credibility thanks foor playing. I just realized that you cited someone from Fox News...

LOL!

So much for your "collegiate" article."

"Outright rejecting my position" IS disagreeing with me, plus we're having a debate over this topic, so yes this is an argument. Also, who cares if they come from Fox? I could work at any news station, but I could still create a well documented article on another website and have different views from who my bosses are. Of course, you'd probably bow down before Kamala Harris if she asked, so I can see where you would think that.

Disagreeing in this context is hearing your position, considering it and rejecting it. Outright rejection is I am skipping steps 1 and 2. I am not hearing it or considering it. Just rejecting it. That's not a "debate" in the classical sense.

Fox damages her credibility. Her credibility is also damaged as she's been protested by people of color historically since the mid 2010s. I am looking for what field _exactly_ she earned her MA and JD.. Can't really find it. As for her career, she's a journalist. That's it. She's not a psychologist, she's not a politician, nor a historian. She is just doing a job in liberal arts. I trust the https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The person I cited has a history in research and assisting in research, her degrees are a BS in psychology, a MA in government and politics and a PhD in Philosophy, Government and Politics with focus areas on Internal Relations and Quarantine Management.

So, no by comparison, your article sucks balls in credibility. It's merely someone offering their opinion. My article, the one you said "was mostly nuetral" posts quantifiable data by people who are specialized in their field backing the claim that protests were only 7% violent.

"It's more reliable than Fox, Trump, OAN, Bloomberg, Newsweek or New York post as half of those are centrist news media :) So, call it shaky all you want. I really don't care. Point being, that you claim BLM is this violent group - it really isn't.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

Over 10,000 demonstrations. Only 7% descended into violence.

Funny thing is, you're trying to make a big deal out of a meme that responded to a meme xD You've been trying really hard, and I find it _adorable_"

You sure about that?: https://medium.com/another-side/the-black-lives-matter-organization-is-a-domestic-terrorist-group-4182996e35d8

I find it adorable that you're the one who decided it was the best idea of arguing with someone, when you knew you could've avoided this by not posting that at all.

Yeah, I'm sure about that.
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

I find it adorable you think I'm arguing. Stating facts is not arguing. And, I post where I please. Again, it's funny you think I care about what you think. What I do is my business.

"Yeah, I'm sure about that.
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

I find it adorable you think I'm arguing. Stating facts is not arguing. And, I post where I please. Again, it's funny you think I care about what you think. What I do is my business."

1. That evidence is mostly neutral, and really doesn't help your point much.
2. We can throw evidence at each other all day: https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-danger-of-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
3. Now you're just acting like an idiot, according to the dictionary an argument is "a discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate."

Except, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm outright rejecting your position. I know for a fact you didn't paw over any of that data. So you lost all credibility thanks foor playing. I just realized that you cited someone from Fox News...

LOL!

So much for your "collegiate" article.

"You think BLM participates in the murdering of straight, white children as a practice? 😂🤣😂🤣😂"

I don't think that, I know it. I have flat out talked and seen things of them murdering innocent people. And they say people like me are white supremacists.

And you gripe at me for using bad grammar. Lol.

That said, I don't accept your anecdotal evidence. Anyone can say that they themselves saw something. Doesn't make it credible. Do you have any reliable, centrist sources to back up that claim? I'm willing to bet you don't.

I'd even further go to say the "evidence", your literal news sites (not actual sites that are meant for conveying these messages and evidence, instead they are meant for documenting this, so it's always on a shaky line) use is from things such as NBC, another news site proven to use propaganda: https://thelibertyloft.com/nbc-proven-to-be-spreading-propaganda/

So your so called "evidence" is shaky, and most likely false, no matter what you say.

It's more reliable than Fox, Trump, OAN, Bloomberg, Newsweek or New York post as half of those are centrist news media :) So, call it shaky all you want. I really don't care. Point being, that you claim BLM is this violent group - it really isn't.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

Over 10,000 demonstrations. Only 7% descended into violence.

Funny thing is, you're trying to make a big deal out of a meme that responded to a meme xD You've been trying really hard, and I find it _adorable_

"1. Clearly you think I care - I don't.
2. Good job checking the first one. Did you check any of the others? 4/7 are labeled centrist. I throw the first one there for people who just check the first source and call the list liberal because they don't do their homework :) Thanks for playing.
3. See #2
4. Wait, you mean there's at least Democrats and Republicans in every Democrat and Republican State? Say it ain't so! lol."

1. It definetely ruins your image.
2. I checked ALL of them, and just because they are "labelled centrist" doesn't mean they are. I'm personally a centrist, but I do hold onto Conservative values, so your point just doesn't even make sense.
3. See #2.
4. Yes, it'd be nearly impossible if that wasn't the case.

1. I have to care to worry about my image.
2. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything. You didn't even evaluate them.
4. So why should I care about your friend? Oh wait, I don't have to.

"Disagreeing in this context is hearing your position, considering it and rejecting it. Outright rejection is I am skipping steps 1 and 2. I am not hearing it or considering it. Just rejecting it. That's not a "debate" in the classical sense.

Fox damages her credibility. Her credibility is also damaged as she's been protested by people of color historically since the mid 2010s. I am looking for what field _exactly_ she earned her MA and JD.. Can't really find it. As for her career, she's a journalist. That's it. She's not a psychologist, she's not a politician, nor a historian. She is just doing a job in liberal arts. I trust the https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

The person I cited has a history in research and assisting in research, her degrees are a BS in psychology, a MA in government and politics and a PhD in Philosophy, Government and Politics with focus areas on Internal Relations and Quarantine Management.

So, no by comparison, your article sucks balls in credibility. It's merely someone offering their opinion. My article, the one you said "was mostly nuetral" posts quantifiable data by people who are specialized in their field backing the claim that protests were only 7% violent."

1. It is still a debate, you are disagreeing with me, and outright rejecting is both not really a thing and still a form of disagreement.
2. You are re-using your same point and source that I have disproved earlier, move on from it. Just because people of her same skin color protest against her doesn't mean she's a racist or anything, in fact you can actually be racist against your own race. Besides, Journalist are still on the position of documenting, and opening this stuff out into the public, a journalist isn't the same thing as a reporter.
3. That still doesn't change anything.
4. Now you're just lying. Your articles are literal news sites that provide propaganda so they can back up their claims, and they are taking non-neutral sides unlike they say.

Lol

"I simply dont care what other people think about me. I don't care whether or not you agree with my views. The right wing is a "F**k your feelings" party. So, since they adopted that phrase as their mantra, they don't deserve my consideration in how I feel about things.

So I ask again, what difference does it make to you what I think?"

I never said feel, I said think. Also, if you were participating in BLM riots and murdering innocent straight white children, then yeah I would wanna know that so I could help you away from it.

You think BLM participates in the murdering of straight, white children as a practice? 😂🤣😂🤣😂

"LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”"(2020)
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago. Has anything changed? (2016)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (2020)
https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/

FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes (2020)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-threats/fbi-chief-says-u-s-antifa-demonstrators-are-targets-of-multiple-probes-idUSKCN26F3C2

3 with ties to white extremism accused of plotting mayhem at protests (2020)
https://www.ajc.com/news/with-ties-white-extremism-accused-plotting-mayhem-protests/GdtpTjwVaapgVZihVtNWeI/

Police: Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter (2020)
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/

DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236

That's the entire reason for this argument, and I am not surprised you don't see this.

I simply dont care what other people think about me. I don't care whether or not you agree with my views. The right wing is a "F**k your feelings" party. So, since they adopted that phrase as their mantra, they don't deserve my consideration in how I feel about things.

So I ask again, what difference does it make to you what I think?

""LEAKED DOCUMENTS SHOW POLICE KNEW FAR-RIGHT EXTREMISTS WERE THE REAL THREAT AT PROTESTS, NOT “ANTIFA”"(2020)
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/15/george-floyd-protests-police-far-right-antifa/

FBI warned of white supremacists in law enforcement 10 years ago. Has anything changed? (2016)
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

Far-Right Infiltrators and Agitators in George Floyd Protests: Indicators of White Supremacists (2020)
https://www.justsecurity.org/70497/far-right-infiltrators-and-agitators-in-george-floyd-protests-indicators-of-white-supremacists/

FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes (2020)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-threats/fbi-chief-says-u-s-antifa-demonstrators-are-targets-of-multiple-probes-idUSKCN26F3C2

3 with ties to white extremism accused of plotting mayhem at protests (2020)
https://www.ajc.com/news/with-ties-white-extremism-accused-plotting-mayhem-protests/GdtpTjwVaapgVZihVtNWeI/

Police: Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter (2020)
https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/2020/07/27/police-richmond-riots-instigated-by-white-supremacists-disguised-as-black-lives-matter/

DHS draft document: White supremacists are greatest terror threat
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236"

Lol, you probably got that off of google, aka the site that filters search results: https://www.businessinsider.com/google-manipulates-search-results-report-2019-11?op=1

I also find it very suspicious that a lot of your sources don't bring up proper evidence supporting their claims, even after extensive research of my own, heck even your last one claims that all of these were shared with their news website instead of something else like they should be. To cut it short, your evidence is fake.

And so do the LGBTQs....

Also you have no evidence proving that.

I can point to almost any major rally/protest/riot and I can find people sporting Trump flags. I can find police videos of people with the word "TRUMP" in big bold letters on their vehicle. I can find examples of people with "TRUMP" signs on their lawns displayed for four years.

I don't need evidence: it's common knowledge.

Some Trump supporters are plain nuts.

oof. Just oof.

Even if you were correct, that still doesn't change anything.

I wasn't seeking to change anything. You truly have a dizzying intellect.

First you imply that I said they didn't have the right. I never said that.

Now you're saying that "it doesn't change anything." What did I seek to change?

You're acting like what they're doing is wrong.

When did I do that?

"Like I care. The message was received.

Stop trying to trigger someone who can't be triggered over a silly meme that got you obviously all butt hurt :) Otherwise, you still wouldn't be here."

Let's do this again...

1. Not well.
2. I find it funny you think I am trying my best to "trigger you", when easily you could've just walked away.
3. I have made it my personal mission of fighting people like you, and i'm not "butt hurt", I am simply arguing with you for the reasoning of changing the way you view the world.

Why do I need to walk away? People who cite racists from Fox News won't change my mind. So, fight and argue all you want. I unequivocally reject the alt-reich.

"It's not my business who people want to be attracted to"

I don't think you know what I am talking about.

You're not exactly the poster boy of conveying ideas.

""Blah blah blah I am an ignorant racist blah blah blah I will make you think like me blah blah."

I really don't care, man. Your goal here isn't something I am interested in. You're here trying to debate a wall over a meme they posted on someone else's meme. You're wasting your time."

Y'know what, I will just drop this if you'll just ignore my points instead of taking them into consideration. I'm not even gonna continue this argument because of how stupid you are.

"I'm not even gonna continue this argument because of how stupid you are."

Learned that about you when you replied with: "Is that the first stereotype you wanna go for?"

Keep talking, I'll keep not caring.

In your original post.

How did I do that?

"You're not exactly the poster boy of conveying ideas."

Says the person who is going off topic into totally different issues.

Nice use of the tu quoque fallacy. Wanna try anything else?

"Nice use of the tu quoque fallacy. Wanna try anything else?"

You can't even use proper grammar.

Like I care. The message was received.

Stop trying to trigger someone who can't be triggered over a silly meme that got you obviously all butt hurt :) Otherwise, you still wouldn't be here.

"Why do I need to walk away? People who cite racists from Fox News won't change my mind. So, fight and argue all you want. I unequivocally reject the alt-reich."

Ah yes, the pinnacle of Liberalism. Anyone who disagrees with you is somehow a racist. Also, if you were more mature you wouldn't further indulge yourself in this argument, and you'd simply walk away and ignore me.

We learn from the best: the right wing.

"Everything I don't like is socialism."
"Everything I don't like is communism."
"If you aren't working for me, you're in league with China."

Please.

"How did I do that?"

That's the way you presented it in your original post.

It's not my business who people want to be attracted to

Also, what in the name of god makes Fox News employees racist? They aren't a hivemind, you may find one person on set who is MAYBE slightly racist, but I have watched them so many times, and I haven't found a single trace of them being racist.

You watch Fox News a lot eh?

Admitting your desensitized to racism is a start...

"Blah blah blah I am an ignorant racist blah blah blah I will make you think like me blah blah."

I really don't care, man. Your goal here isn't something I am interested in. You're here trying to debate a wall over a meme they posted on someone else's meme. You're wasting your time.

not the same

Sure it isn't.

how is that not the same its exactly the meme!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X46gdvThGAI

Hypocrite

You would do the same for sippy cup joe

I actually don't. Funny name though, considering Trump needs two hands to drink out of a cup...

I do as well because fricking ADHD makes my hands vibrate a lot

Interesting, I've never heard of that symptom.

So do you need a sippy cup?