• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Everyone welcome" is now unacceptable.

MAGAnificent said:
I accept all law abiding citizens as they are and all legal immigrants. I do not care for illegal border crossers. They have absolutely no respect for our laws.
Click to expand...

That's quite a stereotype. I gather you're not terribly familiar with them. We know a number of them and they are all law abiding, productive members of society, just like me and you. Like these students, they were not aware the law was broken when they were brought here.
 
NolanVoyd said:
There is that silly argument again.

Disparaging bigotry is not bigoted.

Being intolerant of intolerance does not make one intolerant.

Those opposing racism are not "the real racists".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's just gaslighting on their part.
 
If they do not obey our immigration laws, they are not law abiding.
 
MAGAnificent said:
If they do not obey our immigration laws, they are not law abiding.
Click to expand...

This is so absurd. Do you think these children know the law was broken? I drive around law breakers speeding by me all day long. They are far more dangerous than these kids or their law breaking parents are. Why make this issue all encompassing when it involves tearing apart families and communities. Seems needlessly and sadistically cruel.
 
AZRWinger said:
Another word salad post where you ignore the definition of tolerance.
Click to expand...
it doesnt ignore the definition.

think it throgh.
AZRWinger said:
Just like the teacher with her sign proclaiming everyone is welcome wouldn't accept a student in a MAthrough.
Click to expand...
of course she would accept a kid in MAGA hat. She probably has dozens of them. Its Idaho.

why lie?
 
 
"Everyone is welcome" is obviously unacceptable to MAGAs, because it flies in the face of their single most cherished value.
 
Support for Trump's immigration policies was key to his election. Public opinion polls showed a wide gap in favor of Trump's immigration policies over the Democrat open border stance.

In the 2024 election Trump flipped multiple traditionally Democrat border counties including the self described most Hispanic county in the US. They certainly noticed the flood of illegal aliens invited by Kim Jung Biden.
 

Its down to a 50-50% split now.
 
j brown's body said:
Seems like you could focus on dangerous criminals to hate instead of innocent school children. But that's MAGA for you.
Click to expand...
Silly projection. What you are attempting to do is hide behind children for the sake of justifying illegal immigration in general.
 
MAGAnificent said:
Silly projection. What you are attempting to do is hide behind children for the sake of justifying illegal immigration in general.
Click to expand...
Many illegals immigrants are families with children.

Fact.
 
RF667799 said:
You even agreed.
Click to expand...
Dude try to keep up.

I agreed that there is no contradiction in your analogy, and then explained to you how off the mark your analogy was. And that it doesn't adress the point.

You dont seem to understand that.

Maybe read the exchange again. Slow down. Focus on comprehension.
 
Last edited:
NolanVoyd said:
Dude try to keep up.

I agreed that there is no contradiction in your analogy, and then explained to you how off the mark your analogy was.

Maybe read the exchange again. Slow down. Focus on comprehension.
Click to expand...

My "analogy" was an example of tolerating intolerance. Which your claim said was "self contradictory".
NolanVoyd said:
If tolerance required tolerance of intolerance it would be self contradictory
Click to expand...

You proved yourself wrong. You verify your proof now, by saying there's no contradiction in my example.
 
RF667799 said:
My "analogy" was an example of tolerating intolerance. Which your claim said was "self contradictory".
Click to expand...
I've already explained how that doesn't adress the point of the discussion.
RF667799 said:
You proved yourself wrong.
Click to expand...
no i didnt.

you are just clueless
RF667799 said:
You verify your proof now, by saying there's no contradiction in my example.
Click to expand...
There is no contradiction in your example but it doesn't adress the point.

The point is to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.
 
Last edited:

All the Klan and Nazi stuff is what you added after your initial statement was proven wrong...by yourself. All irrelevant attempt to emotionally load you original claim with race baiting.
 
RF667799 said:
My "analogy" was an example of tolerating intolerance. Which your claim said was "self contradictory".
Click to expand...
Your analogy missed the mark vompletely.
RF667799 said:
You proved yourcompletely.
Click to expand...
No, o proved you wrong.
RF667799 said:
You verify your proof now, by saying there's no contradiction in my example.
Click to expand...
But your example missed the mark.

The point is, to suggest that 'tolerance requires one to be tollerant of the Klan or the Nazis (who are the embodiment of intollerance)'....is contradictory.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Not at all, that's the whole point of the establishment clause.
Click to expand...
Amendment I "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Congress did not pass a law establishing religion. Local school officials chose to display the 10 Commandments. What you desire definitely defies their free exercise of religion!
 
Its a government school. You would be singing a different tune if they posted the tenets of sharia law, or Hindu caste rules.

The government cannot "establish" a religion.

Posting one religions documents in a government school and not documents from the others "establishes" that religion.

If they are going to allow christian displays they have to also allow Muslim displays, Hindu displays, satanic displays, athiest displays, etc. Nobody wants that.

This is simple stuff.

Long since settled and blatently unconstitutional.
 
The illegal immigrants are allowed to take their children back to wherever they came from when they go home, therefore, there is no separation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.