• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should the kkk be able to practice?

Auftrag said:
A) I don't concede your point.

But, neither do you refute the point.

Auftrag said:
B) I haven't run out of arguments, I'm just not going to repeat the same one.

Saying that something isn't so is not an argument.

I pointed out what the research was that gave rise to the term "Aryan", and gave it meaning.

Your only reply to that was that the Nazis used the word differently. I believe you actually said "co-opted", as a matter of fact.

Then, I admitted that I made the mistake of assuming that the Nazis based what they were saying on actual research. That I didn't realize that they made it all up and then pulled a word from real research to make what they were saying seem legitimate.

Your only counter to any of this is that the Nazis use the word "Aryan" differently than it was used in the original research.

Auftrag said:
C) It wasn't an insult, it was an observation.

No, it is an insult. An observation would be pointing out your consistent spelling and gammatical errors. An observation would be pointing out your lack of a logical rebuttal to arguments.
 
the kkk has not practiced in so long, they do pratice some, at least what is legal. so they do practice.
 
Everything is better understood if there is an opposite view, especially if the thing you want to understand is how we should treat each other as taught by Jesus himself. In this case, the opposite view is being presented by members of the KKK. They serve as an example of ignorance, bigotry, stupidity, lack of education, weak intellect, and the results of too much inbreeding by hill folk. So when we want to teach our children how to play nice, and they ask why, we can point to the KKK and say, because if you don't, you will end up like them. Scare tactics work sometimes when nothing else does, at least with children of average or above intellect. Those with subnormal intellect sometimes get hung up on a wrong idea and there is nothing we can do about it. All we can do is just hope they continue to have sex with barnyard animals instead of human women, thus discontinuing the line of non-thinkers.:2wave:
 
I feel like saying KKK members should be tortured and then shot on the spot, although it may not be politcaly correct
 
Che said:
I feel like saying KKK members should be tortured and then shot on the spot, although it may not be politcaly correct


I think terrorist orginizations should be banned and it's members arrested.
 
I think that any organization that is strictly non-violent should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as it is not against the law.

That is of course if they don't discriminate against minorities for membership :D
 
-Demosthenes- said:
I think that any organization that is strictly non-violent should be able to do whatever it wants, as long as it is not against the law.

That is of course if they don't discriminate against minorities for membership :D

Now are you talking about real minorities or fake minorieties?(Fake minorieties meaning ones who consider themself a minoriety because of a behavior they choose to engage in. )
 
JamesRage said:
Now are you talking about real minorities or fake minorieties?(Fake minorieties meaning ones who consider themself a minoriety because of a behavior they choose to engage in. )
Most real ones, because, you know, there are the real minorities. People who behave a different way actually are different (they behave differently) and are an insult to actual minorities who have to deal with people thinking they are different when in reality the only difference may be larger amounts of melanin in their skin.

The point is, when someone hears that the KKK is not doing anything against the law per se it's really not true. Private corporations cannot discriminate against minorities when hiring people, and neither should an organization like the KKK.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Most real ones, because, you know, there are the real minorities. People who behave a different way actually are different (they behave differently) and are an insult to actual minorities who have to deal with people thinking they are different when in reality the only difference may be larger amounts of melanin in their skin.

The point is, when someone hears that the KKK is not doing anything against the law per se it's really not true. Private corporations cannot discriminate against minorities when hiring people, and neither should an organization like the KKK.

Freedom of Association means that I can hang out with people that I want to hang out with. Membership in an organization and interviewing for a job are not the same. You may want to check out the first amendment. The freedom of association protects the KKK on this point.
 
Freedom of Association means that I can hang out with people that I want to hang out with. Membership in an organization and interviewing for a job are not the same. You may want to check out the first amendment. The freedom of association protects the KKK on this point.
But whats the difference between a private organization and a private company?

I think that an assembly of people is a lot less like a private organization than a private company is.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
But whats the difference between a private organization and a private company?

I think that an assembly of people is a lot less like a private organization than a private company is.

In terms of employment, we are talking about the right of someone to earn a livelihood. However, organizations that have no employment component ought to be protected by the first amendment's right of association clause.
 
ludahai said:
In terms of employment, we are talking about the right of someone to earn a livelihood. However, organizations that have no employment component ought to be protected by the first amendment's right of association clause.

Assuming that those who would be turned away based on race have no constitutional rights, yes.

Blacks don't have the right to assemble where they want too?
 
Yes, though I completely disagree with their values and find them ignorant, limiting their freedom because I disagree with what they say sounds a lot like restricting the freedom of speech. You can't allow some people to be able to speak their minds and shut others up, no matter who they are.
 
liberal1 said:
Yes, though I completely disagree with their values and find them ignorant, limiting their freedom because I disagree with what they say sounds a lot like restricting the freedom of speech. You can't allow some people to be able to speak their minds and shut others up, no matter who they are.

What you are suggesting is the equavilent of allowing Al Qeada the right to assemble without arresting them.
 
liberal1 said:
Yes, though I completely disagree with their values and find them ignorant, limiting their freedom because I disagree with what they say sounds a lot like restricting the freedom of speech. You can't allow some people to be able to speak their minds and shut others up, no matter who they are.

Anyways, of course not, but why can't blacks and catholics assemble with them? I believe that this would be a good way to frustrate or ever destroy the KKK, just have large numbers of minorities and non-protestants assemble with them, in large numbers. They would call off whatever they were doing real quick, and if every assembly ended like this then the whole organization could Calypso. I would try it myself, but I am neither a minority or non-Protestant :( and if I tries it by myself I'd probably get mauled ;D.

jamesrage said:
What you are suggesting is the equavilent of allowing Al Qeada the right to assemble without arresting them.
As long as they are non-violent and they are US citizens it remains their constitutional right. It gets dangerous when you shut people up because you don't agree with them, very dangerous. The point is, if the public doesn't like it then they have the power to destroy it, using social pressure or the idea I had earlier.

However, if they hurt someone I would have no problem firing into a crowd of them and/or arresting every single one of them.

__________
I find it very weird that someone who seems to be a liberal ("liberal1" sounds liberal to me) would say that it would be okay for the KKK to assemble, and jamesrage (who I've found at least slightly conservative) would say that it is not okay. From what I've seen, it's usually the other way around. Just a curiosity I thought I'd point out :D.
 
-Demosthenes- said:
Anyways, of course not, but why can't blacks and catholics assemble with them? I believe that this would be a good way to frustrate or ever destroy the KKK, just have large numbers of minorities and non-protestants assemble with them, in large numbers. They would call off whatever they were doing real quick, and if every assembly ended like this then the whole organization could Calypso. I would try it myself, but I am neither a minority or non-Protestant :( and if I tries it by myself I'd probably get mauled ;D.

Nah, the best way to get to them is to get a group together and laugh uproariously at everything that they say. Anything resembling anger, hatred or violence just gives them something to feed off of, laughing at them pisses them off, but they don't know how to react. It confuses the hell out of them.
 
Mr. Fungus said:
Nah, the best way to get to them is to get a group together and laugh uproariously at everything that they say. Anything resembling anger, hatred or violence just gives them something to feed off of, laughing at them pisses them off, but they don't know how to react. It confuses the hell out of them.
I want to try these ideas so bad!
 
jamesrage said:
What you are suggesting is the equavilent of allowing Al Qeada the right to assemble without arresting them.
I should have clarified more, the KKK have a right to speak their views. Using violence of course, deserves punishment.
 
Man believe there are thing worst than death ,three for example are :

Slavery ,pain and suffering without "life ".

Rape .pain and suffering without "life " .

Being told a lie so as to make you a slave of a false path forward .

Rapist need to be punished quickly to preserve the peace , cops are not peace officers serving the people in this country any more ,they are law enforcement officer serving the ideals of politicians to a grumbling population . They don't carry machine guns in their trunks to shoot rapest .The KKK brings **** down on others for no sane reason and **** falls on them sometimes for no sane reason ,it's not right but it happens ,...... how many times does a man have to be hit by a train before he moves out of the way ,...Jeez !!!!

Should the KKK be allowed to go public ? Should I be allowed to go to a mall nude and jack off at the lesbians making out on the benches there if I don't sprirt anyone and clean up when I'm done ?

:roll:
 
Last edited:
I am a sustaining member of a forum called Stormfront.org. This is a an open forum to registered participants. The title of this forum is 'White Nationalist Community' with a subtitle of 'White Pride'.

While there are many views that I disagree with, similar to every liberal viewpoint here on 'Debate politics--I nonetheless believe they should have their day in the sun.

Many of the liberals' here would do themself a favor by opening their mind up by accepting people for their pride in the 'white' race. I agree, once their rhetoric moves toward the hate and violence agenda--I jump ship immediately. However, with all this Black on White racism we see daily--it would behoove many of us to show a little pride in our white race by sticking up for our ideals and for Constitution and for our founding fathers' principles.
 
ptsdkid said:
I am a sustaining member of a forum called Stormfront.org. This is a an open forum to registered participants. The title of this forum is 'White Nationalist Community' with a subtitle of 'White Pride'.

While there are many views that I disagree with, similar to every liberal viewpoint here on 'Debate politics--I nonetheless believe they should have their day in the sun.

Many of the liberals' here would do themself a favor by opening their mind up by accepting people for their pride in the 'white' race. I agree, once their rhetoric moves toward the hate and violence agenda--I jump ship immediately. However, with all this Black on White racism we see daily--it would behoove many of us to show a little pride in our white race by sticking up for our ideals and for Constitution and for our founding fathers' principles.

Why the hell should anyone of any race feel "pride" in something they have no control over?
 
Kandahar said:
Why the hell should anyone of any race feel "pride" in something they have no control over?

Who even knows...
 
ptsdkid said:
I am a sustaining member of a forum called Stormfront.org. This is a an open forum to registered participants. The title of this forum is 'White Nationalist Community' with a subtitle of 'White Pride'.

While there are many views that I disagree with, similar to every liberal viewpoint here on 'Debate politics--I nonetheless believe they should have their day in the sun.

Many of the liberals' here would do themself a favor by opening their mind up by accepting people for their pride in the 'white' race. I agree, once their rhetoric moves toward the hate and violence agenda--I jump ship immediately. However, with all this Black on White racism we see daily--it would behoove many of us to show a little pride in our white race by sticking up for our ideals and for Constitution and for our founding fathers' principles.


That’s fine to feel pride in ones race. Nothing is wrong with that.
I’m proud of my Cherokee and Irish heritage.
Its when people cross the line and preach hate and intolerance.
 
ptsdkid said:
I am a sustaining member of a forum called Stormfront.org. This is a an open forum to registered participants. The title of this forum is 'White Nationalist Community' with a subtitle of 'White Pride'.

While there are many views that I disagree with, similar to every liberal viewpoint here on 'Debate politics--I nonetheless believe they should have their day in the sun.

Many of the liberals' here would do themself a favor by opening their mind up by accepting people for their pride in the 'white' race. I agree, once their rhetoric moves toward the hate and violence agenda--I jump ship immediately. However, with all this Black on White racism we see daily--it would behoove many of us to show a little pride in our white race by sticking up for our ideals and for Constitution and for our founding fathers' principles.

You forget it must be pure 'heterosexual white' pride. If you are white, but gay, you are just as hated as those of color. I know. I was banned on that particular board (largest white seperatist website). They do have many valid points, and good debates on there, but they do not allow at all for differing opinions. It is basically a board where they try to 'one up' someone else in how racist they can be. The debates are between the rabid racist and the white supremist and the white seperatist.
 
Back
Top Bottom