Islams view to murder gays supersedes in DNC chair selection

DNC boots candidate from chairmanship race for criticizing Ellison’s Islamic faith

Democrats have shown that gays are only needed for the votes, not that their lives or freedoms matter. Meanwhile Trump is moving to make Americans equal.

LGBT and their allies should really rethink their position of blindly voting democrat - the party could possibly be headed by someone that wants you dead in the near future.

 

People cannot be made equal.



​

 

Gay people are some pretty smart people and we don't like stereotypes. they have ruined enough lives, including our own. Gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians understand the difference between saying a specific candidate for the chairman's race should be denied the position because he holds homophobic views, and saying that he should be denied the position because of his religion. I will oppose those who say or show anti-gay sentiments frequently because I can properly infer that what a person says or does reflect those discriminatory and bigoted sentiments. I will not discriminate against those who's faith may be indirectly or historically associated with those views, because I don't know that any specific Muslim or Christian or Jew holds them or has to hold them. Gay men and Lesbians are not obliged to become religious bigots because someone wants us to forget that people are individuals when it suits a nasty and divisive agenda.

yes a Muslim candidate may in fact one day head our party. I have no problem with that because I am not a bigot and you can't turn me into one unless I allow it. 'Praise be to Allah' is not a homophobic remark.
If the report is accurate, Vincent Tolliver was way way out of line. I don't want him in a position of authority in my party.

 

[MENTION=47527]btthegreat[/MENTION]

I think Trump believes he will support gays. The problem is that Pence is there to influence him. Honestly the issues have probably never been in Trumps radar and he is likely to make ignorant decisions or rely heavily on Pence.

I am not very confident about it. I hope he takes a more libertarian stance on it in regards to marriage. Single people need tax breaks not people with two incomes. So backwards. Marriage needs to be a constitutional right under free speech and religion instead of a government tax deduction.

Anyways, ellison seems to have a solid voting record in support of LGBT.

 

I am not sure Pence is actually his 'cup of tea'. Its the inevitability behind who he picks to put on the court benches. You have to also believe he is still secretly pro-choice to hope he won't stack the federal benches with social conservatives and I don't believe that.

 

I guess this means a Jew is out too, as the Torah says Gays should be executed.

 

Pence supports the Constitution and that means that one cannot force a sexual lifestyle upon another.

As to the head of the Democrat party, it strikes me as strange that those who live the gay lifestyle would vote Democrat . A sexual lifestyle should not be the driving reason for your vote so if you are more in line with punishing success, stripping away rights protected by the Constitution and killing babies, then vote Democrat.

If your top priority in voting is about your sex life, then the GOP is the party of protection.

History does tend to be a good predicter of future behavior

Indians run off of their land- Democrats
Slavery - Democrats
Refuse women the vote- Democrats
Internment camps of Japanese- Democrats
Anti civil rights- Democrat
killing babies- Democrats
support those who persecute Christians, abuse women and punish homosexuals- Democrats

There is no positive spin to put on any of that.

Look all around the country and you will see what the average American thinks of the Democrat party. Seats have been lost everywhere.

Despite the propaganda by the media and universities/teachers unions, the truth and "rich history" of the Democrat party has been exposed.

 

Welcome to 1863.

Unfortunately, outside TrumpCo's alternative Fact Land, it's 2017.

Perhaps you could pick up a newspaper from the last 30 years instead of the 1963 edition of Southern Racist Weekly?

I believe that anyone who does not self identify as "conservative" is smart enough to vote in their own interests. "conservatism" being what happens when ideology becomes theology and "theology" demands setting aside rational thought in favor of dogma.

I'm pretty sure that when you identify a person as a pedophile, a deviant, worthy only of torture and imprisonment because of who they are, you've lost their vote.

 

Well, muslums are

But Islam is a homophobic ideology and to be muslim is to submit to that ideology.

 

Judaism doesn't require it's followers to execute homosexuals. Islam does.

 

Demonstrably false. Equal in opportunity, not ability or outcome

 

Opportunities are not people.



​

 

It sounds like you are a proud Democrat voter. Own your rich history as well as current platform, do not shy away from it. But, do not wonder why your party has lost control.

 

Try cleaning the crap from your ears sonny. Life long Republican. Don't you clowns wish you could say the same?

 

This had to happen sooner or later. Democrats have courted Muslims and homosexuals as protected groups for years. They're going to choose Muslims, which means homosexuals will move to the Republicans. Trump has stated the same-sex marriage ruling is settled.

 

I tend not to pay much attention to what non-Muslims tell me about Islam. Islam is a religion with the broad and diverse set of ideologies expressed by subsets, just like all large religions. The fact that you generalize so freely about Muslims suggests that bigotry may be your problem. I will not make it mine.

this does remind me that I should amend my first post because I have generalized as well. Most gay people are some pretty smart people and we don't like stereotypes. they have ruined enough lives, including our own. Most gay men, bisexuals, and lesbians understand the difference between saying a specific candidate for the chairman's race should be denied the position because he holds homophobic views, and saying that he should be denied the position because of his religion

 

Even so, OP, the dems love the homosexuals more than the reps. The reps will never go for the idea that a man with a penis is a woman...sorry.

BTW if you were in Canada could you have made your post or does that violate Canada's anti islamaphobia law?

 

That's foolish.

Have you read the Qur'an?

You admit to willful ignorance and than you attack me because I seek answers?

why not take a brake from your virtue signaling and educate yourself on the subject? Just read the Qur'an, research Mohammad, look into the culture that dominates Islam.

 

Its that 'a little knowledge is a dangerous thing' concept. I do not trust most folks who 'read the bible' to necessarily know squat about what they are reading, why would I trust anyone with a cursory or shallow understanding of the cultural, historic or religious roots behind the text, to interpret them properly. I haven't even approached the language barrier. I trust folks who have lived and breathed this topic and culture for a large part of their lifetimes, and that mostly means Muslims or former muslims.

Reading the religious text does almost more harm than good unless is it the very beginning of a journey that involves a lot more questions than conclusions. bigots often have a shallow understanding of what they expose themselves to in order to justify their conclusions. there are scholars who get years of formal and informal education on the Qur'an and their opinon will matter more. It is a comfort that you at least partially distinguish between the culture that dominates Islam and Islam itself. An incredible amount of stupidity comes out of a presumption that Islam is and must be, what it is in the middle east or in Indonesia or wherever.

I also know that bigots who assert that blacks are less intelligent than whites will probably have a cursory base of knowledge on the IQ tests, studies and 'experts' who interpreted them consistent with their bias. I don't know as much as they do about those 'studies' and 'experts, but I know what they are doing with their 'knowledge' is pretty slimy.

 

But you'd trust a muslim who read the Qur'an? Seems like you do have some biases.

That is exactly what you said you would do. Besides I didn't ask or imply that you trust me. I suggested you stop virtue signaling and learn about it.

You're already making excuses?

See, you jumped to conclusions and made ad hoc generalizations and stereotyped me as being bigoted, and I sought information from the exact source you said you'd seek it from.

You are the one jumping to conclusion. See above.

Well it's a chicken and the egg thing.

Um...it's a profound amount of ignorance suggest Islam is anything else.

You said if you were to do the research you'd use the same sources I used. Now there are people who are Mullin and there are people who were muslim that speak English as well as you do. So the language barrier doesn't exist.

Quit making excuses of why you don't want to learn something, and just admit you're afraid I might be right, or that you're too lazy, or learn all about it and prove me wrong.

 

first don't simplify my responses. you will get it wrong. I did not say I would trust 'a muslem who read the quran' I I said I tend not to pay much attention to what non-muslim say and later I said I do not trust most folks who 'read the bible' to necessarily know squat about what they are reading. Each word in those two sentences had a purpose so don't leave any of them out, or presume anything beyond their scope, and don't confuse those two sentiments . there is an overwhelming number of forms bigotry can take between all the ethicitiies, religions, the gender and identity spectrum etc . I will not spend the time to' prove' vocal racists wrong, and then vocal anti-semites wrong, and then vocal homophobes wrong, and then vocal sexists wrong, and then vocal anti-catholics wrong etc because it normally is a waste of time and worse it feeds into something sick and dysfunctional. but that does not mean I don't see and recognize the disturbing patterns in their thinking and know how they accumulate evidence for their bias..

 

You admitted to being ignorant on this subject. So how do you know what I'm saying is bigotry?

But you admittedly know very little about it. How do you know I'm an "ist" when you don't know much about it?

See you don't really learn things to prove people wrong. You learn them so that you have knowledge and can have a grasp of what it is you are talking about.

Yes it does. You can't explain why you think I'm bigoted. You are just making a knee jerk reaction that people have used for quit some time to shut people up. Or because some celebrity said something, or because some moron that ran for a political office thinks that.

The reality is this tactic has become toothless and lazy. I know I'm not a bigot and I know exactly why. All your doing is destroying your own credibility. And attacking people for not saying things you like.

 

Essentially you're just calling bigoted because of what somebody you like told you to think. I formulated my own opinion based on observation, study, discussion, and reality.

 

From the way you worded your generalization, I knew you could not possibly prove an assertion that broad brushed because your statements were too broad and inclusive to have any real value beyond a desire to stereotype. I can be pretty damn ignorant and still see that When I ask myself why anyone would want to stereotype such a large and diverse group of people from so many different cultures in that way, I come up with very few good options.

Again another silly generalization. you may learn things to prove people wrong or to call them names, but most people have a far broader range of reasons to learn things and most of the time it involves neither of those two options. I learn very little for either of those reasons.

I am glad you 'know' that you are not a bigot. Its always very reassuring when people go out of their way to label millions of people and their faith , in a thread the purpose of which, is to tell gays that muslims want to murder them, based on what their personal 'study' suggests.

Y

 

You can't know that. You admitted that you ate ignorant in this subject.

How can you know that?

You don't know that I'm stereotyping anything. You're just jumping to conclusions.

Do it so that you don't appear ignorant. Perhaps when you say you know someone is stereotyping a "diverse group of people" you will actually know it instead of parroting political virtue signaling.

I don't care if you think I am. You don't know anything about the subject so your opinion holds no merit. It's kind of like a creationist telling me evolution is just a theory.

Perhaps it is for you, that is one of the pitfalls of ignorance. I labeled an ideology so you must be talking about someone else.

A very cursory glance at it will tell you that. Simply asking a handful of Muslims if the punishments Allah prescribed are just will tell you that. Understanding the first (*)(*)(*)(*)ing thing about an ideological is likely going to give you more understanding than someone who buries their head in the sand to remain politically correct.

See the reason why you learn things is so that you can know them.