blotsfan

And you really don't. You really, really don't.

I honestly can't tell if you guys are feigning ignorance or honestly just not smart enough to understand my incredibly simple point.

More and more Dems are refusing to accept money from PACs and I think it's a great idea. Even from a practical standpoint, I think when all your funds come from private donations, it gets regular people more motivated to donate, meaning more money for you anyways.

There is a large difference between "some gay people are intolerant jerks" and "The lgbtq community is one of the most intolerant groups of people in this country."

I mean sure. You can say I'm bigoted against trump voters or whatever. You're being bigoted against LGBT people. You were denying it. I'm glad you're not anymore. If you'd like to go into the difference between the two groups, we can do that as well.

Womp womp.

Whether or not he has money is completely irrelevant. He doesn't gay people, can't help but use slurs against them, and really couldn't care less about online bullying until it gave him an excuse to be homophobic. And then to justify his use of slurs with "well the brits say it" is asinine. He isn't British and is just saying it so he has an excuse to be an asshole. It's disingenuous and no gay person would appreciate an "ally" like that.

Yeah those gay people that bullied her are jerks. No one is arguing that. It's clear that Ngata only gives a shit so he can do his usual "[oppressed minority group] are the real bigots" schtick. It's not clever or original. Edit: also if we're doing the whole "gay friends" thing, I'd like to point out that the gay people I know are much more bothered by the fact that the political party in power wants to support discrimination against them. Much more than a few random jerks on twitter.

First of all, using the brits to justify the use of the word "cunt" is such a cliche. Though I think your use of ladyboy is much more revealing of character. And I don't think it's right that she got bullied online for it. It's also very obvious that you couldn't care less about her besides using her as an excuse to justify your bigotry to LGBTQ people. I didn't see you get this riled up over how Kelly Marie-Tran got bullied in a similar way. Also, the scale of discrimination the LGBTQ community faces from straight people is much more, especially given who is in power now. I wouldn't care that you'd be upset over this if it wasn't so obviously not from a place of sincerity.

Thanks for being such an example of tolerance. You're truly leading the way.

Alex Jones wasn't banned for "water turns the frogs gay." He was banned for "hey, these parents whose kids died are lying. I'm not saying you guys should attack them, but here is there address." Also "theres a child brothel under this random pizza place. I'm not saying one of you should go shoot it up but..." He is directly inciting violence. And again, this wasn't the government censoring him. Its facebook telling him to take his speech elsewhere.

The first amendment applies solely to government regulation of speech. Of course, even if Facebook was held to the same standards as the government, Alex Jones still wouldn't be protected.

I mean Alex Jones encourages people to attack the family of school shooting victims. That seems like a reasonable grounds for banning. I'm not aware of anyone being banned just for being a libertarian.

Why would Libertarians be upset about it? It is a private corporation deciding that they don't want them on. The free market is righteous in its decisions. Going to courts would just be getting the government involved.

I just googled around and have no idea what you're talking about. Do you mean Alex Jones?

Oh man...is bware a lobster?

I'd argue the Republican Party is now defined to be whatever trump is.

You have a history.

Do we even have any religious Christians on this site besides Dmac, who I don't think is particularly fiscally conservative?

Back to the trump part...#DrainTheSwamp https://twitter.com/peteralexander/status/1027182439590977536?s=21

FINALLY Marie is getting her due. (Ive been trying to avoid spoilers so plz don't say who)

So you have all these locks around your gun but you're gonna be able to grab it quickly enough when someone has broken in to save everyone? Not to mention, I googled those biometric locks and they look like they all have keys that can override them without the fingerprint. And it's not just kids killing themselves or adults with guns. Adults use their guns to kill people too (duh). And yeah you probably aren't going to, but that's what you'd say about everyone until they do it. I understand that there are some generally "good" gun owners. I just know the benefits to society from most people relinquishing their guns would drastically outweigh the additional dangers your family would face, since they're actually incredibly minor.

And your kid is more likely to take your gun and shoot himself in the head than you are to save him from 3 attackers. You have to use it to shoot republicans.

Yes him even though he's a marine. It comes down to the fact that stopping a criminal with your personal gun is incredibly rare. It's why it's always a major story when that does happen, whereas "guy is murdered with gun from his own house" isn't.

Your kid is far more likely to die from a bullet fired out of your gun than you are to save his life using it.