• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Ted Nugent - Obama a Subhuman Mongrel

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
totally makes up for the white supremacists he kept around and the whole coordinating with A3P and opposing civil rights.
You helped rand paul?

Oh snap remind us all why you got banned that one time...wasn't it for being racist and posting personal info?
 

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
I haven't watched politics in so long. I formed my own from actually reading "laws". The dog and pony show gets old as fuck.
 

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
I haven't watched politics in so long. I formed my own from actually reading "laws". The dog and pony show gets old as fuck.
[video=youtube;C4NTqE0SJHE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4NTqE0SJHE[/video]

This one goes out to all the K-9's and ponies. <3
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
totally makes up for the white supremacists he kept around and the whole coordinating with A3P and opposing civil rights.
For the record Ted Nugent is a rude dickwad and needs to mind his own business.


Rights are not bestowed by government, therefore when government attempts to do this there will be unintended consequences.
The origins of "good government" (if there is such a thing) are to protect the natural right of EVERY persons freedom to associate with those they wish to and that wish to associate with them, but not to force people to associate.

When you use threats of force to make people associate, there is nothing "civil" about it, is there? If the basis of a polite society is respecting the rights of others and their property, how does forcing people to associate achieve this? Hint- It doesn't. It violates the respect.

You fail to understand and distinguish between forced associations like the kind the so called civil rights laws mandate and the ability or "right" of all people to be left alone when they are on their own property, which is a NEUTRAL position. If a person has made a claim that they don't want to associate with another person, and they are not harassing this other person or aggressing against them in any way, there is no actionable behavior that should be "corrected" by a law.

You fail to understand that private property cannot BE private if a third party determines that the so called owner of the private property must use it in ways they are not inclined to. You are demonstrating the same kind of behavior, dictating what a person will do with something they own, that prohibitionists do. Pot prohibitionists prohibit people from exercising control over their private property. ie, their body. It is only when a person leaves their property and aggresses against another that a crime has been committed and action should be taken to restitute the aggrieved.

Also you fail economics and don't understand that some problems will take care of themselves. Asshole bigoted business owners in a truly free market are shooting themselves in the foot when they walk away from a segment of potential customers based on race or sexual preference.
 

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
For the record Ted Nugent is a rude dickwad and needs to mind his own business.


Rights are not bestowed by government, therefore when government attempts to do this there will be unintended consequences.
The origins of "good government" (if there is such a thing) are to protect the natural right of EVERY persons freedom to associate with those they wish to and that wish to associate with them, but not to force people to associate.

When you use threats of force to make people associate, there is nothing "civil" about it, is there? If the basis of a polite society is respecting the rights of others and their property, how does forcing people to associate achieve this? Hint- It doesn't. It violates the respect.

You fail to understand and distinguish between forced associations like the kind the so called civil rights laws mandate and the ability or "right" of all people to be left alone when they are on their own property, which is a NEUTRAL position. If a person has made a claim that they don't want to associate with another person, and they are not harassing this other person or aggressing against them in any way, there is no actionable behavior that should be "corrected" by a law.

You fail to understand that private property cannot BE private if a third party determines that the so called owner of the private property must use it in ways they are not inclined to. You are demonstrating the same kind of behavior, dictating what a person will do with something they own, that prohibitionists do. Pot prohibitionists prohibit people from exercising control over their private property. ie, their body. It is only when a person leaves their property and aggresses against another that a crime has been committed and action should be taken to restitute the aggrieved.

Also you fail economics and don't understand that some problems will take care of themselves. Asshole bigoted business owners in a truly free market are shooting themselves in the foot when they walk away from a segment of potential customers based on race or sexual preference.
So we can't talk about your inclinations? ..................
 

SnapsProvolone

Well-Known Member
If Ted had half as much brains as he has guns perhaps he could master control of his tounge. I used to like Ted. I am NOT a fan of obama but he IS president so I must show respect or it makes me a bad citizen.
 
Top