Gay wedding cakes and the bigots who won't bake them.

[twostrokenut]

no one asked you to repeat your tired old bullshit again, you are still saying the same thing. you are defending the racist practices of the south as you have done in the past because you are too racist to even admit that it caused harm.

answer this, yes or no: did the denial of service to blacks in the south pre civil rights cause harm to blacks?

yes or no.

God you are stupid.

The racists practices of the South were that of Democrats and they sought out free blacks and black and white Republicans.

Your portrayal of the South, in general; is losing your argument........you shit is weak.

 

[UncleBuck]

The racists practices of the South were that of Democrats

then why did your elected republican representatives vote against civil rights in greater percentages than your elected democrat representatives?

that darn pesky history making an ass out of you again.

 

[UncleBuck]

The racists practices of the South

which, i should add, you did not think it was a good idea to end.

 

[UncleBuck]

for the record, twostroke, can you answer the question i asked rob?

do you think the denial of service to blacks in the pre civil rights south caused harm?

 

[twostrokenut]

then why did your elected republican representatives vote against civil rights in greater percentages than your elected democrat representatives?

that darn pesky history making an ass out of you again.

"my" representatives? Helluva strawman there, bravo.

To be fair to your question and honest, I have no idea I am simply not old enough to remember.
Pesky history puts 100 years of Democrat Party line towers doing major bullshit to suppress votes and terrorize free blacks and both white and black(brown too, soo racist) Republicans alike.

See that is aristocracy in action there...superiority complex.

So if your point is that Democrats voted to support ending THEIR own bullshit then, mental retardation I say....what is the point of your rambling about this?


So I speculate it is the same then as it is here and now.
I say Unlimited Individual Rights for all; black, white, gay or straight.....per Law of Land.
For this I am labeled, by you as a "right winger" or "republican" or a "racist" "bigot".

You say Limited civil rights for all! Yay meeeee behold my superior intellect!
Yet label yourself a "liberal democrat" that supports big gubberment, and you do in pretty much every aspect.

Don-que say what?

Need proof of limitation?
gays aren't covered and that's what all the hubub is about, bub.
Need proof of unlimited?
See the 10th amendment.
.
protip: people>People>States>The United States.

Wait I know I know, that's racist potato!

 

[UncleBuck]

...if your point is that Democrats voted to support ending THEIR own bullshit...

you'd have to be awfully stupid to think that's my point.

my first point is that it took the federal government to make sure your southern home states ended their own racist practices.

my second point is that southern republicans were more opposed to ending those racist practices than southern democrats were.

both are historical fact.

another fun fact is that you don't think that it's a "good idea" for the federal government to stop your beloved south from continuing its racist practices.

you are beyond asshurt, so calm down.

 

[twostrokenut]

No your point is the same as always. Bully pulpit creates problem....bully pulpit
declares itself the solution to itself and usurps until corrected.

 

[Rob Roy]

you would like that, wouldn't you?

that way, we can all stop focusing on how you call hate crimes, affirmative action, and even title II public accommodations "special rights" or "extra rights" for black people.

because as we all know, getting to eat at the same lunch counter as a white person is a "special right", according to robroy.

but he's totally not racist folks.

You sure do like to avoid the issue of who owns property and who doesn't and conflate it into something else. A gay black person in a wheelchair has every right to control their own property, but not the property of others. They also have every right to choose who they will associate with as long as that person consents to the association.

Now admit it, when you were younger you put on a single white glove and pranced around as if you were Michael Jackson didn't you?

 

[Rob Roy]

No your point is the same as always. Bully pulpit creates problem....bully pulpit
declares itself the solution to itself and usurps until corrected.

Exactly. His uncanny ability to run other peoples lives is astounding. He's going to make people get along and he's willing to use force to do it. Except when he forces people, he uses the "good kind" of offensive force.

 

[Rob Roy]

Based on factors they can control, like no shirt, no shoes, etc.. Not things they can't control, like being black or homosexual

Who should control your property, your body? You or a person or persons that do not have an ownership interest in it?

 

[Rob Roy]

that's not a yes or no.

put your cognitive dissonance to the side for a second and give a yes or no answer: do you think blacks were harmed by the denial of service they endured in the pre civil rights south?

A person is harmed if they are denied the right to use their own body and property as long as that use does not detract from anothers use of their property or body.

You can't say cognitive dissonance either. That's my word for you. You are harming me.

 

[UncleBuck]

No your point is the same as always. Bully pulpit creates problem....bully pulpit
declares itself the solution to itself and usurps until corrected.

wow, you're monumentally stupid.

the south created a problem by refusing to end their racist practices.

a different entity, federal government, fixed the problem by telling you racists that you are not allowed to do that.

you do not think that was a good idea, but oh well. like you said, you will just "hate them more now".

but at least they don't need to rely on the green book just to find a bed and a meal now.

 

[UncleBuck]

He's going to make people get along and he's willing to use force to do it.

i never said the point of civil rights was to make people get along. i fully concede twostroke's point that racists like you and him will just "hate them more now", because that is the nature of racists like you guys.

the point of civil rights is to end the harmful, racist practices of the south.

 

[UncleBuck]

A person is harmed if they are denied the right to use their own body and property as long as that use does not detract from anothers use of their property or body.

You can't say cognitive dissonance either. That's my word for you. You are harming me.

stop being a pussy and just answer the question: were the racist practices of the pre civil rights south harmful to blacks?

it's a simple yes or no.

it's just a question, it won't bite you or anything.

 

[Samwell Seed Well]

stop being a pussy and just answer the question: were the racist practices of the pre civil rights south harmful to blacks?

it's a simple yes or no.

it's just a question, it won't bite you or anything.

afraid of a question ... like a petulant child

 

[UncleBuck]

afraid of a question ... like a petulant child

reminds me of when desert dude refuses to say whether or not his child would have a right to use deadly force if someone followed his child in the dark and got out of the car to chase his child once his child ran.

it's a clear "yes", as his child (or any human) should be legitimately fearing for their life if some unidentified stranger tails you in a car and gets out to chase you down once you run.

could you imagine how much scarier it would be if you knew that the unidentified stranger who is following you is also calling you a fucking punk and bemoaning how fucking assholes like you always get away?

yet he refuses to answer the question, because it causes him too much cognitive dissonance.

racists really are stupid pussies afraid of everything in life.

 

[twostrokenut]

wow, you're monumentally stupid.

the south created a problem by refusing to end their racist practices.

a different entity, federal government, fixed the problem by telling you racists that you are not allowed to do that.

you do not think that was a good idea, but oh well. like you said, you will just "hate them more now".

but at least they don't need to rely on the green book just to find a bed and a meal now.

Epic fail.
"The south created a problem"
No.
Aristorcatic Southern Democrats created the problem.
A different entity than progressive big gubberment usurpers?
Now that's fucking stupidity.

You wear your willfull ignorance like an olympic gold medal.

 

[ginwilly]

Epic fail.
"The south created a problem"
No.
Aristorcatic Southern Democrats created the problem.
A different entity than progressive big gubberment usurpers?
Now that's fucking stupidity.

You wear your willfull ignorance like an olympic gold medal.

Bigotry IS willful ignorance. Buck himself even points this out as he's calling all people from a certain geographical region bigots. If he was doing it on purpose it would be epically ironic, but sadly, we've seen his intelligence on full display for 55k posts here. He's not bright enough to see the irony and too bigoted to see the truth.

Entertaining though. "Look at that group of people who live inside an imaginary border, they're all bigots".

If you swapped out "the south" in his posts with gay or black, he'd be banned by now.

 

[Rob Roy]

stop being a pussy and just answer the question: were the racist practices of the pre civil rights south harmful to blacks?

it's a simple yes or no.

it's just a question, it won't bite you or anything.

Who is the "south"?

 

[twostrokenut]

Bigotry IS willful ignorance. Buck himself even points this out as he's calling all people from a certain geographical region bigots. If he was doing it on purpose it would be epically ironic, but sadly, we've seen his intelligence on full display for 55k posts here. He's not bright enough to see the irony and too bigoted to see the truth.

Entertaining though. "Look at that group of people who live inside an imaginary border, they're all bigots".

If you swapped out "the south" in his posts with gay or black, he'd be banned by now.

Yeah, technically speaking it was the Declaration of Independence that caused the "problem" but that's a little over Bucky's head though.

I am convinced Buck is just full troll. Or recruiting racist for his cause and noone here is worthy.
He is smart enough to see the lines I am drawing for him linking his parties KKK with their practices now with unlimited power and currency.

He only wants to focus on a civil rights vote as if that is all that exists. This supposedly proves Republicans did not want blacks to have rights and wanted discrimination.....yet Republicans were targeted by the Democrats for the exact opposite for 100 years prior by voter suppression terrorism...black AND WHITE REPUBLICANS....and free blacks in general.

Combine what he says here then add his distaste of The Fed by practice, not thought mind you; and Full Troll becomes apparent.