run, rend pawl, run!

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
There would be no prosecution of the gay baker who refuses the hetero
Click to expand...
in states where sexual orientation is a protected class, there would or could be. sexual orientation as a civil right covers both heteros and homosexuals you fucking retarded stooge.

stop trying to frame this as persecution of the white hetero christian male you stormfront dunce, it is not.


ginwilly said:
you've already admitted you think a black man should do more time committing the same crime as a white man if the victim is white.
Click to expand...
show me where i made that narrow claim and i will leave the forum forever.

if you can not show me where i made that claim, then you must admit that you are a liar and a racist POS, put it in your sig, and then leave the site forever.

deal?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
NoDrama said:
According to Bucky, blacks are inferior by nature and are incapable of providing good service or producing things of quality.
Click to expand...

nope, YOU said that, not me.

i stated a historical fact, you tried to twist it into what it was not.

you just gave us a hint as to what you believe.

you are the racist POS that denies that denial of service to blacks over the course of decades ever caused any harm to anyone.

you are not only a hypocrite, plagiarist, and a government teatsucker, but you are also a known liar and historical denialist.

you are among the dumbest we have on this forum.
 
Ra$p0tin

Ra$p0tin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
in states where sexual orientation is a protected class, there would or could be. sexual orientation as a civil right covers both heteros and homosexuals you fucking retarded stooge.

stop trying to frame this as persecution of the white hetero christian male you stormfront dunce, it is not.




show me where i made that narrow claim and i will leave the forum forever.

if you can not show me where i made that claim, then you must admit that you are a liar and a racist POS, put it in your sig, and then leave the site forever.

deal?
Click to expand...
Liar! You'll never leave the site. Who are you trying to convince?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
in states where sexual orientation is a protected class, there would or could be. sexual orientation as a civil right covers both heteros and homosexuals you fucking retarded stooge.

stop trying to frame this as persecution of the white hetero christian male you stormfront dunce, it is not.




show me where i made that narrow claim and i will leave the forum forever.

if you can not show me where i made that claim, then you must admit that you are a liar and a racist POS, put it in your sig, and then leave the site forever.

deal?
Click to expand...
Are you or are you not a huge proponent of hate crimes? Do racial hate crimes apply both ways or only one? Either you are a dipshit like Holder, or you support a black man doing more time if he picks a white victim than a black victim. Sorry Buck, you can twist all you want, but you support that idiocy, you've stated it over and over when it's white on black. So either you think black on white carries the same hate crime sentence as white on black or you don't and want to give one skin color preference in the rule of law. You can't escape your own hypocrisy here bucko.

It actually sounds like you are the stormfronter, you are the one in favor of hate crimes. Hate is real popular there from the sound of it. So which is it Buck? Do want a black man to do more time because he picked a white victim or do you want the law to be different based on skin color? This is what the idiocy of hate crime legislation does, it shows people what proponents of focus on and your PCness has you to where you can't even answer this question... Sad.

If I asked you should a white man do more time for purposefully picking a black victim it's an easy answer for the hate crime fans, even the PC ones. When you switch the situation, you can't even answer the question, all you can do is go off on your RACIST!! stupidity.

The PC crowd is the flip side to the moral majority idiots. Freedom is not an option unless you are doing it in a approved way.
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Are you or are you not a huge proponent of hate crimes? Do racial hate crimes apply both ways or only one? Either you are a dipshit like Holder, or you support a black man doing more time if he picks a white victim than a black victim. Sorry Buck, you can twist all you want, but you support that idiocy, you've stated it over and over when it's white on black. So either you think black on white carries the same hate crime sentence as white on black or you don't and want to give one skin color preference in the rule of law. You can't escape your own hypocrisy here bucko.

It actually sounds like you are the stormfronter, you are the one in favor of hate crimes. Hate is real popular there from the sound of it. So which is it Buck? Do want a black man to do more time because he picked a white victim or do you want the law to be different based on skin color? This is what the idiocy of hate crime legislation does, it shows people what proponents of focus on and your PCness has you to where you can't even answer this question... Sad.

If I asked you should a white man do more time for purposefully picking a black victim it's an easy answer for the hate crime fans, even the PC ones. When you switch the situation, you can't even answer the question, all you can do is go off on your RACIST!! stupidity.

The PC crowd is the flip side to the moral majority idiots. Freedom is not an option unless you are doing it in a approved way.
Click to expand...
that's a lot of typing to bury the fact that you can not cite your original claim, thus reinforcing what we all knew. you are a lying sack of shit.

hate crimes apply to all races.

https://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/offenders.html

1151 blacks were convicted of hate crimes in 2009. i have no problem with this.

3884 whites were convicted of hate crimes in 2009. i have no problem with this.

hate crimes aren't applied simply because an offender of one race victimizes someone of another race. that kind of juvenile stormfront thinking you espouse is simply retarded.

ginwilly said:
It actually sounds like you are the stormfronter, you are the one in favor of hate crimes.
Click to expand...
stormfronters like you are overwhelmingly opposed to hate crime legislation, actually.

you are quite the idiot. i didn't think you could get any dumber, but you have.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
what recourse do you have against a fraudster unless there are laws and regulations against fraud?
Click to expand...
Finally, you ask a good question.

Fraud would be wrong whether it is statutorily recognized as wrong or whether it is statutorily forgiven for some protected people that coercive government smiles upon. Laws sometimes, but not always coincide with correcting a harmful act.

So it isn't the "law" that makes something right or wrong is it? Since we both know that sometimes laws are wrong in that they deviate from something inherently right or wrong.

So correcting fraud involves restitution of the aggrieved party. If you'd like I could publish the entire chapter of a book, but instead I will refer you to chapter 7 of The Market for Liberty, a book you might find interesting. The chapter deals with arbitration of disputes absent a coercive government.

Also, keep up the good work. You've asked one good question in 64,000 posts. Go get 'em tiger!
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Finally, you ask a good question.

Fraud would be wrong whether it is statutorily recognized as wrong or whether it is statutorily forgiven for some protected people that coercive government smiles upon. Laws sometimes, but not always coincide with correcting a harmful act.

So it isn't the "law" that makes something right or wrong is it? Since we both know that sometimes laws are wrong in that they deviate from something inherently right or wrong.

So correcting fraud involves restitution of the aggrieved party. If you'd like I could publish the entire chapter of a book, but instead I will refer you to chapter 7 of The Market for Liberty, a book you might find interesting. The chapter deals with arbitration of disputes absent a coercive government.

Also, keep up the good work. You've asked one good question in 64,000 posts. Go get 'em tiger!
Click to expand...
how are you gonna arbitrate or mediate a dispute when no law exists to define where the fraudster's rights end and your rights begin?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
that's the great thing though, i don't need to twist your words at all.

for example, ginwilly wants to get rid of title II of civil rights. yet he refuses to tell me why it should be legal again for racists to deny service to blacks because they are black. what possible benefit could come out of that?
 
ElfoodStampo

ElfoodStampo

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
that's the great thing though, i don't need to twist your words at all.

for example, ginwilly wants to get rid of title II of civil rights. yet he refuses to tell me why it should be legal again for racists to deny service to blacks because they are black. what possible benefit could come out of that?
Click to expand...
This has nothing to do with your paraphrasing buck.
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
that's the great thing though, i don't need to twist your words at all.

for example, ginwilly wants to get rid of title II of civil rights. yet he refuses to tell me why it should be legal again for racists to deny service to blacks because they are black. what possible benefit could come out of that?
Click to expand...
Ut oh, I feel a stalk rage coming on.

You think it's fine to deny service to blacks if they are Bears fans, I don't think it's a good thing to discriminate for any reason. I just happen to believe in equality under the law. Do you think blacks need your help Buck while you consistently move to all white areas?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
Ut oh, I feel a stalk rage coming on.

You think it's fine to deny service to blacks if they are Bears fans, I don't think it's a good thing to discriminate for any reason. I just happen to believe in equality under the law. Do you think blacks need your help Buck while you consistently move to all white areas?
Click to expand...
you keep saying you believe in equality under the law then you rail against civil rights, which gave blacks freedom from discrimination under the law.

why not just admit that you are racist so i can't use your racism against you?
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you keep saying you believe in equality under the law then you rail against civil rights, which gave blacks freedom from discrimination under the law.

why not just admit that you are racist so i can't use your racism against you?
Click to expand...
I'm not a racist yet you try to use it against me anyway. Most of us know it's what you revert to when you can't make an intelligent point. It used to bother me a bit, now it's just entertaining.

You keep saying I'm against civil rights, I keep saying I'm for them but it doesn't help your argument. I've lived in Detroit, B'ham, Atlanta and Memphis by choice giving medical care to those in need based on need, not skin tone.

You however keep moving to lilly white areas and call everyone else racists. Yeah, we see you buck.

When you are in your 30's and think shitting on public eateries floors is hilarious, any property rights discussion with you is a waste of time.

Gonna watch the stalker this fall?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top