Affordable?

[ginwilly]

I thought I already stated that some things about my government I love and somethings I would like to change. In fact I'm sure I said it. I don't think you were paying attention.

Steelers without Bell...decision decision..

I think I still like Steelers.

I'm reading the weather there is frozen rain and snow. They've cancelled the Flyers practice and are telling people to stay off the roads. With Bell it's a slam dunk, without...IDK man. I think I still like the Steelers too. They were always my favorite AFC team growing because of relatives buying me hats (boggins I think we called them) so I'm biased. If Forsett has a big game it could be trouble. I actually like Carolina to win the other game, Cam is the best young QB nobody talks about. He'll be top 5 in 5 years, he really is superman "it's just a broken back". I've treated his injury many times and my priority was always pain control. He must have superhuman tolerance.

Back to the subject, sorry bout that, but it's the PLAYOFFS!

Yes, I've seen you say what you say but you keep denying the force because someone agreed to it. In order to pursue your dreams in this country you must first get permission from the nanny. There has to be a better way. I really like RobRoy's non-aggression principle. Well it's not his, but you know.. The concern I have is the same I've asked AC about in similar discussions, what do we do with those who always want to pee in the punch (ode to cannibaneer).

Damn, can you tell I just smoked a bowl of really good sativa? I'm rambling.

TL;DR version
Steelers in an ice storm, Cam Newton carries the Panthers.

Agreement to force when your choice is starvation or servitude (either run it the way we tell you or go work for someone who is willing to pay you the scraps) is not the best we can do. Let's try to think of better ways.

 

[londonfog]

I'm reading the weather there is frozen rain and snow. They've cancelled the Flyers practice and are telling people to stay off the roads. With Bell it's a slam dunk, without...IDK man. I think I still like the Steelers too. They were always my favorite AFC team growing because of relatives buying me hats (boggins I think we called them) so I'm biased. If Forsett has a big game it could be trouble. I actually like Carolina to win the other game, Cam is the best young QB nobody talks about. He'll be top 5 in 5 years, he really is superman "it's just a broken back". I've treated his injury many times and my priority was always pain control. He must have superhuman tolerance.

Back to the subject, sorry bout that, but it's the PLAYOFFS!

Yes, I've seen you say what you say but you keep denying the force because someone agreed to it. In order to pursue your dreams in this country you must first get permission from the nanny. There has to be a better way. I really like RobRoy's non-aggression principle. Well it's not his, but you know.. The concern I have is the same I've asked AC about in similar discussions, what do we do with those who always want to pee in the punch (ode to cannibaneer).

Damn, can you tell I just smoked a bowl of really good sativa? I'm rambling.

TL;DR version
Steelers in an ice storm, Cam Newton carries the Panthers.

Agreement to force when your choice is starvation or servitude (either run it the way we tell you or go work for someone who is willing to pay you the scraps) is not the best we can do. Let's try to think of better ways.

I agree with Forsett being trouble for Pitt. I just think Pitt has way too many weapons
I love sativa just hate the grow time.

One thing you and Rob Roy Miller keep forgetting is humans have one thing that fucks you guys theory. EMOTIONS...
If I see Johnny living wonderfully on his property with fish, hunting, and the likes, do you think for one minute I will just sit back and do nothing whilst me and my family starve? What going to stop me from killing Johnny and taking his shit, whilst eating his fish?

 

[ginwilly]

One thing you and Rob Roy Miller keep forgetting is humans have one thing that fucks you guys theory. EMOTIONS...
If I see Johnny living wonderfully on his property with fish, hunting, and the likes, do you think for one minute I will just sit back and do nothing whilst me and my family starve? What going to stop me from killing Johnny and taking his shit, whilst eating his fish?

This was in my tl;dr version

I really like RobRoy's non-aggression principle. Well it's not his, but you know.. The concern I have is the same I've asked AC about in similar discussions, what do we do with those who always want to pee in the punch (ode to cannibaneer).

This is why I'm not an anarchist. As I've said in the past though, I want a government that protects me from you, not from myself. I feel a need for an authority to protect my freedom, not limit them.

There is a giant genie we've let out and if we can't figure out a way to put it back in the bottle we are Greece. What we are doing now is a big fuck you to future generations. We've become dependent on our government to shape society when society is always decades ahead. Progress will be stunted by decades.

 

[UncleBuck]

I'm afraid you have mixed two things again. It almost seems like you are trying to imply that if a person understands what voluntary agreements are, that it automatically means they agree with what others have agreed to.

You aren't that dumb are you? (That was a rhetorical question by the way)

Now, I can understand that you might make a voluntary agreement for the bad man to put a gerbil in a place of your chosing, but that doesn't mean I endorse it or would engage in the same kind of behavior.

I've been alive in parts of 7 decades, but you're off by a few years kid.

why did you call pedophilia a voluntary agreement?

 

[UncleBuck]

So please explain what the word consent means?

What does voluntary mean?

i think you need to go first on that one, since you are the one who thinks pedophilia can be a voluntary agreement.

 

[UncleBuck]

“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
~Albert A. Bartlett

the exponential curve of medical insurance premium growth is slower now because "disposable income" has become something like a unicorn, and can only bee seen by virgins and blessed lunatics?

and this happened "Because Obama...."

so why do you specify "20 years" rather than "Since Obamacare Passed"?

cuz premiums were flat for a long time, then "Because Obama..." the premiums started Hoping and Changing their way to new heights? nope. that turd wont float.

also, it's funny but i never see this claimed "slowing in the rate of growth" you so often insist is happening.

(cuz everybody loves a shitload of graphs from unnamed websites, which may or may not be accurate...)

(bonus parenthetical aside: these graphs are actually from reputable sources, unlike the graphs bucky likes to toss around, from lefty blogs and other wildly prejudiced sources)

cry all you want and have all the meltdowns you want.

in the 20 years before obamacare, premiums grew at above 7%.

since obamacare was passed, they are growing at half that, about 3.6%.

even now that bidness is booming, premiums are projected to grow at about 5%, still slower than before obamacare.

if this fact makes you cry, so be it.

at least you have 8-14 family members there to comfort you.

 

[UncleBuck]

I want a government that protects me from you, not from myself.

history shows that the government has needed to step in to protect people like london, who simply wants to enjoy with his family what almost everyone else can, from people like you, who feel it is your right to deny him that enjoyment because of his skin color.

I feel a need for an authority to protect my freedom, not limit them.

hence why we have civil rights, because folks like london want their freedom protected as well. especially from harmful bigots who would advocate for re-legalizing discrimination on the sole basis of skin color.

we are Greece. What we are doing now is a big fuck you to future generations. We've become dependent on our government to shape society when society is always decades ahead. Progress will be stunted by decades.

reported as spam.

 

[nitro harley]

history shows that the government has needed to step in to protect people like london, who simply wants to enjoy with his family what almost everyone else can, from people like you, who feel it is your right to deny him that enjoyment because of his skin color.



hence why we have civil rights, because folks like london want their freedom protected as well. especially from harmful bigots who would advocate for re-legalizing discrimination on the sole basis of skin color.



reported as spam.

Buck.

I don't know how anybody can dummy down enough to believe a word of what you are pumping. All I can do is feel sorry for your believers. Good luck in 2016, I predict another Boot in the ass coming.

 

[UncleBuck]

Buck.

I don't know how anybody can dummy down enough to believe a word of what you are pumping. All I can do is feel sorry for your believers. Good luck in 2016, I predict another Boot in the ass coming.

are you saying that we don't have a dozen members on this forum who advocate for the right to kick people out of their (mainly hypothetical) stores based on skin color alone?

because we do, loser.

 

[londonfog]

are you saying that we don't have a dozen members on this forum who advocate for the right to kick people out of their (mainly hypothetical) stores based on skin color alone?

because we do, loser.

Rob Roy would march for the right of others to be able to kick people out a business open to the public due to skin color, religion or sexual preference. He argues this daily.

 

[UncleBuck]

Rob Roy would march for the right of others to be able to kick people out a business open to the public due to skin color, religion or sexual preference. He argues this daily.

nlxsk, ginwilly, kynes, desert dude, and many others do as well. just not daily.

 

[NLXSK1]

Rob Roy would march for the right of others to be able to kick people out a business open to the public due to skin color, religion or sexual preference. He argues this daily.

Yes. You should be able to open a business to the public and kick everyone out!!! Cause that's what Racists do!!

 

[ChesusRice]

Yes. You should be able to open a business to the public and kick everyone out!!! Cause that's what Racists do!!

That was actually what businesses did for a 100 years or more.
Why do you hate civil rights so much?

 

[Rob Roy]

Once again not force when you agree.

Without meaning to, you've actually stumbled onto the obvious answer.

The reciprocal then is true, it is force, when YOU the individual do not agree (consent).

 

[Rob Roy]

No one is being forced to interact. If you don't want to associate with certain people,don't open a business that is open to the public.
In your world we would still need force to stop people from interacting with those who did not want to associate.
Sorry but I refused to fight the fight that could lead once again to segregation. Property rights do not trump civil rights. If you make your property private, you can dictate who you want to deal with. Open to the public, means just that.

Force to repel a persons initiated aggression is defensive force, which is a right we all have, to DEFEND ourselves and our justly acquired property. Agree?

Of course property rights trump so called civil rights. Know why? Property rights respect the non initiation of aggression principle and so called civil rights violate them or potentially do. They insist that a neutral person on his own property interact with somebody or face initiated aggression by the state. It's never right to start the aggression, even if you're the state. It's always best to leave others alone, if that is their wish. Don't you agree?

Of course there should be no forced segregation. Of course there should be no FORCED integration, either.

You use an interesting technique of boot licking when you sychophantically gulp down the oxymmoronic definitions you apply to property. All private property originally was private property regardless of how it was intended to be used....what happened to change that? More importantly did it reveal something?

 

[UncleBuck]

there should be no FORCED integration

so you are forced to interact with black people? you wouldn't interact with black people unless you were forced to?

 

[UncleBuck]

It's never right to start the aggression

you should take your own advice and stop initiating aggression against people on the sole basis of their skin color.

your racist aggression is th whole reason why we have civil rights, ya know.

because racists like you can't play nice.

 

[CC Dobbs]

Force to repel a persons initiated aggression is defensive force, which is a right we all have, to DEFEND ourselves and our justly acquired property. Agree?

Of course property rights trump so called civil rights. Know why? Property rights respect the non initiation of aggression principle and so called civil rights violate them or potentially do. They insist that a neutral person on his own property interact with somebody or face initiated aggression by the state. It's never right to start the aggression, even if you're the state. It's always best to leave others alone, if that is their wish. Don't you agree?

Of course there should be no forced segregation. Of course there should be no FORCED integration, either.

You use an interesting technique of boot licking when you sychophantically gulp down the oxymmoronic definitions you apply to property. All private property originally was private property regardless of how it was intended to be used....what happened to change that? More importantly did it reveal something?

Property rights and civil rights are not comparable. Your twisted logic is impressively....twisted but ultimately bullshit. You desperately want to justify your intolerance but it is pretty obvious you are just stupid.

 

[Rob Roy]

so you are forced to interact with black people? you wouldn't interact with black people unless you were forced to?

I think you are funny. Not in a comedic way though.

I wouldn't force people to interact or prevent those that want to interact from doing so.

You can't say that though.


I think the race part clouds the issue and is irrelevant.

 

[UncleBuck]

Property rights and civil rights are not comparable. Your twisted logic is impressively....twisted but ultimately bullshit. You desperately want to justify your intolerance but it is pretty obvious you are just stupid.

he refuses to answer the straightforward question: did the exclusionary, segregationist, pre-civil rights practices cause harm?

obviously they did, even most racists on this forum agree much harm was caused.

but he refuses to answer because if he did, his entire argument would be destroyed. no one has a right to cause harm, but he thinks they do in this case.