if we abolish the IRS, how will red states get their welfare?

UncleBuck said:
"remaining on his own property"

"no actionable harm"

"indifference"

"property rights"
Click to expand...


Please explain which words they replace or cover for. I think a case can be made that they are distinct and separate concepts.

I'm sure you will dive right in, as your history of buttressing your arguments is so glowing.

Also, please stop collaterally damaging the floor at Wendys. Thank you.
 
Its all good , it was a wild card guess in 3 posts , non political too, like trying to solve the puzzle on wheel of fortune with 3 letters showing

have a good one y'all
 
whitebb2727 said:
I understand that. First I apologize to any one gay if I offended you.

There are some extreme right wingers. Most of us in Ky are hard workers.

I know Ky has a lot of welfare. Look up " breaking mountain pride.".

The Obama thing was stupid. I didn't mean what it sounded like. I don't agree with Obama on everything. I also don't think he is the worst president ever.

I got to bust balls a little. Its just the internet. I think if we were to meet in person that you would find I'm a respectful person. I have never been mean to someone over my beliefs.

Inbred welfare drawing hicks is a stereotype.

I will man up and say I was wrong for the gay statement. It is something that has been said to me all my life. I guess I parroted it. I apologize.
Click to expand...

really? where do you think we got it from?

then why didn't you send alison lundergan grimes to washington?

she was for the people..not mitch 'money-bags' mc connell or rand 'the insult candidate' paul..

you see..when mitch 'the bitch' and rand 'the man' speak of 'low taxes, small government'..that doesn't mean for YOU..the average everyday republican voter.

THEY ARE REFERRING TO THEMSELVES, THE WEALTHY, ONLY!!!

:wall: wake up kentucky! your dem governor has done more for 'the people' than mitch and randy ever will..ever heard of a little something called 'connect kentucky'?
 
Last edited:
Rob Roy said:
Please explain which words they replace or cover for.
Click to expand...

what you describe as "remaining on his own property" is better described as "being hostile and racist to deny service to peo;ple with the wrong skin color".

"indifference" would characterize a store owner who served anyone, without regard to their skin color. not someone who actively denied service to people of a certain skin color based on his aggressive, non-peaceful, racist hostility.

"actionable harm" does not describe someone offering a store owner money in exchange for goods and services, as that is how stores are meant to work.

nothing which causes harm is a right, thus you cannot call denying service to blacks and gays a "property right".

these are all euphemism you use in a lame attempt to conceal the racist, bigoted nature of the views you support.
 
UncleBuck said:
what you describe as "remaining on his own property" is better described as "being hostile and racist to deny service to peo;ple with the wrong skin color".

"indifference" would characterize a store owner who served anyone, without regard to their skin color. not someone who actively denied service to people of a certain skin color based on his aggressive, non-peaceful, racist hostility.

"actionable harm" does not describe someone offering a store owner money in exchange for goods and services, as that is how stores are meant to work.

nothing which causes harm is a right, thus you cannot call denying service to blacks and gays a "property right".

these are all euphemism you use in a lame attempt to conceal the racist, bigoted nature of the views you support.
Click to expand...
Couldn't of said it better. I think if we keep calling them racist and bigots, they will start to realize thats what they are, racist
 
Last edited:
UncleBuck said:
what you describe as "remaining on his own property" is better described as "being hostile and racist to deny service to peo;ple with the wrong skin color".

"indifference" would characterize a store owner who served anyone, without regard to their skin color. not someone who actively denied service to people of a certain skin color based on his aggressive, non-peaceful, racist hostility.

"actionable harm" does not describe someone offering a store owner money in exchange for goods and services, as that is how stores are meant to work.

nothing which causes harm is a right, thus you cannot call denying service to blacks and gays a "property right".

these are all euphemism you use in a lame attempt to conceal the racist, bigoted nature of the views you support.
Click to expand...

What would be hostile to somebody, (in an actionable way) would be to leave your property and go to somebody else property and do things to them....like forcing an interaction on another persons property. Burglars and rapist do that, don't they? The KKK did that too. Why are you copying their methods?.

Indifference could mean what you described. It could also mean indifferent to your needs or wants, not helping, but not keeping you from helping yourself, neutral in a sense. There are starving children in (fill in the blank) if you are not sending them money or harming them, you are being indifferent. No dog in the fight.

Stores are ultimately private property. Your rationale isn't how private property works. You've reduced the owner of private property to being a servant / tenant that must interact with somebody, under threat of force, like it or not. Your reasons why they should do something or not do something with their property do not shift the ownership of that property do they?


You were close with your nothing which causes harm...but off base some. Nothing which INITIATES harm is what you should have said. You can't initiate harm, when you are not interacting with somebody. If someone tries to force an unwanted interaction, you would be justified in using defensive force to repel that wouldn't you? Can't a rapists resist an assault? Can't a person defend their property from unwanted persons?

Initiating force to create an unwanted interaction causes a harm to at least one party.

Well, you struck out again, but thanks for playing.
 
foreverflyhi said:
Couldn't of said it better. I think if we keep calling them racist and bigots, they will start to realize thats what they are, racist
Click to expand...

Yes it's a well known "fact" that repetitive bleating of a lie can change it to truth. I think you have to click your heels 3 times and say "there's no place like home too."
 
Rob Roy said:
What would be hostile to somebody, (in an actionable way) would be to leave your property and go to somebody else property and do things to them....like forcing an interaction on another persons property. Burglars and rapist do that, don't they?
Click to expand...

are you comparing the act of offering money to a store owner in exchange for goods and services to rape and burglary?

jesus fucking christ you are indoctrinated into your little cult.

what is the most peaceful way to kick someone out of your store because of their skin color?

Rob Roy said:
The KKK did that too. Why are you copying their methods?.
Click to expand...

kicking people out of stores because of their skin color is a method the KKK would use, and interestingly, also a method you advocate legalizing.

Rob Roy said:
Indifference could mean what you described. It could also mean indifferent to your needs or wants, not helping, but not keeping you from helping yourself, neutral in a sense.
Click to expand...

what is the most neutral way to kick someone out of a store because of their skin color then?

Rob Roy said:
Stores are ultimately private property. Your rationale isn't how private property works. You've reduced the owner of private property to being a servant / tenant that must interact with somebody, under threat of force, like it or not.
Click to expand...

name one store that has been forced to be a public store rather than a private one then.

Rob Roy said:
You were close with your nothing which causes harm...but off base some. Nothing which INITIATES harm is what you should have said. You can't initiate harm, when you are not interacting with somebody.
Click to expand...

were blacks deprived of the same selection of goods and services, thereby facing reduced competition, higher prices, and barriers to entry?

history says they were, and you said those three things cause harm.

are you denying that blacks were harmed when hostile racists were allowed to kick them out of stores based on their skin color?

Rob Roy said:
If someone tries to force an unwanted interaction, you would be justified in using defensive force to repel that wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

why would you open a store and then "defend" yourself against people offering money to you for your goods and services?

oh, that's right. because the person offering money has the wrong skin color.

Rob Roy said:
Can't a person defend their property from unwanted persons?
Click to expand...

yes, by opening a private store instead of a public one.

then you can deny all the folks you want because they have the wrong skin color. your utopia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top