the truest words ever spoken in american politics

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

Protect yourself!

Start by turning off geotagging on your photo taking device (Digital camera, cell phone, tablet) you'd be surprised how much info is on there.

Right click on any photo, scroll to info.

B4L

 

[Elwood Diggler]

Roast Pot grows is working with the cops. Not to mention he gladly gives out member e-mail addresses and other info to random people. Uncle Buck is the snitch. Wake the hell up. His constant obsession with doxing people, finding out who they are, and divulging personal information makes it extremely obvious. Go ahead and ask him who he got my e-mail address from. This website is about tracking, and then ripping off growers.

who got ripped off?

 

[Rob Roy]

rob roy, who is a fellow "libertarian", like you, thinks that it should be legal for 87 year old men to have sex with 11 year old boys.

he also thinks it should be legal to deny service to people if they are black.

why do you and your fellow lolbertarians have these racist, pedophile beliefs?

i haven't seen any muslims on RIU endorse pedophilia or racism, ever.

but rob roy and undertheice both have. many more "libertarians" have endorsed racism, but not pedophilia.


why do you not speak out against pedophilia and racism in your own ideological circle?

I've never endorsed either. I have said that a person of any race be the person to decide how they will use their own body and their property as long as the use doesn't negate the right of others to do the same with THEIR property. That can mean I personally approve, disapprove or remain neutral concerning WHAT others do, but I recognize their right to do it.

As long as the actions are confined to their own body and property etc. I don't think it's any of my business to intervene, you do though. You are a PROHIBITIONIST, I am not.

You are afraid to critically examine my position and in order to rebut it, you rely strongly on innuendo and false allegation which is the tactic of a person with a poor argument.

Do you endorse shitting on other people's floors without their permission or do you think before you do it again, you should at least ask the owner ?

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

I've never endorsed either. I have said that a person of any race be the person to decide how they will use their own body and their property as long as the use doesn't negate the right of others to do the same with THEIR property. That can mean I personally approve, disapprove or remain neutral concerning WHAT others do, but I recognize their right to do it.

As long as the actions are confined to their own body and property etc. I don't think it's any of my business to intervene, you do though. You are a PROHIBITIONIST, I am not.

You are afraid to critically examine my position and in order to rebut it, you rely strongly on innuendo and false allegation which is the tactic of a person with a poor argument.

Do you endorse shitting on other people's floors without their permission or do you think before you do it again, you should at least ask the owner ?

You mean pedophelia is not negating the rights of other folk who are not capable do the same?

B4L

 

[desert dude]

A bitter clinger fired, then rehired.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/11/worker-fired-for-carrying-gun-on-company-property-given-job-back.html

 

[Rob Roy]

You mean pedophelia is not negating the rights of other folk who are not capable do the same?

B4L

I'm not sure I follow your question, but I'll give it a go...

A person capable of consenting to something (having the mental capacity and the right of self ownership) could consent to something you or I might not consent to. My recognition of a competent persons right to consent to some things is not an endorsement of those things they may have consented to.

For instance, any competent person that wants to consume a dozen donuts a day has the right to, but they don't have my endorsement of their action as it isn't an action I'd take. Further it isn't an action I think other people should force the donut glutton to cease. Ridicule maybe, ignore maybe or even refuse to enable, but to prohibit outright would be wrong.

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

I'm not sure I follow your question, but I'll give it a go...

A person capable of consenting to something (having the mental capacity and the right of self ownership) could consent to something you or I might not consent to. My recognition of a competent persons right to consent to some things is not an endorsement of those things they may have consented to.

For instance, any competent person that wants to consume a dozen donuts a day has the right to, but they don't have my endorsement of their action as it isn't an action I'd take. Further it isn't an action I think other people should force the donut glutton to cease. Ridicule maybe, ignore maybe or even refuse to enable, but to prohibit outright would be wrong.

But when an adult imposes his will over a child who's incapable of making choices that's criminal and morally despicable.

B4L

 

[Rob Roy]

But when an adult imposes his will over a child who's incapable of making choices that's criminal and morally despicable.

B4L

When any person or group of persons does that to another person it is criminal and despicable.


Hey, wait a minute....isn't that EXACTLY what the business model of government is?

 

[Blunted 4 lyfe]

When any person or group of persons does that to another person it is criminal and despicable.


Hey, wait a minute....isn't that EXACTLY what the business model of government is?

In your parallel universe maybe, but on this one...naw!

B4L

 

[Rob Roy]

In your parallel universe maybe, but on this one...naw!

B4L

The evidence clearly favors my assertion that in the case of a coercion based government, the business model / mode of operation is the same. My assertion requires a bit of extrapolation, but it's not far fetched.

Please do feel free to continue to participate in the mass human superstition you are part of though, it will pass as most of them do.

 

[Rob Roy]

You mean pedophelia is not negating the rights of other folk who are not capable do the same?

B4L

No, that is not what I mean. I am speaking more in general terms, that I favor peaceful self ownership as a primary right of the individual. The pedo stuff, is merely a distraction added in by the Prohibitionist Cheesus and his pack of jackals.

I do not favor any peaceful person capable of running their own life, being prevented from doing so. That is not my endorsement of the choices they make, it is my endorsement that they not be prevented from making their own choices.

 

[londonfog]

I'm not sure I follow your question, but I'll give it a go...

A person capable of consenting to something (having the mental capacity and the right of self ownership) could consent to something you or I might not consent to. My recognition of a competent persons right to consent to some things is not an endorsement of those things they may have consented to.

For instance, any competent person that wants to consume a dozen donuts a day has the right to, but they don't have my endorsement of their action as it isn't an action I'd take. Further it isn't an action I think other people should force the donut glutton to cease. Ridicule maybe, ignore maybe or even refuse to enable, but to prohibit outright would be wrong.

so we should not stop the donuts glutton from being a donuts glutton is just like we should not stop a child of 13 from having sex with a 31 year old ? DUDE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING.

 

[Rob Roy]

so we should not stop the donuts glutton from being a donuts glutton is just like we should not stop a child of 13 from having sex with a 31 year old ? DUDE WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING.

I'm saying that a person capable of providing consent should be the ultimate authority in how they run their OWN life.

I am not saying that Chesus Rice should offer donuts to his baby sitter to obtain sexual favors from him or her if they are incapable of forming consent.

 

[londonfog]

I'm saying that a person capable of providing consent should be the ultimate authority in how they run their OWN life.

I am not saying that Chesus Rice should offer donuts to his baby sitter to obtain sexual favors from him or her if they are incapable of forming consent.

but you do agree the law states that a person of 13 cannot consent to sex with an adult of 33 and rightly so.

 

[oldtimer54]

because health care costs are inevitable. and when you inevitably have some health care costs that you can't afford, people like me and londonfog will have to pick up the tab for your uninsured ass.

the penalty is simply an actuarial hedge against dumbasses like you who think they are invincible.

but then again, i already have the pleasure of paying for your socialized healthcare. thanks again for your invaluable service in a pointless conflict of choice which in no way made us any freer.

We're and by we're I mean all tax payers are already paying for it and people who've had insurance for years thru the same carrier who's premiums increased when Obama care was instituted are paying for it and the fine for people who find it cheaper to pay the fine instead of getting the medical insurance are paying for it ...... It will crash under it's on weight. And I voted for Obama because of his commitment to affordable health care.

 

[Rob Roy]

but you do agree the law states that a person of 13 cannot consent to sex with an adult of 33 and rightly so.

Some statutory laws align with how I would have others run their lives, but the catch is I don't think it's up to me or anyone to run another persons life. For instance in most places murder of a serf by a serf is outlawed. I think that's a good concept. I just wish it extended to murder of a serf by a nobleman or king or a president or a mercenary etc.

I'm sure you agree with that and rightly so.

 

[londonfog]

Some statutory laws align with how I would have others run their lives, but the catch is I don't think it's up to me or anyone to run another persons life. For instance in most places murder of a serf by a serf is outlawed. I think that's a good concept. I just wish it extended to murder of a serf by a nobleman or king or a president or a mercenary etc.

I'm sure you agree with that and rightly so.

ok let me ask this way.If you had a neighbor who told you he enjoyed fucking young girls between the age of 10 and 15, whilst he was at the age of 40 and you kept seeing young girls in and out of his home, what would you do ?

 

[Rob Roy]

ok let me ask this way.If you had a neighbor who told you he enjoyed fucking young girls between the age of 10 and 15, whilst he was at the age of 40 and you kept seeing young girls in and out of his home, what would you do ?

Ask him if his name was Chesus Rice and why his arms were so skinny.


Okay, I'll give you a straight answer. At a minimum I'd not associate with him on a personal level. Although your scenario doesn't provide absolute proof that what he says is what he actually does. What would you do...peek in his windows ?

 

[ChesusRice]

ok let me ask this way.If you had a neighbor who told you he enjoyed fucking young girls between the age of 10 and 15, whilst he was at the age of 40 and you kept seeing young girls in and out of his home, what would you do ?

He already has stated that if a person tries to intervene between a willing child and an adult having sex, that person intervening is the real molester.

His words

 

[londonfog]

Ask him if his name was Chesus Rice and why his arms were so skinny.


Okay, I'll give you a straight answer. At a minimum I'd not associate with him on a personal level. Although your scenario doesn't provide absolute proof that what he says is what he actually does. What would you do...peek in his windows ?

I'm more of a man about it. I would ask him straight up if he was fucking these young girls. If yes. I would call the police on this creepy fuckn pedophile.