The Democratic Party Autopsy Report

[Unclebaldrick]

Supremacist-an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

Ill give you this, you are an expert at saying absolutely nothing. You have trouble responding directly to any statement and you simply cant answer any straight forward questions honestly. I gave you the bait in my grammar, and chewed it down to the bone because there is no substance to anything you say at all.. All im getting here is the arrogance of not having to give a shit about any other culture but your own. That is why you are....SUPREMASTIC.

Supremastic? You know the best words.

 

[SunnyJim]

Supremacist-an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

Ill give you this, you are an expert at saying absolutely nothing. You have trouble responding directly to any statement and you simply cant answer any straight forward questions honestly. I gave you the bait in my grammar, and chewed it down to the bone because there is no substance to anything you say at all.. All im getting here is the arrogance of not having to give a shit about any other culture but your own. That is why you are....SUPREMASTIC.

I have trouble responding to your questions because, by your own admission, you consistently make grammatical errors and use gibberish in your posts. It isn't baiting, it's childish.

Please provide a quote of me saying "I don't have/want to give a shit about any other culture than my own." Apropos, what is 'my culture'?

 

[UncleBuck]

Supremacist-an advocate of the supremacy of a particular group, especially one determined by race or sex.

Ill give you this, you are an expert at saying absolutely nothing. You have trouble responding directly to any statement and you simply cant answer any straight forward questions honestly. I gave you the bait in my grammar, and chewed it down to the bone because there is no substance to anything you say at all.. All im getting here is the arrogance of not having to give a shit about any other culture but your own. That is why you are....SUPREMASTIC.

"no, you're the supremacist" says the guy who hates the law which allowed black people to eat at the same lunch counter as whites.

 

[Fogdog]

Supremastic? You know the best words.

Don't forget the word "sumprastery", defined as: A camp for white supremacists to gather and chant racist and antisemitic slogans such as:

Jews will not replace us
Blood and soil

also

Lock her up

 

[Fogdog]

also,

built a wall - kill them all

 

[Rob Roy]

I have no doubt you will.




And this statement makes no sense. Let's try to unpack it.



My statement is the 'typical supremacist school of thought'? Indecipherable jargon. It seems you're struggling with the definition of 'supremacist'. There is no 'supremacy' in the Civil Rights Act. Serve customers of all races/ethnicity in your restaurant, or serve no one in your restaurant.



My reasoning has been completely 'shitcanned'? By who, you and Rob Roy? Good one.



If you're saying that you end these civil rights discussions by saying "Well if you don't like you can always go back to Africa," I believe you.


And now for the next one:



We'll pretend that you aren't making up words like 'supremastic' to support your argument because it isn't even the most outrageous component of your statement, your statement is more outrageous when taken in its entirety.

Blacks have been enslaved, segregated and denied service for millennia. Please provide an example of when times were golden for black people until "state governments made sure blacks could no longer provide their own services."

There is no 'supremacy' in the Civil Rights Act. Serve customers of all races/ethnicity in your restaurant, or serve no one in your restaurant. - Sunnyjim's claim.

I'd say you are not being logical and consistent and possibly willfully ignorant. Yes there IS a supremacy theme to this.

The supremacy doesn't reside with the individual person though, where it should, it resides with the entity threatening offensive force, not to mention it reveals your duplicity and blindness to force when applied by government, which is really just a collection of individual people, none of whom have any greater rights than those they oppress. Here let me show you...

If all people are to have equal rights (they should) that would mean each individual person has self determination. Which obviously means control over their own body and their own property, but not the body and property of others. How else would "equal rights" be observed if this were not true? (Rhetorical question, which you would have avoided answering anyway) It is true. If another person or other people determine the use of your body and your property AGAINST YOUR WILL, and you had been maintaining a neutral status, it can only mean you either DON'T have the right to control your own body etc. or somebody else does. If somebody else does, then they are claiming to have MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU DO.
More rights for some over less rights for others does not equal, "equal rights". It is impossible.


So, what is REALLY happening is EQUAL OPPRESSION AND EQUAL DENIAL of self determination of the individual by other people claiming the right to deny an individual the right of self determination.

Very similar to so called equal marriage rights for gay people. Of course gay people should be able to decide with whom they will associate, but a gay person doesn't gain anything when they are also made to seek permission from government to marry. All they gain is the same level of oppression of everyone else. Government has no business making people ask for permission to marry and to pay for a marriage license whether they are gay or straight. It's none of their business, it's the business of the people involved in the marriage, not mine, not yours, not anyone elses.

Clearly when force or the threat of force is applied to a neutral person who is not applying offensive force to another person or another persons property the entity employing the offensive force is in the act of DENYING a right. If that were not true, you would be saying that individual people do NOT own their own body and their property, which is consistent with the belief of a prohibitionist.

So, why are you opposed to equal rights?

 

[Rob Roy]

Run away to the public school he goes to, or down the paved city road, or to deliver your tax payments personally?

Your argument seems to feature the idea that if a person provides a so called "service" to you, that you didn't want or are disallowed to acquire from anybody but the so called service provider you still have an obligation to pay the extorter.

So, when will you be sending me money? I know you never asked for it, but I psychoanalyzed you and I usually get several hundred dollars for that service. Pay up or I will send men with guns to evict you and we will seize your house.

You of course will be unable to refute this analogy and possibly unable to comprehend it.

 

[Rob Roy]

I'm sure he/she will be a real charm at public school.

If government schools are such a good idea why do they require the threat of force for funding ?

Doesn't sound very charming.

 

[Rob Roy]

you've got it 100% backwards.

it is people like you and tobroy and twopump who hate civil rights laws and are racist who say that racist shit.

I like the intent of people who wish everyone would get along. I don't like racists or people who force their views on others and others property. Which of those kinds of people are you?

So when you are engaging your neighbors and they don't share your ideas. but they are willing to leave you alone, do you get the other neighbors together to threaten them with force if they don't do things your way?

 

[SunnyJim]

There is no 'supremacy' in the Civil Rights Act. Serve customers of all races/ethnicity in your restaurant, or serve no one in your restaurant. - Sunnyjim's claim.

I'd say you are not being logical and consistent and possibly willfully ignorant. Yes there IS a supremacy theme to this.

The supremacy doesn't reside with the individual person though, where it should

We get it, Rob Roy. You think supremacy should reside with the individual, specifically white supremacy over blacks.

Please show me where I have not been logical, consistent, or cite an example of my willful ignorance.

it resides with the entity threatening offensive force, not to mention it reveals your duplicity and blindness to force when applied by government, which is really just a collection of individual people, none of whom have any greater rights than those they oppress. Here let me show you...

Please show me where I have been duplicitous using my own quotes. You are drawing a false equivalence between my words and your ideology. I have stated many times that government does hold certain rights over individual citizens, and rightly so, or we'd be reverting back to times of vigilante justice; primitive and uncivilized.

If all people are to have equal rights (they should) that would mean each individual person has self determination. Which obviously means control over their own body and their own property, but not the body and property of others. How else would "equal rights" be observed if this were not true? (Rhetorical question, which you would have avoided answering anyway) It is true. If another person or other people determine the use of your body and your property AGAINST YOUR WILL, and you had been maintaining a neutral status, it can only mean you either DON'T have the right to control your own body etc. or somebody else does. If somebody else does, then they are claiming to have MORE RIGHTS THAN YOU DO.
More rights for some over less rights for others does not equal, "equal rights". It is impossible.

Another glaring false equivalence. Equal rights does not entitle the individual to 'self-determine' without qualification. As such, this paragraph is one big moot point. Many counter-examples have been provided to you on other threads highlighting this logical fallacy you keep regurgitating. Repeating it umpteen times won't bring any truth to it. Who arbitrates the madness when two [or more] individuals' rights to self-determine collide? Elected officials, not either individual in conflict with the other.

So, what is REALLY happening is EQUAL OPPRESSION AND EQUAL DENIAL of self determination of the individual by other people claiming the right to deny an individual the right of self determination.

On this we can agree, although I wouldn't label making it a federally legal requirement for whites to serve blacks in restaurants (and vise versa) as 'equal oppression'. Your choice of words is extremely telling, it must be said. It would be beneficial to all if you would see it as a black customer's equal right to be served by anyone, rather than the racist white waiter being oppressed from showing his racism and denying the black person service. Racism and bigotry must be 'equally oppressed'.

Very similar to so called equal marriage rights for gay people. Of course gay people should be able to decide with whom they will associate, but a gay person doesn't gain anything when they are also made to seek permission from government to marry. All they gain is the same level of oppression of everyone else. Government has no business making people ask for permission to marry and to pay for a marriage license whether they are gay or straight. It's none of their business, it's the business of the people involved in the marriage, not mine, not yours, not anyone elses.

Again, we get it. All laws are oppressive to the belief in your right to unequivocal self-determination. We also understand your belief in the right of a pedophile to groom, manipulate, and ultimately convince a child to engage in sexual activity with him (or marry him) without the 'threat' of 'governmental oppression'.

Clearly when force or the threat of force is applied to a neutral person who is not applying offensive force to another person or another persons property the entity employing the offensive force is in the act of DENYING a right. If that were not true, you would be saying that individual people do NOT own their own body and their property, which is consistent with the belief of a prohibitionist.

So, why are you opposed to equal rights?

Come on, Rob Roy. You have to employ a new tactic. Your responses are littered with tired false equivalences. I have repeatedly stated that the individual should not have total freedom to operate as they choose, because total individual freedom can come at the expense of others. The rules of 'individual freedom' should be equal to all, regardless of race, origin, gender, etc.

Believing that certain behavior should be prohibited for the benefit/safety of another (or others) is consistent with prohibitionism? Only if you lack the capacity to understand prohibitionist political ideology. I am completely supportive of equal rights.

 

[Unclebaldrick]

We get it, Rob Roy. You think supremacy should reside with the individual, specifically white supremacy over blacks.

Please show me where I have not been logical, consistent, or cite an example of my willful ignorance.



Please show me where I have been duplicitous using my own quotes. You are drawing a false equivalence between my words and your ideology. I have stated many times that government does hold certain rights over individual citizens, and rightly so, or we'd be reverting back to times of vigilante justice; primitive and uncivilized.



Another glaring false equivalence. Equal rights does not entitle the individual to 'self-determine' without qualification. As such, this paragraph is one big moot point. Many counter-examples have been provided to you on other threads highlighting this logical fallacy you keep regurgitating. Repeating it umpteen times won't bring any truth to it. Who arbitrates the madness when two [or more] individuals' rights to self-determine collide? Elected officials, not either individual in conflict with the other.



On this we can agree, although I wouldn't label making it a federally legal requirement for whites to serve blacks in restaurants (and vise versa) as 'equal oppression'. Your choice of words is extremely telling, it must be said. It would be beneficial to all if you would see it as a black customer's equal right to be served by anyone, rather than the racist white waiter being oppressed from showing his racism and denying the black person service. Racism and bigotry must be 'equally oppressed'.



Again, we get it. All laws are oppressive to the belief in your right to unequivocal self-determination. We also understand your belief in the right of a pedophile to groom, manipulate, and ultimately convince a child to engage in sexual activity with him (or marry him) without the 'threat' of 'governmental oppression'.



Come on, Rob Roy. You have to employ a new tactic. Your responses are littered with tired false equivalences. I have repeatedly stated that the individual should not have total freedom to operate as they choose, because total individual freedom can come at the expense of others. The rules of 'individual freedom' should be equal to all, regardless of race, origin, gender, etc.

Believing that certain behavior should be prohibited for the benefit/safety of another (or others) is consistent with prohibitionism? Only if you lack the capacity to understand prohibitionist political ideology. I am completely supportive of equal rights.

Rob Roy is one big moot point; over and over and over again.

 

[PCXV]

Your argument seems to feature the idea that if a person provides a so called "service" to you, that you didn't want or are disallowed to acquire from anybody but the so called service provider you still have an obligation to pay the extorter.

So, when will you be sending me money? I know you never asked for it, but I psychoanalyzed you and I usually get several hundred dollars for that service. Pay up or I will send men with guns to evict you and we will seize your house.

You of course will be unable to refute this analogy and possibly unable to comprehend it.

Because psychoanalysis is equivalent to a road everyone has to share. Your ideas are simple to comprehend, but they are also easy to poke holes in.

I was just pointing out what a good complicit slave you are. How do you justify paying taxes, assuming you do? Is it straight up fear or do you see any merit in the prosperity the current system has afforded?

 

[PCXV]

I like the intent of people who wish everyone would get along. I don't like racists or people who force their views on others and others property. Which of those kinds of people are you?

So when you are engaging your neighbors and they don't share your ideas. but they are willing to leave you alone, do you get the other neighbors together to threaten them with force if they don't do things your way?

That's what happened throughout the CRM. Sometimes a society just says enough is enough when it comes to senseless wrongdoing.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't like racists

you said it was 'polite and reasonable' to hang 'no negroes allowed' signs.

 

[SneekyNinja]

you said it was 'polite and reasonable' to hang 'no negroes allowed' signs.

Inb4 "Disallowing it is rape and slavery..."

 

[londonfog]

If government schools are such a good idea why do they require the threat of force for funding ?

Doesn't sound very charming.

because blokes like you, would just take advantage of a free education without wanting to pay in. I for one like that ALL children have a chance to form a base of education in math and science (fuck English and HisStory) with public education. Would you prefer a nation filled with more idiots than we all ready have ? Get that check book out when it is time to pay those property taxes and think of the babies...even the three you sent to public schooling.

 

[londonfog]

Because psychoanalysis is equivalent to a road everyone has to share. Your ideas are simple to comprehend, but they are also easy to poke holes in.

I was just pointing out what a good complicit slave you are. How do you justify paying taxes, assuming you do? Is it straight up fear or do you see any merit in the prosperity the current system has afforded?

of course our Robbie pays taxes. He is an obedient little slave, just complains a little bit more than the rest.

 

[Rob Roy]

We get it, Rob Roy. You think supremacy should reside with the individual, specifically white supremacy over blacks.

Please show me where I have not been logical, consistent, or cite an example of my willful ignorance.



Please show me where I have been duplicitous using my own quotes. You are drawing a false equivalence between my words and your ideology. I have stated many times that government does hold certain rights over individual citizens, and rightly so, or we'd be reverting back to times of vigilante justice; primitive and uncivilized.



Another glaring false equivalence. Equal rights does not entitle the individual to 'self-determine' without qualification. As such, this paragraph is one big moot point. Many counter-examples have been provided to you on other threads highlighting this logical fallacy you keep regurgitating. Repeating it umpteen times won't bring any truth to it. Who arbitrates the madness when two [or more] individuals' rights to self-determine collide? Elected officials, not either individual in conflict with the other.



On this we can agree, although I wouldn't label making it a federally legal requirement for whites to serve blacks in restaurants (and vise versa) as 'equal oppression'. Your choice of words is extremely telling, it must be said. It would be beneficial to all if you would see it as a black customer's equal right to be served by anyone, rather than the racist white waiter being oppressed from showing his racism and denying the black person service. Racism and bigotry must be 'equally oppressed'.



Again, we get it. All laws are oppressive to the belief in your right to unequivocal self-determination. We also understand your belief in the right of a pedophile to groom, manipulate, and ultimately convince a child to engage in sexual activity with him (or marry him) without the 'threat' of 'governmental oppression'.



Come on, Rob Roy. You have to employ a new tactic. Your responses are littered with tired false equivalences. I have repeatedly stated that the individual should not have total freedom to operate as they choose, because total individual freedom can come at the expense of others. The rules of 'individual freedom' should be equal to all, regardless of race, origin, gender, etc.

Believing that certain behavior should be prohibited for the benefit/safety of another (or others) is consistent with prohibitionism? Only if you lack the capacity to understand prohibitionist political ideology. I am completely supportive of equal rights.

If you have to conflate the other persons argument in order to refute it, you're not doing it right.

I don't believe in a collective superiority of one race over another. I believe every individual has or should have equal rights of self determination over their own body and their own property. You do not. You asked for examples of where you were being willfully ignorant. Your claim that I believe in a collective racial superiority is an instance of your being willfully ignorant.

Government CAN'T hold certain rights over people, any greater than an individual person can, as government is only made up of people. The sum of a thing cannot exceed the sum of the component parts comprising it.
Therefore if no person has any right to force you to serve them or associate with them, they could not get with other people and aggregate that nonright or "zero right" into a positive sum when they attempt to create a faith based thing called "government". To fail to admit this, is an illogical math error on your part. Go ahead and refute it, if you can.

Of course you probably won't address what I just said.

No you are not in favor of equal rights. Equal rights can't mean one person or group of persons can initiate a human interaction with a neutral peaceable person against the wishes of the neutral peaceable person. That would mean the neutral peaceable person has less right than the person(s) initiating the unwanted relationship, since they are unable to decline the wishes of the aggressing party. The same goes in the flip side Jim Crow law situation, wherein people who mutually wanted to associate were prevented from associating by a third party (government worshipping people), which means they were deprived of their rights of self determination.

The rest of your post is an attempt to personally malign me in an attempt to redirect the argument. Nice try.

 

[Rob Roy]

because blokes like you, would just take advantage of a free education without wanting to pay in. I for one like that ALL children have a chance to form a base of education in math and science (fuck English and HisStory) with public education. Would you prefer a nation filled with more idiots than we all ready have ? Get that check book out when it is time to pay those property taxes and think of the babies...even the three you sent to public schooling.

That's a really bad answer which doesn't address my question. It implies you dislike free riders, but then in the next sentence you cheerlead the free rider aspect. Could you please decide which side of your mouth you are speaking out of before you engage your tongue? A nation of idiots? Oh dear.

 

[Rob Roy]

you said it was 'polite and reasonable' to hang 'no negroes allowed' signs.

Yes, it was in response to your inquiry about what the most polite way a racist could inform other people of how he intended to use his property. Notification of ones intended uses is polite, even if the use itself may not be. I answered your setup question quite adroitly and it stifled you. You lost....again, Poopy Pants.

How would you notify somebody that you have a feces spattered bathroom floor? I hope you post a sign, but maybe you don't need to, since the odor might suffice.

I never said I agreed with the racists intended use of his property in the hypothetical situation we were politely discussing though. I do not and would not use my property in a similar way. Since I DON'T own the racist property though, it's not up to me to do anything. In response to the racist, my choice would be to ostracize the racist. Your choice would be to build a giant shit catapult and attack him?