Senator Rand Paul supports de-crim for Cannabis

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
they do have every right to make those decisions. private clubs are not under the jurisdiction of title II. every business owner has the right to make that decision.

if they make the decision to be open to the public though, they have to be open to the public without excluding and causing harm.
So, you agree that the government has granted itself the power to violate the individuals right of ownership by determining what that same individual will or won't do with their own property?

And you agree that "title II" a STATUTORY construction has pre-empted the individuals right to life, liberty and property ? Do you favor other laws that violate rights?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
that was not racism, that was "Social Justice" and they were just leveling the playing field due to 400 years of slavery, 500 years of oppression and 35 years of The Jeffersons in syndication.

racism can only be practiced by honkeys crackers, rednecks, and hillbillies. minorities are incabapable of racism.

you evil white devil.
those poor, persecuted whites.

they've had to endure so much over the centuries in this great nation.

poor fellas.
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Does a prostitute have the right to deny service to some prospective clients he/she would prefer not to do business with? I say yes.

Who owns your property ? Who should be able to make the rules concerning YOUR property and YOUR body ? You should.

?
Trying to compare ones body to how its used to property used in a public business is absurd.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
So, you agree that the government has granted itself the power to violate the individuals right of ownership by determining what that same individual will or won't do with their own property?

And you agree that "title II" a STATUTORY construction has pre-empted the individuals right to life, liberty and property ? Do you favor other laws that violate rights?
title II does not violate anyone's rights.

the business owner determines what happens with his own property. if he calls it a private club, he can do all the excluding he wants. if he says his property is open to the public, he can't exclude every darky or jew or gay that stops by.

good job on defending racist practices though! you deserve a fucking cookie, kid.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
If persuing happiness to you mean racism, then you have the right privately to feel any way you want.

WE, however are in the business of saying how you will act around WE. You make your choices from there.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member


  • Uncle Buck says, "jujst as i am allowed to dislike gefelte fish, but that does not give me the right to subtly sabotage the gefelte fish factory by unplugging their machines or changing the locks on the doors."

    How does one acquire the right to tell another person what they will or will not do with their own property? How come you always dance away from questions you cannot answer?






 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
How does one acquire the right to tell another person what they will or will not do with their own property?*
it's called the constitution. the constitution does not give anyone the right to harm anyone else.

sorry you don't understand this.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
the consensus here is that robroy does not seem to have gone through puberty yet.
Nope. You can only state YOUR opinion. Besides a consensus, doesn't necessarily impart correctness. I'll send you some silver back hair.

I get that you don't care for racism., neither do I. Yet I also don't care to make others do things with their own property or their bodies or the product of their labor that they choose not to do.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
it's called the constitution. the constitution does not give anyone the right to harm anyone else.

sorry you don't understand this.
Ahh, the Constitution. The one nobody alive today consented to?

So when a person or group of persons decides how you will use your body or your property, even going so far as using force to make you do things you prefer not to, does the constitution protect you? How?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Trying to compare ones body to how its used to property used in a public business is absurd.
Why? What is your reasoning? Are you saying that a person should have less ownership over their property if another individual or group of individuals says they do?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I get that you don't care for racism., neither do I. Yet I also don't care to make others do things with their own property or their bodies or the product of their labor that they choose not to do.
you can reformulate your transparent "property rights!" refrain in any manner you wish. doesn't change the fact that if you call your property open to the public, you have to be open to the public.

sorry you didn't consent to the constitution. we can't make a new one every time the next robroy hits puberty.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you can reformulate your transparent "property rights!" refrain in any manner you wish. doesn't change the fact that if you call your property open to the public, you have to be open to the public.

sorry you didn't consent to the constitution. we can't make a new one every time the next robroy hits puberty.
Property rights aren't transparent. IF they exist, then the owner of the property in question has the right to determine what will or will not occur on the property. Unwelcome external influences, whether by the "public" or a sole individual don't change the principles of ownership.

The constitution if it is to be seen as rational and in harmony with mutual respect can only bind those that explicitly agreed to it and those guys are all dead. Otherwise, you'd have a small group of rich white slave holding guys making up the rules for people that live hundreds of years later....wouldn't want that now would you?

In between your trolling and jacking off to midget porn, you might want to read the Lysander Spooner essay on the Constitution. I think you might be able to comprehend it, if you got some help with the big words.
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Why? What is your reasoning? Are you saying that a person should have less ownership over their property if another individual or group of individuals says they do?
A Persons body can never be considered to be open to the public except by specific choice because it is a persons body. A persons body is NOT property, while it appears that an individual owns his own body, thats actually incorrect because it is an integral part of his or her self rather than ownership. One cannot sell ones body to somebody else. At best that would be slavery.

A Business open to the public is what makes the use of owned property open to all equally.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Does a prostitute have the right to deny service to some prospective clients he/she would prefer not to do business with? I say yes.

Who owns your property ? Who should be able to make the rules concerning YOUR property and YOUR body ? You should.

Your fuck you, would have more impact if you weren't always insulting and straw manning. I give it a 2.5 on a scale of 10. Now, how come you never answer the questions and run to insults when somebody makes a point you can't intelligently refute?
robbie, the key is whitey.

if awhite guy doesnt date black chicks he is racist, if a white chick doesnt date black guys she is racist, but if any black person, or in fact ANY minority says "i dont date white devils" thats just dandy.

even the phrase "reverse discrimination" implies that there is some justification for discrimination by those who indulge in the "reverse" version.

a casual perusal of the comments and opinions found within this forum makes it clear, whiteness is evil, and can be held in contempt for no other reason than the prejudice of the bigot, and the lefty dream team will support his opinions as if they were holy writ

just think back on how many bigoted statements you read in this forum which would transform from acceptable, approved speech, to a deleted post if you changed "rich white old _______" to any other racial stereotype.

how many times today alone has bucky claimed that others are racist just by virtue of their daring to disagree with his opinion on some trivial matter of government policy? (dont try to count, youll be unable to keep pace.)

why has calling somebody else "Racist" become the new preferred choice in ad hominem for the Butthurt Bunch?

because it works.

nobody want to be That Guy, the guy on the outside, who can be dismissed simply because some asshole claims he is a secret member of some white supremecist forum, or because dsome asshole makes an unfounded allegation of membership in some racist organization (except the black panthers, the nation of islam, the NAACP, the black, asian, filipino, hispanic, pacific islander, etc.. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza or any other "Minority Outreach Program") as always, the seriousness of the charge is all that matters, even if it is entirely untrue.

and thats what the cry of Racist does. it negates a person based on an unfounded allegation. fuck, even if some asshole IS a raving lunatic racist (like smok3y1's rampant anti-semitism...) that doesnt make them entirely wrong on every count, it just means whenever they start screaming about whatever ethnic or cultural group they so visibly hate, you can chalk their ravings up to that firmly established visceral hate.

people like bucky would preferr racists keep their racism SECRET to protect everybody from bruised feelings, while denying us the ability to recognize the lunatics, venomous toads and fools who stalk this forum with their Newspeak and politically correct hate and ideologically acceptable racism, while excommunicating those who hold unpopular views, as if those views are somehow contagious, while the acceptable racial hatred is entirely benign.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
A Persons body can never be considered to be open to the public except by specific choice because it is a persons body. A persons body is NOT property, while it appears that an individual owns his own body, thats actually incorrect because it is an integral part of his or her self rather than ownership. One cannot sell ones body to somebody else. At best that would be slavery.

A Business open to the public is what makes the use of owned property open to all equally.

I see the distinction you are trying to make. I believe a person can and should make the decisions about their body and their property, even if you or I would prefer they make other choices. The only exception being when they start using YOUR body or your property in a manner contrary to what you like, you have a right to defend your property.

So you don't own yourself? Of course you or anybody could sell their body or rent it. People do every day.
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
I see the distinction you are trying to make. I believe a person can and should make the decisions about their body and their property, even if you or I would prefer they make other choices. The only exception being when they start using YOUR body or your property in a manner contrary to what you like, you have a right to defend your property.

So you don't own yourself? Of course you or anybody could sell their body or rent it. People do every day.
Of course not I am myself, I can use my body for money gain, but I am not selling my body because at the end of the day I walk away as myself at least legally in this country. My point of distinction between owned property in a public business and a persons body is in specific reference to why a prostitute can rightfully refuse service to another person as opposed to a piece of property as a part of a public which can be legally owned, sold or traded.

If you are unable to see the distinctintion between a business open to the public and something that is private then just say so and lets move on.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
that was not racism, that was "Social Justice" and they were just leveling the playing field due to 400 years of slavery, 500 years of oppression and 35 years of The Jeffersons in syndication.

racism can only be practiced by honkeys crackers, rednecks, and hillbillies. minorities are incabapable of racism.

you evil white devil.
You are right

I was probably being the racist just by
Existing at the place and time
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Of course not I am myself, I can use my body for money gain, but I am not selling my body because at the end of the day I walk away as myself at least legally in this country. My point of distinction between owned property in a public business and a persons body is in specific reference to why a prostitute can rightfully refuse service to another person as opposed to a piece of property as a part of a public which can be legally owned, sold or traded.

If you are unable to see the distinctintion between a business open to the public and something that is private then just say so and lets move on.
i gotta say youre not making your case. if a hooker can snap her legs together and say "no thank you" to a guy with herpes sores or track marks, or aids blotches, or any of a variety of other reasons, even down to personal preference or unreasoning fear based on racial prejudice, why can a korean shopkeeper or a filipino restauranteur, or a white banker not do the same?

shit, in the case of the banker, he must have an affirmative defense against charges of racism, or face sanctions by the federal regulators. he is legally required to make a certain number of loans to various minority borrowers, even if he is CERTAIN they will be unable to pay it back, or their security is inadequate.

even in the 80's when this quoata shit first started for the banks, they tried to leave the decision process to loan officers who would have never even seen the applicant, so the loans were judged solely on the merits of the application, but that too was insufficient, since the goal was equal outcomes, not equal opportunity.

so now a certain number of bad loans are a cost of doin business, and like all costs these expenses are passed on to the rest of us.


the ultimate hypocrisy of the New Left's agenda is that poverty causes crime, so you cannot blame the criminal for his action, black people (and to varying degrees all minorities) tend to be poorer than whites, but you cannot therefore assume the previously asserted corollary that poverty causes crime, since thats racist. further, you cannot even attempt to measure the rate per capita by which any minority commits crimes, since that too is racist.

therefore there can be no discussion of social economic or criminal problems within any ethnic group since it's all racist, but the root cause of all these assumed ills (assumed because, to evaluate them is racist) is the Racism of white people and their racist tendency to be racist and to be wealthier than minorities, which is of course caused by racism, but we cannot quantify or examine these issues, because thats racist, so we must simply assume whitey is racist, because that assumption is of course, NOT racist.

but im racist for even mentioning this.
and youre racist for reading it.
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
I wasn't talking about reverse discriminization or anything of the like, simply the distinction between business that are open to the public and those that are not.

I understand the issues with quotas, but dont really care about overregulating banks since they screwed themselves anyhow, and I fully understand the backlash thats occurring because of centuries of european colonialism and slavery.
 
Top