Senator Rand Paul supports de-crim for Cannabis

Dr Kynes

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.
uhhh you are aware that 'slavery' is not unique to europeans, nor was it unknown to africans in specific.

african tribes practiced slavery among themselves, sold slaves, traded slaves, kept slaves and profited by slaves since the earliest recorded history, as did the chinese, the japanese, the native north americans, the native south americans, and basically every people and population on earth.

justifying racism, bigotry, prejudice and hate based on a perceived injustice from hundreds of years ago is just stupid.

even collonialism is not unique to europe. history is replete with african tribes who moved from their shitty land into the new better lands of their conquered and subjugated enemies.

the chinese from all the way back in the Qin Dynasty (~300 BC) set up colonies in the jungles of An Nam, among the simple and impressionable Viets who were expected to simply accept this action and kneel at the feet of the chinese, to study their ways, which were clearly superior.

but of course revolution and overthrowing your oppressors is also a european invention too.

oh wait...
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
So we are not doomed to repeat his version of it?


Sorry, doc, I could not resist. :)
 

jimmer6577

Well-Known Member
If you go to the norml website and look back to Feb. I beleive you will see a house resolution all ready in progress. It 's titled something like end marijuana prohibition act of 2013. No shit check it out.
 

Doer

Well-Known Member
Well yes, and a few threads back finshaggy submitted it had been kicked down into sub-commitee....again.. RIP
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
So we are not doomed to repeat his version of it?


Sorry, doc, I could not resist. :)
meh, i keep trying, but so many just dont get it.

accepting a philosophy, and moving FORWARD is the only solution if you want to see something new, and hopefully better.

clinging to the past will only get you what you've always gotten.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
just got the new roof on the greenhouse when it started to rain. not a lot of rain, but just enough so that we couldn't finish taping it.

i guess what i'm saying is that you guys are now stuck with me for the rest of the day.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
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.
well, that whole diatribe has nothing to do with anything in re: randy pawl's objection to title II.

but i bet it did make you feel a whole lot better.

you were so close to just coming out and saying "anti racist is code for anti white". so close.

one day.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
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.
if a business owner doesn't want to have to tangle with title II, that business owner does not have to be "open to the public".

it's that simple. title II allows 'private clubs' and the like to kick darkies out all day long with no recourse for darky.

again, sorry you don't like what the constitution has to say about this, but we're not gonna go ahead and make a new one each time some little squirt like you hits puberty and decides life is unfair.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
if a business owner doesn't want to have to tangle with title II, that business owner does not have to be "open to the public".

it's that simple. title II allows 'private clubs' and the like to kick darkies out all day long with no recourse for darky.

again, sorry you don't like what the constitution has to say about this, but we're not gonna go ahead and make a new one each time some little squirt like you hits puberty and decides life is unfair.
Your white guilt is palpable.

You can still discriminate based on food choice, color of shirt, shoe size, geographical region (must not be certain color), waist size, hair color, amount of teeth, who your daddy is (must not be certain color), IQ, looks (as long as it's not THAT look), height, weight, birth month, sex (as long as it's not female), sexual orientation (as long as it's not JUST homosexual), age (in most cases), bowling average, whether or not Bucky can beat you in arm wrestling and millions of other reasons.

Title II doesn't go nearly far enough. Except in the case of Hooters. We all want them to keep discriminating in their hires. A fat old guy bringing me 10 buck wings just doesn't have the same appeal.

Thankfully Hooters is not open to the public..
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
Title II doesn't go nearly far enough. Except in the case of Hooters. We all want them to keep discriminating in their hires. A fat old guy bringing me 10 buck wings just doesn't have the same appeal.

Thankfully Hooters is not open to the public..

That is one of the stupidest comments I have seen recently. lack of suitability is not discrimination.
 

spandy

Well-Known Member
just got the new roof on the greenhouse when it started to rain. not a lot of rain, but just enough so that we couldn't finish taping it.

i guess what i'm saying is that you guys are now stuck with me for the rest of the day.
Obviously, because its not like you have a job or anything, a few honey do's and its back to being a turd on the couch for another day.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
That is one of the stupidest comments I have seen recently. lack of suitability is not discrimination.
lack of suitability is just an opinion, who's opinion? the owner's opinion. His discrimination decides who is suitable. Title II protected certain classes while not protecting others. It's an unequal law that was made in an attempt to fix other unequal laws by treating only SOME people certain ways.

Is it more clear without examples?
 

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
lack of suitability is just an opinion, who's opinion? the owner's opinion. His discrimination decides who is suitable. Title II protected certain classes while not protecting others. It's an unequal law that was made in an attempt to fix other unequal laws by treating only SOME people certain ways.

Is it more clear without examples?
ya have to meet the basic job description first, the hooters example does not.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Title II doesn't go nearly far enough. Except in the case of Hooters. We all want them to keep discriminating in their hires. A fat old guy bringing me 10 buck wings just doesn't have the same appeal.

Thankfully Hooters is not open to the public..
title II doesn't cover who hooters employs, it covers who may go in to hooters to eat.

FAIL.

not surprising.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
ya have to meet the basic job description first, the hooters example does not.

Hooters is allowed to say no fatties need apply but if they say no black fatties need apply they will have hell fire brought down on them. My point is it's cool to discriminate as long as you do it to people you deem it's ok to discriminate against.

I think society has done a much better job at curbing racism than the government. What our government has done is brought about unequal laws in a country founded on equality. Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson had more to do with equal rights than the Equal Rights Amendment did.

We are on a pot forum ffs, I didn't expect to find so many that worship at the alter of the central government, it's depressing. I don't understand why people rationalize that making unequal laws brings about equality.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Hooters is allowed to say no fatties need apply but if they say no black fatties need apply they will have hell fire brought down on them. My point is it's cool to discriminate as long as you do it to people you deem it's ok to discriminate against.

I think society has done a much better job at curbing racism than the government. What our government has done is brought about unequal laws in a country founded on equality. Branch Rickey and Jackie Robinson had more to do with equal rights than the Equal Rights Amendment did.

We are on a pot forum ffs, I didn't expect to find so many that worship at the alter of the central government, it's depressing. I don't understand why people rationalize that making unequal laws brings about equality.
*altar

central government played a strong role in slapping the south around when they wanted to be racist dicks, i support that. make those bigoted inbreeds follow the constitution.

doesn't mean we worship central government, we just recognize that it has a place.
 
Top