Affordable?

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

CC Dobbs said:
Property rights and civil rights are not comparable. Your twisted logic is impressively....twisted but ultimately bullshit. You desperately want to justify your intolerance but it is pretty obvious you are just stupid.

I don't believe we've met.

You are wrong and made an assumption, that I'm intolerant. I'm not sure if you're stupid, but I'm guessing you could be rude.

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I think you are funny. Not in a comedic way though.

I wouldn't force people to interact or prevent those that want to interact from doing so.

You can't say that though.

I think the race part clouds the issue and is irrelevant.

but you said that the integration was FORCED. you even capitalized it.

so i can come to no other conclusion other than you are FORCED to interact with blacks and wouldn't do so unless you were FORCED.

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I don't believe we've met.

You are wrong and made an assumption, that I'm intolerant. I'm not sure if you're stupid, but I'm guessing you could be rude.

rude is refusing a paying customer on the sole basis of their skin color, which is what you fight for every damn day.

not sure why you want to fight for such a racist policy to be re-legalized. seems like something an intolerant person would do.

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

londonfog said:
Rob Roy would march for the right of others to be able to kick people out a business open to the public due to skin color, religion or sexual preference. He argues this daily.

I would march for the right for every individual, regardless of gender, race or preference for floor shitting to be free to chose their own path as long as they are not keeping you from doing the same.

You can't say the same thing can you?

CC Dobbs · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I don't believe we've met.

You are wrong and made an assumption, that I'm intolerant. I'm not sure if you're stupid, but I'm guessing you could be rude.

From your posts I see that you are really intolerant and you pretend that you aren't to present a veneer of sanity when you are really a waste of time.

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

CC Dobbs said:
From your posts I see that you are really intolerant and you pretend that you aren't to present a veneer of sanity when you are really a waste of time.

Okay. Let's just leave each other alone then.

Curious though, what am I intolerant of?

ChesusRice · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
I would march for the right for every individual, regardless of gender, race or preference for floor shitting to be free to chose their own path as long as they are not keeping you from doing the same.

You can't say the same thing can you?

So a Black owner of the only gas station in town on the edge of a desert should have the right not to sell me any gas on his not wanting to serve people of my skin color?
Or maybe he just wants to sell me gas at normal price plus 50%

You are ok with that?

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
It's obvious if a person owns property and another person or entity tells them how they must use the property, force was applied.

so the government is forcing you to not shoot children with your gun?

do you even own your gun anymore if you can't shoot children with it?

Rob Roy said:
Race is not a factor in a discussion of property rights.

nice try.

if race was not a factor, then you wouldn't be complaining like a little racist bitch about "forced integration".

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

UncleBuck said:
he refuses to answer the straightforward question: did the exclusionary, segregationist, pre-civil rights practices cause harm?

obviously they did, even most racists on this forum agree much harm was caused.

but he refuses to answer because if he did, his entire argument would be destroyed. no one has a right to cause harm, but he thinks they do in this case.

Nobody has a right to initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property.

Do we agree on that or will you refuse to answer?

You're still lame. Very lame.

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Nobody has a right to initiate aggression against another person or their justly acquired property.

Do we agree on that or will you refuse to answer?

You're still lame. Very lame.

we've already established that you have no fucking clue what "initiating aggression" actually means.

for example, you think that a black person trying to pay for gas at a gas station that advertises its services to the public is "initiating aggression".

you also think that the racist gas station owner who kicks him out of there based on his skin color is being "indifferent".

so how about you answer the straightforward question on whether or not the pre-civil rights practices that you want to return to caused harm, princess.

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

ChesusRice said:
So a Black owner of the only gas station in town on the edge of a desert should have the right not to sell me any gas on his not wanting to serve people of my skin color?
Or maybe he just wants to sell me gas at normal price plus 50%

You are ok with that?

Who has the right to force an interaction on a person that isn't forcing one on you?

If the black owner of the gas station truly owns the property he has the right to use it how he sees fit. I have no right to tell him what to do, do you?

ChesusRice · Jan 4, 2015

UncleBuck said:
we've already established that you have no fucking clue what "initiating aggression" actually means.

for example, you think that a black person trying to pay for gas at a gas station that advertises its services to the public is "initiating aggression".

you also think that the racist gas station owner who kicks him out of there based on his skin color is being "indifferent".

so how about you answer the straightforward question on whether or not the pre-civil rights practices that you want to return to caused harm, princess.

LOL
YOu really expect to get an answer?

ChesusRice · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Who has the right to force an interaction on a person that isn't forcing one on you?

If the black owner of the gas station truly owns the property he has the right to use it how he sees fit. I have no right to tell him what to do, do you?

NOt under our laws.
You want bullshit like that move to Somalia

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

UncleBuck said:
so the government is forcing you to not shoot children with your gun?

do you even own your gun anymore if you can't shoot children with it?

nice try.

if race was not a factor, then you wouldn't be complaining like a little racist bitch about "forced integration".

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because you can't be as dumb as your post above, can you?

Shooting children is an act of aggression isn't it? Oh never mind, I think you are that dumb.

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

ChesusRice said:
NOt under our laws.
You want bullshit like that move to Somalia

How's the coffee tonight ? Stale and cold machine brew or are you at home hating on your kids?

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

ChesusRice said:
LOL
YOu really expect to get an answer?

nope.

and when he refuses to answer, i will declare victory using his own words.

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
Shooting children is an act of aggression isn't it?

what if you offer the kid a bag of candy and they voluntarily agree to it, like you did with your pedophilia?

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

UncleBuck said:
we've already established that you have no fucking clue what "initiating aggression" actually means.

for example, you think that a black person trying to pay for gas at a gas station that advertises its services to the public is "initiating aggression".

you also think that the racist gas station owner who kicks him out of there based on his skin color is being "indifferent".

so how about you answer the straightforward question on whether or not the pre-civil rights practices that you want to return to caused harm, princess.

Definitions? Yes let's get to them.

First though, I think you need to get to the root of the aggression. It occurred when a coercive government told people that private property was changing. A new kind of property was magically created, a pseudo public private kind, which of course is oxymoronic and illogical.

In the deal, not only did the owner of property get stripped of the primary characteristic of property (control of it) you could go to jail for thinking you still owned it. Now, WHO initiated aggression there ?

The reasons a person uses or doesn't use THEIR property can't lessen the persons validity of ownership.....unless...the government says it's okay to initiate aggression against that person....then it's magically okay.

Race, again, a non factor.

Rob Roy · Jan 4, 2015

UncleBuck said:
what if you offer the kid a bag of candy and they voluntarily agree to it, like you did with your pedophilia?

Reported to the bad man of your dreams.

UncleBuck · Jan 4, 2015

Rob Roy said:
First though, I think you need to get to the root of the aggression. It occurred when a coercive government told people that private property was changing. A new kind of property was magically created, a pseudo public private kind

are you sure that didn't happen when owners of private property put signs up in public advertising to the public that the public was welcome to come buy goods and services on their private property?

Affordable?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads