Cliven Bundy, conservative hero and rancher, is actually a bigoted POS.

UncleBuck said:

can you show me one single historian anywhere who agrees with your stated position that racist practices in the south pre-civil rights caused no harm to blacks?

just one historian.

Click to expand...

When you argue against yourself, do you know if you've won? You love to try to put words in peoples mouths, the mark of a poor debater.

I said there's a difference between an actionable harm and indifference. You ignored that, because to address that would make your
argument flaccid. They have drugs for that y'know.

Rob Roy said:

When you argue against yourself, do you know if you've won? You love to try to put words in peoples mouths, the mark of a poor debater.

I said there's a difference between an actionable harm and indifference. You ignored that, because to address that would make your
argument flaccid. They have drugs for that y'know.

Click to expand...

how come you haven't commented on my AEREO post?

Rob Roy said:

When you argue against yourself, do you know if you've won? You love to try to put words in peoples mouths, the mark of a poor debater.

I said there's a difference between an actionable harm and indifference. You ignored that, because to address that would make your
argument flaccid. They have drugs for that y'know.

Click to expand...

just one single historian, rob.

if your view is so grounded in reality that the denial of service to blacks in the south caused no "actionable harm" but mere "indifference" instead, you should have no problem finding the historians who say that as well.

i'll be here waiting.

...furiously masturbate.... Funny.

UncleBuck said:

just one single historian, rob.

if your view is so grounded in reality that the denial of service to blacks in the south caused no "actionable harm" but mere "indifference" instead, you should have no problem finding the historians who say that as well.

i'll be here waiting.

Click to expand...

An actionable harm would be like when people come to your property and abuse you, your property or make you use your property in ways that you prefer not to. That would be like what the KKK did when they pulled their stunts. That would also be like what a coercive government does to property owners routinely via regulation.

Indifference would be like how your dog has become when you hump his leg. Okay not really, indifference is when a person for whatever reason chooses not to associate with another. Their reason could be due to their racist views, but it does not cause harm, if it remains indifference.

You defend actionable harm tactics to relieve a property owner of a right when you think it is okay for somebody to make them use their property in ways they would not like to.

We both can see that the KKK caused actionable harm. Yet, you remain blind in one eye when your own actions cause a harm.

schuylaar said:

how come you haven't commented on my AEREO post?

Click to expand...

I have a bad connection here. I'm trudging across the Tundra and there no baby seals in sight.

Perhaps in another day or so. Have a wonderful evening.

Rob Roy said:

I have a bad connection here. I'm trudging across the Tundra and there no baby seals in sight.

Perhaps in another day or so. Have a wonderful evening.

Click to expand...

freakshow.

Im stoned, and high as fuck, at the same time, Bud! On the Super Lemon Haze ...ahh, what a strain she is! Oh yeah, ...and I'd smoke up with that Bundy fella' too!....Ted!.....Nugent..I mean, Ted... Bundy!

UncleBuck said:

can you show me one single historian anywhere who agrees with your stated position that racist practices in the south pre-civil rights caused no harm to blacks?

just one historian.

Click to expand...

.....Your avatar disturbs me more

Rob Roy said:

An actionable harm would be like when people come to your property and abuse you, your property or make you use your property in ways that you prefer not to. That would be like what the KKK did when they pulled their stunts. That would also be like what a coercive government does to property owners routinely via regulation.

Indifference would be like how your dog has become when you hump his leg. Okay not really, indifference is when a person for whatever reason chooses not to associate with another. Their reason could be due to their racist views, but it does not cause harm, if it remains indifference.

You defend actionable harm tactics to relieve a property owner of a right when you think it is okay for somebody to make them use their property in ways they would not like to.

We both can see that the KKK caused actionable harm. Yet, you remain blind in one eye when your own actions cause a harm.

Click to expand...

exactly.

not one single historian is gonna share your retarded views because everyone knows that denial of service to blacks was not mere "indifference", it caused lots of harm to blacks in the south.

and you defend those racist practices and the harm it caused to blacks.

Canna Sylvan said:

So Jesus was an asshole bigot just like you? Seems very unenlightened for the son of God and all. The Buddha respected all religions. The Buddha also made similar statements about taxes based upon his father considering taxes stealing.

Why are you so full of hate? You're exactly like other Christians. Getting insulted over petty shit, and then comparing what I said to dying kids and what Klansmen think. If what you say is true, Jesus can go get fucked. While you need to meditate more and find yourself.

Click to expand...

I see there's no hate at all in your post. You pretend I'm the bigot while you talk like that?

UncleBuck said:

just one single historian, rob.

if your view is so grounded in reality that the denial of service to blacks in the south caused no "actionable harm" but mere "indifference" instead, you should have no problem finding the historians who say that as well.

i'll be here waiting.

Click to expand...

Yes, it caused harm. All kinds of harm. So much harm that people who have no effect by it whatsoever are still WHINING about it today.

sheskunk said:

Yes, it caused harm. All kinds of harm. So much harm that people who have no effect by it whatsoever are still WHINING about it today.

Click to expand...

go ahead, say what you really mean. say what others only have the temerity to say through terms like "mudscuttle" and "put on your super hero cape for minorities".

just say it.

N_ _ _ _ R L _ _ _ R

There just isn't enough watermelon and javelin throwing in the entire world to keep you libruls happy, is there?

UncleBuck said:

go ahead, say what you really mean. say what others only have the temerity to say through terms like "mudscuttle" and "put on your super hero cape for minorities".

just say it.

N_ _ _ _ R L _ _ _ R

Click to expand...

I can see the look in your lover's eyes. He adores you. Accept him. So what if he's an Uncle Tom Republican. You can't let that get in the way, otherwise that stud of yours will find someone else.

Red1966 said:

I see there's no hate at all in your post. You pretend I'm the bigot while you talk like that?

Click to expand...

That's probably my Buddhist side you caught a glimpse of. Like how that one day I caught Red1966 with a mood we both won't speak of.

UncleBuck said:

exactly.

not one single historian is gonna share your retarded views because everyone knows that denial of service to blacks was not mere "indifference", it caused lots of harm to blacks in the south.

and you defend those racist practices and the harm it caused to blacks.

Click to expand...

You try hard, but you just got no game.

No. I don't defend racist practices that cause an actionable harm. Nor am I fond of racist thoughts or beliefs. I think they are a waste of time and silly.

I do know the difference between actionable harm and indifference though, you apparently do not. When you respond to both the same way, you are showing a blatant disregard for a persons right to control themself and their OWN property. That makes you a person that wants to make people do what you would do, even when their actions or lack of have not caused an actionable harm. In other words you are defending initiating aggression against people that have not aggressed.

Everyone does not know that a thought or an inaction can cause harm, despite your claim. The reason is it is not demonstrably true.

If that were true your inaction to attending to "world hunger" has caused the deaths of millions of children. Your inaction/indifference to ending war has caused death and destruction.

When you drive by a person with a flat tire on the highway, have YOU made them late for work?
No you haven't. When you poke a hole in their tire you have. That is aggression. When you refuse to aid a person you have not committed aggression, you are showing indifference. There is a huge difference, isn't there?

When a racist or other silly person, like yourself, believe there is no difference between a thought and an act I have concerns.

Lumping two kinds of circumstances together and using that as the basis of your argument, as if they were the same, makes you seem, well rather dull.

You are the person defending acts of aggression, I am not.
You think it is okay to initiate force against somebody that has not initiated force. That puts you on the level as the fuckheads that wear white sheets. Unkkkle Buckkk....has a nice ring to it.

ChesusRice said:

Click to expand...

Did you copy that photo from the one in your wallet?

Harrekin said:

There just isn't enough watermelon and javelin throwing in the entire world to keep you libruls happy, is there?

Click to expand...

I started some melons the other day and intend to grow them in my greenhouse. If I don't share them with others, Uncle Buck is gonna make me do it. He's out poking holes in peoples tires right now for having bad thoughts, but when he gets back here, boy is he gonna raise hell. If I'm having really bad thoughts he's gonna bring his posse of historians and totally fuck me up.