Teacher fired for breaking up fight.

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You miss the obvious. Of course somebody IS forced when an owner of a property is made to use their property in ways they'd rather not.
Click to expand...
i wonder what you think of zoning laws.

are zoning laws slavery? are you being raped by a KKK lynch mob if you can't set up a pornographic store next to a school? has your freedom been inextricably violated if you can't set up smoke stacks next to residential housing?

YOUR UTOPIA IS RETARDED AND YOU ARE CLEARLY A RACIST.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A public business?
Click to expand...
yeah, a public business. one that is open to the public. not a private club.

kinda like the difference between motel 6 and a private vacation resort. or the difference between mcdonalds and a private diner's club.

a business that welcomes in the public, like motel 6 or mcdonalds, is a public business. a business that requires a membership and is off limits to the public, like the private vacation resort or diner's club, is not a public business. bigots like you can do all the segregation you want in the latter.

yet something tells me you will still whine like a little bitch.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Some white people did not want to associate with blacks, which is their right
Click to expand...
of course you have a right to be a white separatist, racistroy.

it's probably a bad idea to open a business to the public if that's your goal though, since black people tend to be members of the general public.

fear not though, my retarded racist amiga, you can still make your business a private club or membership type of affair and keep out all the darkies ya want.

ya fucking racist.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i wonder what you think of zoning laws.

are zoning laws slavery? are you being raped by a KKK lynch mob if you can't set up a pornographic store next to a school? has your freedom been inextricably violated if you can't set up smoke stacks next to residential housing?

YOUR UTOPIA IS RETARDED AND YOU ARE CLEARLY A RACIST.
Click to expand...
Public schools are funded by threats of force. It is obscene to steal money with a persons home held ransom wouldn't you say?

Smoke stacks can be harmful to others. A persons freedom to violate others freedom is illogical and violates the non aggression principle, therefore the smoke stack owner should restitute any person that he has harmed.

Zoning laws are attempts by people like you to run others lives, Mrs. Kravitz.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
There was a concerted effort by the republican party to diminish the RP momentum. This wasn't just on the Federal level. Our two party system has created a system where independent thought is discouraged and vilified. They were probably more scared of him than you guys are. He was a serious threat to status quo in DC and NEITHER party is willing to let that happen.

I really don't understand all the hate from a pot forum for the only guy running who wanted to legalize pot. What policies of his are people so afraid of that he as president, could actually get passed?

Look at what you've had to do to marginalize him. RP "hates civil rights". You know and everyone but the resident idiot knows that he stands for equality for all. His stringent idealism makes him point out the flaws in title II just as RobRoy has so eloquently explained. While both say it loudly that they BELIEVE in civil rights, and you guys even call RR racist. It's either dishonestly or a complete lack of understanding.
Click to expand...
look at this, the racist likes the racist who hates civil rights, and wonders why he gets called racist.

rawn pawl did not want to legalize, he wanted to let states do prohibition on their own. get your fucking facts straight.

rawn pawl is a racist and so is anyone who seriously supported him, like you clearly do.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
A persons freedom to violate others freedom is illogical and violates the non aggression principle
Click to expand...
kinda like when racists aggressively kicked blacks out of their businesses that were open to the rest of the public.

you won;'t find a single historian who will side with you, either. they will all side with me in that denial of service violated others' freedom and caused harm.

fucking dunce.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
of course you have a right to be a white separatist, racistroy.

it's probably a bad idea to open a business to the public if that's your goal though, since black people tend to be members of the general public.

fear not though, my retarded racist amiga, you can still make your business a private club or membership type of affair and keep out all the darkies ya want.

ya fucking racist.
Click to expand...

It's a bad idea to try to run other peoples lives if they aren't trying to run yours.

Also, you insist on combining my respect for a racist to own himself, but not run others lives, with my somehow believing the same things as a racist.

Where we probably agree is that when a racist initiates harm to somebody elses property he is in the wrong. Where we seem to disagree is when a gerbil hugging floor shitter initiates harm against a racist property you somehow think that is okay.

Did you know all this time you accused me of being a racist I was typing on a black computer and not abusing gerbils or shitting on anyones floors? I did fart once, but I don't think it offended anybody say like a smokestack would.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
You keep repeated he's against civil rights, you need to back that up and I'll jump on the hate bandwagon with you. Otherwise, you are just being a bucktard repeating what you've heard.
Click to expand...
you are an ignorant stooge.

Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. - rawn pawl
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you are an ignorant stooge.

Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. - rawn pawl
Click to expand...
You've represented him as fairly non racist there...?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you are an ignorant stooge.

Chris Matthews: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the '64 civil rights bill.
Ron Paul: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. - rawn pawl
Click to expand...

Does Chris Matthews send a thrill up your gerbil clawed leg?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No freedom to associate on a consensual basis is freedom. That would include the freedom of some people to do things we might not do ourselves as long as their actions do not cause an actionable harm
Click to expand...
find one historian who agrees with your view that denial of service did not cause harm then.

just one single historian.

you are a historical denialist, even worse than a revisionist.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
ginwilly said:
People choose to segregate themselves all of the time because they are free to do so. Look at Oregon ffs.

Is forced integration freedom? Betcha don't directly answer this one either.
Click to expand...
now you are defending white separatism too, but i bet you are totally not racist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top