What about Kasich?

UncleBuck said:
you claimed that people were being forced to serve others. that is not possible unless someone was forced to open a store to the public.

so it's not that you are not up for a debate, it is that you have already lost by lying and making shit up.

you are a racial segregationist.
Click to expand...


You're wrong. You presuppose that there is no force present in the declaration of one entity telling property owners they must designate their property as one thing or another.

Also there could be property that ALREADY WAS open prior to the institution of laws dictating to property owners who they must serve etc.

I am not a racial segregationist. That is a person who believes people of different races should not associate. That's not belief.



So, can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
(that question goes to the argument above, but I doubt you'll grasp that)
 
UncleBuck said:
no rebuttal, so what i said stands.

hell, i can even quote you saying it.
Click to expand...


Yes, you're good at out of context quotes.



So why are you so afraid to answer one simple question?

Can a person delegate a right they do not possess, Poopy Pants ?
 
Rob Roy said:
Yes, you're good at out of context quotes.
Click to expand...

full context then.

i asked you what the most "peaceful" way to kick someone out of a store based on race was.

you said it would be polite and reasonable to hang a sign.

there ya go.

you're still a racial segregationist.
 
UncleBuck said:
full context then.

i asked you what the most "peaceful" way to kick someone out of a store based on race was.

you said it would be polite and reasonable to hang a sign.

there ya go.

you're still a racial segregationist.
Click to expand...

My intended meaning was to express the most peaceful way (per your request) for a racist person to notice another person they were not welcome somewhere. That doesn't mean I endorse the message contained within the notification though does it?

The polite and reasonable part is regarding the act of providing notice to a person of something. It is polite and reasonable to let people know of your intentions for clarification purposes isn't it ?

The message contained within the notice may or may not be polite and reasonable, while the act of notification is.

You're not very bright are you?

No, I am not a segregationist and you know it.


Can a person delegate a right they do not possess? (Your fear of this question is palpable)
 
Rob Roy said:
My intended meaning was to express the most peaceful way (per your request) for a racist person to notice another person they were not welcome somewhere. That doesn't mean I endorse the message contained within the notification though does it?
Click to expand...

you said it was a polite and reasonable thing to do, so yeah. i'd say you endorse it.
 
why are nitro and @Rob Roy all fecally focused

@Rob Roy what the fuck are you thinking? you argue with the intellect of a cretin and the laughably misplaced righteousness of a conservative. your main point of reference, like nitro harley is "poopy pants". I mean even a measure of critical self reflection would reveal that you are deeply troubled and anally obseesed. WTF>?
 
Rob Roy said:
Perhaps you missed what I said after "fuck the law", which was "Do the right thing and live your own life and let others do the same". In other words, the law is often wrong and when it is, ignore it or break it. For instance a runaway slave was "breaking the law", so are Cannabis users etc.

If the law coincides with what is right, do THAT, not because it is a law, but because it is right.

When freedom is outlawed only outlaws will be free.
Click to expand...

I can more or less agrew with that.
 
Rob Roy said:
Yes, I endorse the act of giving notice versus not giving a person notice.

No, I do not endorse the actions intended within the notification.

By the way, I'm kicking your ass, again, Poopy Pants.


Can a person delegate a right they do not possess?
Click to expand...
Idiot, it is self evident that "poopy pants" and "kicking your ass" can only be combined in a sentence composed by an imbecile.
 
Rob Roy said:
No. I use the term "Poopy Pants" as a salutation for Uncle Buck.

It is not a focal point or even a component of my arguments.

I am not deeply troubled, but have occasionally obsessed over a good piece of ass.
Cheers, Scrotum Face.
Click to expand...
No. YOU use "poopy pants" as the witless, unimaginative lout that compulsively focuses on feces.
 
UncleBuck said:
that people are not welcome based on their skin color?
Click to expand...

Tricky aren't you?

I endorse the idea that people make their intentions clear. I also endorse the idea that people govern their OWN property, and not the property or person of others.

How people use their property might meet with my disapproval, but if it's confined to their property, where does my right to intervene come from?

Hey!? Can you smell something, it's like there's a dead horse or pile of shit around here.
 
testiclees said:
No. YOU use "poopy pants" as the witless, unimaginative lout that compulsively focuses on feces.
Click to expand...

It's nice that you are offering to interject your ideas into my words, but I'm afraid my focus is more on the absurdity rather than the fecality.

In other words, you don't know shit.
 
Rob Roy said:
Tricky aren't you?

I endorse the idea that people make their intentions clear. I also endorse the idea that people govern their OWN property, and not the property or person of others.

How people use their property might meet with my disapproval, but if it's confined to their property, where does my right to intervene come from?

Hey!? Can you smell something, it's like there's a dead horse or pile of shit around here.
Click to expand...

that's quite the euphemism you have worked up to describe your love of racial segregation, and your advocacy for "no black people allowed" signs.
 
UncleBuck said:
that's quite the euphemism you have worked up to describe your love of racial segregation, and your advocacy for "no black people allowed" signs.
Click to expand...

Poor refutation on your part. A person can be capable of "allowing" another person to segregate themselves on their own property, without declaring that is an action he would take or even like to see.

You really have a hard time besting me in any kind of a rational debate don't you? Does it annoy you that you fail so often, Poopy Pants?
 
Rob Roy said:
Poor refutation on your part. A person can be capable of "allowing" another person to segregate themselves on their own property, without declaring that is an action he would take or even like to see.
Click to expand...

then why do you spend all your time talking about how you would like to see this type of racial segregation made legal again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

doublejj
TRUMP’S TEAM IS GRILLING CIVIL SERVANTS ABOUT WHO THEY VOTED FOR: REPORT
Replies
1
Views
238
Chronic1978
Chronic1978
hanimmal
AP News: Trump campaign’s Russia contacts ‘grave’ threat, Senate says
Replies
7
Views
711
hanimmal
hanimmal
H
Mimosa Evo experience & advice
Replies
3
Views
161
Southside112
Southside112
hanimmal
Third Party Shitcannery, the mega-richs' hopes of Netanyahu'ing Trump back into office.
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
hanimmal
hanimmal
M
What are you're steps you take when you front someone weed and then they don't respond back?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Bud man 43
B
Back
Top