UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
she did get 3 million more votes.
hillary clinton got more votes than any white male ever
she was more popular. she was the people's choice
The Democratic Party Autopsy Report
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
hillary clinton got more votes than any white male ever
she was more popular. she was the people's choice
SneekyNinja
Well-Known Member
Welcome "new" member!!!!!
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Civil rights are an overstep by government to attempt to fix their previous overstep. The first overstep was to forcibly prevent people of different races from associating who wished to associate. Jim Crow was obviously wrong. It was wrong BECAUSE IT ISN'T UP TO OTHER PEOPLE TO DECIDE WITH WHOM YOU OR ANYONE ELSE WILL ASSOCIATE.
So, what did your beloved government do ? The only thing they ever do. They then threatened force, to people who DIDN'T want to associate. That wasn't a solution, since it still threatened the use of force against people who merely wanted to run their OWN life, but not the life of others. Threatening offensive force is never right, for you or I to do is it?
So why would it be right for a collection of people who purport to be "the people" to do it?
In both instances the mutual consent of both parties was rendered irrelevant by government. Gee what a surprise.
Can you disagree that's what happened? I'd love to hear why you disagree if you can tear yourself away from talking about 12 year old girls for a moment.
I dare you to go thru this post and answer my questions.
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the points about politeness. Couldn't agree more.
The reason I believe it was murder to bomb innocent women and children was I try to view people as individuals and not as conscripts to a nation state. Many people think, "well they attacked us" . None of those women and children Truman authorized the incineration of had attacked Truman or the men who released the nuclear bombs on them etc.
If you or I were trying to get a bad guy who was tying to kill us and fired into a crowd, maybe killing the bad guy, but also killing many innocent bystanders wouldn't we be guilty of having murdered the innocent bystanders? Why should government, be exempt from that when they "fire into a crowd" and kill innocents is my question.
I do not like the term "collateral damage" as it disrespects human life and attempts to minimize murder of individuals.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'd say sovereign citizen is a bit of an oxymoron. If a person is sovereign over themselves they probably aren't a citizen since a sovereign is a supreme ruler of themselves. A citizen is a subject and is ruled by others.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So because the laws in the USA feature prohibition of cannabis you're good with that ?
SunnyJim
Well-Known Member
My goodness, you seem upset with all the bold and uppercase letters in your post. You also seem to repeat the same argument of 'forcible association' as if it has any legitimate meaning in a civilized country.
Your government doesn't 'force' you to 'associate' with anyone. You choose to operate in business either as an employee or as a business owner, and you accept the benefits of employment. There are, however, rules/safeguards put in place to protect both the staff of that business and customers if you are to do business in the US. No one forces you into business, certainly not government. If you don't want to be subjected to 'forcible associations', remove yourself from civilized society. Naturally, you want total freedom to operate as you so wish, whilst dismissing or ignoring the wishes of your fellow citizens. Your freedom first, then others, am I right?
Yes, there are (and must be) enforceable repercussions for those who flagrantly ignore those rules. How would you feel if, for the sake of argument, every single person in the US decided to deny you and your family custom to every service you require/enjoy on the daily? No electricity, no water supply, to medical attention, no access to groceries, no gasoline, ... just because they didn't want to associate with the Rob Roy clan.
You certainly wouldn't accept your child/wife being denied simple but life-saving medical treatment because all the medical professionals in your country unanimously decided against ever interacting with you or your brood. No chance you'd smile and walk away. You would demand attention and service because you're a straight-up hypocrite. Where is the doctors' freedom of choice to disassociate themselves from you without the 'threat of offensive governmental force'? It doesn't exist, does it? One rule for Rob Roy, another rule for the rest of the population.
Finally, this 'collection of people' passing laws are elected officials. If you take issue with any existing laws, vote for someone who is likely to change it, and convince your peers to vote as well. Better, run for office yourself, although it's unlikely you'll ever get enough support to repeal child protection or civil rights laws despite your best efforts.
You represent the opposite of freedom to many.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, that was a lot of verbiage. Could you point out where you addressed or refuted any of my questions? I'll use bold to make it easier for you to spot the questions. I'm sure your missing them was simply an oversight. I'll also use bold to emphasize concepts I ask you to accept or refute. Fair enough?
I'll address your statements now.
Yes, I do repeat the same argument that use of offensive force is not justifiable, do you think it is ?
Your second paragraph concerning "my" government, is in error. It can't possibly be my government unless I've consented to it. I take it you've never read anything by Lysander Spooner regarding consent etc. ? (Rhetorical question, no need to bold this)
You said if I don't want to be subjected to forcible situations remove myself from "civilized society". Is that an admission that so called civilized society has a basis in two opposing things, one, restrictions on you and I to use offensive force, while also contradictorily reserving for some people (government) the ability to use offensive force ?
If every single person decided not to do business with me? That's funny. Are you saying if no women wanted to suck your dick, you'd just grab a gun or use legislation to create a law (same thing ultimately as grabbing a gun) and make them suck your dick?
The doctors freedom of association is tied up in his not wishing to lose his government privileges. To be a doctor, and to gain and maintain the benefits of the use of government force via restrictive licensure and regulation, they go along with the rest of the government edicts and serve people they don't like. It's a clear case of accepting bads and disservices with goods and services, which is always the way it is with government. Why do you think doctors only "RECOMMEND" medical marijuana rather than prescribe it? They don't want to lose their government granted privileges.
Elected officials ? That's funny. They can't possibly represent everyone in a given district, since not everyone shares the same views. What you imply is that a majority of people can somehow have more right than an individual. That is of course impossible. Here let me show you mathematically. Since no person has ANY right to delegate rights they do not
possess, that is represented by zero. If you have a collection of people, all with zero right to do something, and add all their zeroes up, you still come up with zero. So, no government of "the people" can possibly have the right to do anything you or I cannot rightfully do, since a sum of all zeroes is still zero. I have zero right to dictate how you will use your property and body. Can you refute this? Can you refute this? Can you refute this? Can you refute this?
If I represent the opposite of freedom, why does my philosophy revolve around voluntary, consensual and peaceful human interactions, while yours features at the core the use of offensive force to create involuntary human relationships?
Have fun answering my questions.
Last edited:
SunnyJim
Well-Known Member
Yes, offensive force can be justifiable in context.
It is your government, whether you consent to it or not. If you don't consent to the laws of your country, emigrate. I haven't read anything by your libertarian idol who, no doubt, was some kind of anarchist.
There are no 'opposing forces' at play here. You have every right to use offensive force when you see fit. Laws are written and passed by elected officials, whether they received your vote/endorsement or not. You have the right to ignore any and every law if you so wish. Consequences exist if you're caught braking laws, though, and some are more serious than others.
Why is that funny? I see you avoided answering a simple question, something you accuse me of doing (in different fonts and colors to further illustrate your disdain).
I'm really not following the latter part of that quote, so I'll ask again: you would accept everyone else in the US preventing you from buying a car, gasoline, water, medical supplies, groceries, utilities, even a home by refusing to interact with you?
You would accept the denial of life-saving treatment from all doctors when one of your family members was critically ill because they, like you, are free to choose with whom they associate, right?
I have no idea to what it is you're trying to explain here, but according to you, every human has the right to consent, or not consent as the case may be, to interact with you at any time, and for any reason. Doctors are humans, therefore they have those same rights, correct? Ergo, government shouldn't interfere with a doctor's basic human right to choose with whom they 'interact', including you or your sick family.
I don't imply that the will of the majority often supersedes the will of one, the democratic process does. If you don't like the freedoms you enjoy under your democratically elected government, move to a deserted island and renounce your US citizenship.
This is a logical fallacy, supported by a deeply flawed opening statement. An elected official does hold certain authority, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, as stated under Article One of the United States Constitution. That same constitution affords you the right to bear arms. It is not a universally accepted human right to own a firearm, is it?
Libertarians always love to cherry-pick which rights they want 'protected by law'.
There is nothing peaceful about rejecting an 'interaction' with someone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or national origin (among others). There is nothing peaceful about normalizing a sexual interaction between an adult and a child. Those kinds of breaches should be met with the full 'offensive force' of the law in any civilized society. Anything less is primitive.
Answering your questions would be more fun if you refrained from petulantly repeating the same question(s) over and over again, simultaneously changing the font. It really isn't clever, and does nothing to elevate the integrity of your debating skills. It's an overt and colorful display of intellectual weakness.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
fed guv - "you can't deny service to people just because they are black"
rob roy moore - "what an overstep. this is rape and slavery"
Dr. Who
Well-Known Member
If, we were employed by the state (as a cop of some sort). Then yes, you would have the legal allowance to do so. Would YOU really pull that trigger into a crowd, at a man attempting escape?
If he was advancing at you and firing. I don't know a cop that wouldn't return fire.
As a member of the military, your employed by the state. Given an order to carry out a mission, is your job or you spend time in Leavenworth. The men flying those planes. Did their job, as ordered.
I can not, in good mind. See them as any type of criminal. Once you serve in the military. You have a whole different respect for many things. Life is one of them. The lives of the comrades and friends around you. Are the most important thing.
The atomic bomb wasn't our only "bad day(s)" in the war.
How the Bombing of Dresden?
We bombed Dresden for 2 days - Feb 13-15 1945. We basically destroyed 13 square miles of the city center and killed as much at over 100,000 people. These were civilians.
Allied POW's held in Dresden. Have been against what we did from start. They tell some very scary stories....
How about the firebombing of Tokyo?
2 days again. March 9 -11 1945. We dropped incendiary bombs on Tokyo. We say 88,000 dead and 41,000 injured. The Tokyo FD said 97,000 dead and 125,000 wounded. Over 1,000,000 lost their homes and were displaced...
What about the use of outlawed bombs in the bombing of Hamburg? What about the bombing of Cologne, or Kassel? How is it that everyone fails to remember these? They did more damage then the A bombs!
You may not like the words "Collateral Damage" but, there here to stay.
BTW The first bomb caused 80,000 to die instantly. The second, 40,000 instantly. I don't think it was so "instant" for those 88,000 in the firebombing of Tokyo or Dresden. Not that it makes it any better mind you. But you get the point.
The fuel air explosive MOAB. Hits with the strength and heat signature of a small nuke. It was said by SF operators going into the Tora Bora caves to search for Intel and/or Bin Laden in Af. That the instant loss of air pressure from the explosion out side the caves, in the valley. Pulled the lungs of the Taliban fighters right out their mouths....These were combatants! So too bad for them...
Horrors of war are not just the 2 A bomb attacks. Nor are they limited to just combatants.
So maybe the right thing is to not just jump up and say "XY, and Z are guilty of "war crimes"...... How about we stop the next war from getting started.....
Trump keeps his playground posturing up with NK. We might just learn what those horror's are....
Truman's dead, and so are all involved. Let the dead rest in peace. They earned it having to actually make those hard choices. I have to have faith that they stood before their god, and were judged accordingly. It's not our place to.....
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So what you're really saying is when a person puts on a magic suit, say like a cop suit or a military uniform it transforms them and gives them powers to use which they would not possess if they remained as people. Those same powers if you or I use them, while not wearing a magic suit, would be considered "evil powers" since killing people that haven't harmed you or I is evil.
However if we could somehow acquire one of those magic suits, it would transform our evil actions to acceptable actions and make us no longer personally responsible, because we were "just following orders" ?
Have you ever heard of something called the Milgram Experiment? You should consider checking it out.
Dr. Who
Well-Known Member
Oh, I have......Like I said, would YOU pull that trigger then? Power given by the state has never been exactly devoid of good deeds, nor wrong ones either....
Dropping bombs has it's problems. It's war, and people make what at the time, looks like the right choice. We have not walked in those shoe's. We wouldn't have known the results (complete) either.
If religion means something to you. Maybe you should say a prayer for their soles?
BTW. If I was being fired upon, in a crowd. I would attempt to remove poor angle shots to make the good one. In any case. I would have to take the shot to stop the attacker. You must remember that he too is endangering those around you with undo force also. It's your job to protect the public, you do your job. Even if it isn't the perfect situation. How many more will he hurt after you fall? How about those he hurts while attempting to get you?
Hard choice is part of those jobs. It's for sure not a job I choose.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
One simple question before I read beyond that ludicrous first sentence Robbie, How in the fuck would you have prohibited discrimination and end segregation. If you're serious about not looking like a fucking racist ignorant POS, who uses words to only confuse and divide, please do explain
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The point I was trying to make is the action itself is what is right or wrong, not who is doing it.
A so called authority cannot by virtue of legal edict make an act of offensive force okay for one person to do, while it remains wrong for others to do. Yet that is what people are taught thru repetitious obedience training to obey "authority".
If I was being fired upon by somebody I hadn't attempted to harm, I would have the right to defend myself. The problem with "authority" and the present system is it brain washes people to believe that an action which is wrong to do, is somehow excusable if the "right people" have been given authority to do it.
Pray for their soles? Why would dead people need shoes?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well, you did say please...
Remove or ignore forcible edicts which prevented people who wish to associate from doing so. Fuck off Jim Crow laws!
However, simply switching the direction of the forcible edict, to make people associate when one or both parties may not want to, is just as bad as forcing people not to associate when they both wish to.
So, I would mind my own business and seek relationships with people on a mutual basis and ignore those who left me alone but didn't want to interact with me.
When you were a young orange thieving Airman, if a girl didn't want to associate with you, did you move on, or lay in wait in the bushes with your ski mask on, knife and rope in your hands to make her associate with you?
SunnyJim
Well-Known Member
Translation:
'Forcing' a racist white person to serve a black person at a local restaurant is just as bad as 'forcibly preventing' a pedophile from engaging in the grooming and eventual statutory raping of a child.
Savage. Stay away from vulnerable children.
ChefKimbo
Well-Known Member
Some of you have no regard for the true history of race relations in this country. Someone brought up segregation as if it isssome sort of crime against humanity. Never was and never will be. People dont give a shit about segregation, equal opportunity is what everyone wants for their communities.
Blacks built and maintain thriving communities during those times. Much so that these communities were destroyed by potitical and economic terrorism, and acts of violence by whites. The history of this country proves that there are certain elements in government that do not support blacks maintaining full control and influence over their own communities.
This has nothing to do with employment opportunities and how many rich black millionaires you can cherry pick. Its about a culture being destroyed by such as "You can't build your own schools, thats RACIST!!" "No you can't open centers for free legal/financial consultations and services in black communities. We will not support that." Thathe reality of what goes on in this country whether you want to admit it or not. Blacks dont need more jobs we need control over our communities. This is not about racism its about resource allocation. Like any other ethnicity, people just want to see their communities flourish without outside interference.
Blacks built and maintain thriving communities during those times. Much so that these communities were destroyed by potitical and economic terrorism, and acts of violence by whites. The history of this country proves that there are certain elements in government that do not support blacks maintaining full control and influence over their own communities.
This has nothing to do with employment opportunities and how many rich black millionaires you can cherry pick. Its about a culture being destroyed by such as "You can't build your own schools, thats RACIST!!" "No you can't open centers for free legal/financial consultations and services in black communities. We will not support that." Thathe reality of what goes on in this country whether you want to admit it or not. Blacks dont need more jobs we need control over our communities. This is not about racism its about resource allocation. Like any other ethnicity, people just want to see their communities flourish without outside interference.
Unclebaldrick
Well-Known Member
Segregation is a key element of denying equal opportunity to services like good schools.