Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
really ? Ron Paul was not really for the Civil rights movement. Picture him as President with the power of the veto. again do you process what you type. Honest question. Sometimes we say things before we think them thru.

You are a bit misinformed there. RP was very much for civil rights and equally for all. He was against title II on principle of property rights.

This is how you confuse RobRoy's position as racist even though he explicitly states he would never refuse service on the basis of color. It's how you got your reputation for not being the sharpest tool.

Veto can also be overturned, and do you honestly believe if there was some equal rights protection that he vetoed it wouldn't get over turned?

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
It is the money involved.

So activists can't spend money? Or is there a cut off point and what is it?

From Websters
Definition of ACTIVISM
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
So activists can't spend money? Or is there a cut off point and what is it?

Money should not control elections. Is that too hard to understand ?

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
Money should not control elections. Is that too hard to understand ?

Sure, but wtf does that have to do with the meaning of activism?

I'm also against corn syrup, therefore your argument is invalid. I mean... holy shit LF?

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
You are a bit misinformed there. RP was very much for civil rights and equally for all. He was against title II on principle of property rights.

This is how you confuse RobRoy's position as racist even though he explicitly states he would never refuse service on the basis of color. It's how you got your reputation for not being the sharpest tool.

Veto can also be overturned, and do you honestly believe if there was some equal rights protection that he vetoed it wouldn't get over turned?

Ron Paul was very much against the Civil Rights Act of 64. I think you know this ?

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
Sure, but wtf does that have to do with the meaning of activism?

I'm also against corn syrup, therefore your argument is invalid. I mean... holy shit LF?

I'm starting to believe you are a lost case.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
Ron Paul was very much against the Civil Rights Act of 64. I think you know this ?

No I didn't. From what I heard him say he was against title II but said if he were there in the 50's he would have tried to get civil rights passed back then.

He's also had many many many blacks who love him come to his defense and say that his position is based in private property principle and not racism.

Personally I couldn't care less, he's a non-factor and has gone away. It amazes me how much your little crowd here obsesses over a never was.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
I'm starting to believe you are a lost case.

so give a definition of activist please and try to change my mind instead of saying nut uh, they spend too much money.

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
No I didn't. From what I heard him say he was against title II but said if he were there in the 50's he would have tried to get civil rights passed back then.

He's also had many many many blacks who love him come to his defense and say that his position is based in private property principle and not racism.

Ron Paul has stated he would have voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act 64 if he was a member of congress then. FACT

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
so give a definition of activist please and try to change my mind instead of saying nut uh, they spend too much money.

If you can't understand what I mean by too much money is involved in our elections by the Koch brothers, I don't think we can have a conversation. Seems to difficult for ya

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
Ron Paul has stated he would have voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act 64 if he was a member of congress then. FACT

Yes, because of title II. He also says he would have voted for every version of civil rights brought forth and defeated by dems before that.

It's not about racism to people who property rights dear, you don't seem to believe that.

abandonconflict · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
I also don't think his racism would have any affect on his principles.

I like how you are trying to make this out to be an example of me being crazy and you being intellectual. Really, you're just spewing nonsense and I'm having a laugh at your expense.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
If you can't understand what I mean by too much money is involved in our elections by the Koch brothers, I don't think we can have a conversation. Seems to difficult for ya

I agree with that, how can I make you understand I think money in politics is evil too. I just don't know what it has to do with the meaning of the word activist?

Seriously, look up the definition, it's starting to be painfully obvious you don't believe Webster, so look elsewhere.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

abandonconflict said:
I like how you are trying to make this out to be an example of me being crazy and you being intellectual. Really, you're just spewing nonsense and I'm having a laugh at your expense.

That's nice, run along now and don't trip while laughing.

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
Yes, because of title II. He also says he would have voted for every version of civil rights brought forth and defeated by dems before that.

It's not about racism to people who property rights dear, you don't seem to believe that.

Dear ??? You going bitch on me ?
They put in private property that says you can have who you want as long as you are PRIVATE not public.
Yup you might be a lost cause. SO you actually feel a person should have the right to refuse someone of their color of skin ?

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

@londonfog @Padawanbater2

I tagged pad too because he would love this website. It's called commoncause and it's about getting money out of politics. They really hate the Kochs.

http://www.commoncause.org/issues/money-in-politics/corporate-power/koch-brothers/

Oh look here how this cause describes the Kochs
Home > Issues > Money in Politics > Corporate Power > The Koch Brothers
The Koch Brothers
Conservative and libertarian activists Charles and David Koch are the billionaire owners of Koch Industries

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
I agree with that, how can I make you understand I think money in politics is evil too. I just don't know what it has to do with the meaning of the word activist?

Seriously, look up the definition, it's starting to be painfully obvious you don't believe Webster, so look elsewhere.

You can't if you cheer for the likes of Koch brothers and the money they put in. I understand what the fuck an activist is. We talking money. We all are fucking activist of something. Don't play Mr. Stupid unless you are.

londonfog · Mar 6, 2015

ginwilly said:
@londonfog @Padawanbater2

I tagged pad too because he would love this website. It's called commoncause and it's about getting money out of politics. They really hate the Kochs.

http://www.commoncause.org/issues/money-in-politics/corporate-power/koch-brothers/

Oh look here how this cause describes the Kochs
Home > Issues > Money in Politics > Corporate Power > The Koch Brothers
The Koch Brothers
Conservative and libertarian activists Charles and David Koch are the billionaire owners of Koch Industries

your stupid is hurting tonight.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
Dear ??? You going bitch on me ?
They put in private property that says you can have who you want as long as you are PRIVATE not public.
Yup you might be a lost cause. SO you actually feel a person should have the right to refuse someone of their color of skin ?

lol, that was supposed to be hold dear, but no, not in the cuddling mood, maybe later.

Yes they did exactly what you are saying they did. You can open a private a club and be as racist as you want. RP and RobRoy's position is that you shouldn't have to be private, that property rights means it's your property and you should be allowed to run it as you want.

That's a very strict capital L Libertarian stance that we could most likely get away with today, but no way in hell would that have worked in the 60's. It really doesn't have anything to do with race and has everything to do with property rights. I have watched RR try to explain this to you for years now to no avail, so I will not try anymore either. You are just not ever going to get it.

ginwilly · Mar 6, 2015

londonfog said:
You can't if you cheer for the likes of Koch brothers and the money they put in. I understand what the fuck an activist is. We talking money. We all are fucking activist of something. Don't play Mr. Stupid unless you are.

Yes we can all be activists of something.. until we put money in? You calling someone else stupid and make that argument at the same time? Wow, that's ballsy.

BTW, I am against money in politics but my method to decrease it is not suitable to you govangelicals. Limit the power of politicians and their value goes down.

You made a claim that I cheer for the likes of Koch. Cite it.
Time to call you out on your shit LF. I like you, but you can't just drop lies like that and not get called out.

Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

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