The Democratic Party Autopsy Report

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
you are opposed to civil rights, a law passed because black people were refused service and given unequal treatment and less rights than white people.

don't try to rewrite history, klanman

maybe try telling us all about how you think 11 year old children can consent to sex with 35 year olds like roy moore you sick stupid backwards fuck

I am opposed to involuntary human interactions, so if a person hasn't consented or is incapable of consenting to something, they should be left alone.

Which is ironic, since you DON'T think mutual consent is a necessary ingredient in human interactions. Thanks for illustrating your cognitive dissonance once again.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
please name the location of this imaginary restaurant that someone was forced to open. i don't answer hypotheticals.

also, here is a question you have been avoiding for years: did the widespread denial of service to black people by white people cause harm to black people?

thanks, klanman.

@twostrokenut - be sure to defend him by attempting to rewrite history because you love to support racists and pedophiles. thanks.

Your question is a non sequitur. IF a person hasn't opened a restaurant how could they fall into this discussion?

WHEN a person owns property and others force them to use their property and their body to serve others against their will, THAT is when the inequality occurs. If you don't believe that, you don't think there is such a thing as property. Do you think there is such a thing as property or not ?
 

PCXV

Well-Known Member
This is a common misconception, but of course you cannot elucidate this argument. Repeat it as if that made it so, yes, elucidate, no.

I am in favor of ALL PEOPLE HAVING THE RIGHT to control themselves / their own property, but not others. You are not.
Damn right I'm not. I believe in limited rights, fairness, order, and peace. When white racists own those private roads and they declare no blacks can drive on them, then what? Black people can't cross town, to shop, to go to the bank, to see family, and you say that's OK because whites own the land? Your ideals are complete horse shit. Worth even less than horse shit.

By allowing rampant, arbitrary discrimination you are inviting conflict, not preventing it.
 
Last edited:

dagwood45431

Well-Known Member
Erroneous conclusion Poopy Pants. If I were racist I would champion one race being superior, having more right etc. I don't.
Nobody here with an average IQ doesn't understand that this is all a charade devised to hide that fact that you can't stand co-existing with black people. You are a racist jackass and a complete coward.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Damn right I'm not. I believe in limited rights, fairness, order, and peace. When white racists own those private roads and they declare no blacks can drive on them, then what? Black people can't cross town, to shop, to go to the bank, to see family, and you say that's OK because whites own the land? Your ideals are complete horse shit. Worth even less than horse shit.
How can you believe in peace if you also think it is okay to force one person to serve another ?
 

SneekyNinja

Well-Known Member
welcome to politics. are you implying I misquoted your buddy when he said black people had no rights before 1964?
Not rights that were recognised, no.

You know that's what he meant, I know that's what he meant and everyone else knows that's what he meant but you decided to be retarded and try to play word games.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Nobody here with an average IQ doesn't understand that this is all a charade devised to hide that fact that you can't stand co-existing with black people. You are a racist jackass and a complete coward.

Except I think black people have every right to self determine, everyone does, which sort of renders what you said ridiculous.
 

PCXV

Well-Known Member
How can you believe in peace if you also think it is okay to force one person to serve another ?
Because peace requires compromise. We aren't talking rape and murder, we are talking about how to go about funding roads that literally every person has a right to use, on land that is unavoidable to get to key areas; we are talking about serving someone you may not want to associate with a sandwich or a cake, you don't have to marry them.

Enforcing basic tolerance and civil rights is a legitimate way to mitigate conflict. Allowing rampant petty and arbitrary discrimination causes real harm and damages entire communities. Forcing someone to serve a black person a sandwich literally harms nobody.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Your question is a non sequitur. IF a person hasn't opened a restaurant how could they fall into this discussion?

WHEN a person owns property and others force them to use their property and their body to serve others against their will, THAT is when the inequality occurs. If you don't believe that, you don't think there is such a thing as property. Do you think there is such a thing as property or not ?
here is a question you have been avoiding for years: did the widespread denial of service to black people by white people cause harm to black people?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Damn right I'm not. I believe in limited rights, fairness, order, and peace. When white racists own those private roads and they declare no blacks can drive on them, then what? Black people can't cross town, to shop, to go to the bank, to see family, and you say that's OK because whites own the land? Your ideals are complete horse shit. Worth even less than horse shit.

By allowing rampant, arbitrary discrimination you are inviting conflict, not preventing it.

By forcing an association on an involuntary basis, you aren't inviting conflict, you are ENGAGING in it.
 
Top