Are there any smart Trump supporters?

FauxRoux · Apr 5, 2016

Rob Roy said:
While I'd agree with you there might be some circumstances which are not clear cut, sometimes things are black and white.

Nobody should delegate a right they do not posses, especially thru acts of coercion and threatened violence against another peaceful or indifferent person.

None of us have the right to dictate another persons life, all of us have the right to defend our own.

I agree with you completely, no one should be able to force anyone to anything... We agree completely on this.

But despite how many times I watch "V for vendetta" I simply have to accept that the world is the way it is with the hopes of improving it rather then waste my time with a fantasy of how i think it should be with no plan on how to get there.

Again. Offer something realisticly better and I'll work towards that.

P.S. and yes...expecting the government not to set the rules is (as of this moment...unfortunately)..a fantasy.

skunkd0c · Apr 5, 2016

Tangerine_ said:
.

LOL, are you seriously creepin on my profile page? What do you care why I joined RIU? Furthermore, I could get back to the Bohdi thread if I'd STOP GETTING ALERTS in the politics section.
I just happen to take human rights issues very seriously and the RIU politics section provides a steady stream of WTF material.
Now, there are varying degrees of "obtuse ignorance" and "persistent body odor" that can add to the "I sleep with a blowup doll" creep factor appearance of your postings I could comment on. But I digress... I understand having the brain of fruit-fly cant be any easy cross to bear. Next....

Tangerine_ · Apr 5, 2016

skunkd0c said:

Aww how cute. I am sure the GOP is extremely proud of your representation of their intelligence!

UncleBuck · Apr 5, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Since you seem so interested in this topic, perhaps you could say at which age you think all people develop the wherewithal
to consent ?

about 15-17 years old. maybe a bit older in certain cases.

you seem to think that anyone who is sexually mature can consent, even if they are 10. that is some sick pedo shit.

why do you refuse to state that it should be illegal to have sex with 10 year olds?

UncleBuck · Apr 5, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Whether an actionable harm happened or not, depends on the specific circumstances. I'll give you some generic examples below of the difference between an actionable harm and indifference.

One important thing to know is - Was a prior agreement mutually entered into by both parties wherein a service was agreed to and neither party was under duress when the agreement was made?

For instance, if a person paid you to shit on a floor, and you then spent the money without delivering the fecal deposit, the person who paid you is the aggrieved party. You would have committed fraud, and thus committed a harm. You owe that person some shit.

If a different scenario, say for instance, you made an offer to shit on a persons floor, but the potential customer, said no thank you, I don't want you to, and you went away without further engagement... That would be an example of indifference. No interaction took place, since one or both of the involved parties did not consent to the interaction.

Hope that helps, Poopy Pants.

you're evading the question again, segregationist.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm, or merely "indifference"?

don't be a fucking coward. answer it. you have already.

Blunted 4 lyfe · Apr 5, 2016

UncleBuck said:
you're evading the question again, segregationist.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm, or merely "indifference"?

don't be a fucking coward. answer it. you have already.

Don't waste your time with Chester, everyone knows he would love to fucks little boys, heck 10 year olds might be too old for him.

B4L

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

FauxRoux said:
I agree with you completely, no one should be able to force anyone to anything... We agree completely on this.

But despite how many times I watch "V for vendetta" I simply have to accept that the world is the way it is with the hopes of improving it rather then waste my time with a fantasy of how i think it should be with no plan on how to get there.

Again. Offer something realisticly better and I'll work towards that.

P.S. and yes...expecting the government not to set the rules is (as of this moment...unfortunately)..a fantasy.

http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

Blunted 4 lyfe said:
Don't waste your time with Chester, everyone knows he would love to fucks little boys, heck 10 year olds might be too old for him.

B4L

Your inability to argue a point isn't enhanced by telling lies, Mr. Teddy Bear.

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
about 15-17 years old. maybe a bit older in certain cases.

you seem to think that anyone who is sexually mature can consent, even if they are 10. that is some sick pedo shit.

why do you refuse to state that it should be illegal to have sex with 10 year olds?

No, I think only individual people with the mental wherewithal to consent can give consent. Due to the meaning of the word consent, my assessment is correct and should be self evident. Your own answer of 15-17 etc, means you agree with me that it's not a fixed age for everyone.

As far as the other stuff....You seem to like to put words into other peoples mouths when your arguments run aground on shit island, Captain Turd Muncher.

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
you're evading the question again, segregationist.

did denial of service to blacks cause harm, or merely "indifference"?

don't be a fucking coward. answer it. you have already.

Forced segregation and forced integration cause harm. I DON'T support either.

You support at least one of them.

UncleBuck · Apr 6, 2016

Rob Roy said:
it's not a fixed age for everyone..

and it's not 10 years old for anyone, you sick pedo fuck. something which you will refuse to state, since you want it to be legal to have sex with 10 year olds.

UncleBuck · Apr 6, 2016

Rob Roy said:
Forced segregation and forced integration cause harm. I DON'T support either.

You support at least one of them.

no one calls it forced integration except those who have to be forced to integrate, klanman.

also, you are now contradicting yourself. you said segregation, specifically the denial of service to black people which you want to make legal again, was "indifferent". i have the quotes of you saying this.

o why are you now contradicting yourself?

OddBall1st · Apr 6, 2016

Rob Roy said:
No, I think only individual people with the mental wherewithal to consent can give consent. Due to the meaning of the word consent, my assessment is correct and should be self evident. Your own answer of 15-17 etc, means you agree with me that it's not a fixed age for everyone.

As far as the other stuff....You seem to like to put words into other peoples mouths when your arguments run aground on shit island, Captain Turd Muncher.

15-17`s can do it with 15 to 17`s rob,....It`s a fixed age for Adults. So they don`t....????

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

OddBall1st said:
15-17`s can do it with 15 to 17`s rob,....It`s a fixed age for Adults. So they don`t....????

So you are saying that physiologically and psychologically a persons ability to interact with another person is limited to a range of ages which is close to their own ? A consenting 43 year old should be prevented by a third party from banging a consenting 89 year old? (please no vaseline jokes)

How did you derive that ?

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
no one calls it forced integration except those who have to be forced to integrate, klanman.

also, you are now contradicting yourself. you said segregation, specifically the denial of service to black people which you want to make legal again, was "indifferent". i have the quotes of you saying this.

o why are you now contradicting yourself?

No, I'm not contradicting myself. You are failing to differentiate between the two kinds of force.

The force you speak of and advocate for is OFFENSIVE force. That is when a nonowner of property forces an owner to interact with them...on the owners property itself.

The force I am advocating is the right to use DEFENSIVE force to repel an unwanted interaction.

You can never beat me in an argument if you fail to understand the terms we are using.

UncleBuck · Apr 6, 2016

Rob Roy said:
OFFENSIVE force. That is when a nonowner of property forces an owner to interact with them...on the owners property itself.

one big problem you are not addressing though, and never will: no one has ever been forced to open a public store, ya racist fucking retard.

Rob Roy said:
The force I am advocating is the right to use DEFENSIVE force to repel an unwanted interaction.

that exists already. people call it opening a private store, or just staying home.

what you want is a return to the days when it was legal to deny service to black people. that caused a lot of harm, even though you claim it only caused "indifference".

it must really suck to be as stupid and racist as you are.

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
one big problem you are not addressing though, and never will: no one has ever been forced to open a public store, ya racist fucking retard.

that exists already. people call it opening a private store, or just staying home.

what you want is a return to the days when it was legal to deny service to black people. that caused a lot of harm, even though you claim it only caused "indifference".

it must really suck to be as stupid and racist as you are.

The term "public store" is a contradiction if it purports to be owned by one entity, yet is controlled by another. You conveniently ignore that relevant detail.

Also you have presented a false dichotomy when you tried to miscast my position. I don't advocate returning to a time when government forced segregation, nor do I want to remain in a time when government forces integration.

I want individual people to chose their human interactions on a mutual, voluntary and peaceful basis.

I commend you for not trying to argue my analysis of the two kinds of force with your usual asininity, it was a wise move on your part not to go there as I would have flogged you hard.

It must really suck to be unable to distinguish between the two kinds of force and hold two opposing points of view at once, as you do.

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
and it's not 10 years old for anyone, you sick pedo fuck. something which you will refuse to state, since you want it to be legal to have sex with 10 year olds.

I am very uncomfortable with the idea of you buttfucking the kids in your neighborhood.

UncleBuck · Apr 6, 2016

Rob Roy said:
The term "public store" is a contradiction if it purports to be owned by one entity, yet is controlled by another.

the person who owns the store controls it though. so still no dice for your pathetic, flimsy, laughable, racist philosophy.

Rob Roy said:
I don't advocate returning to a time when government forced segregation

well you can't, because government didn't enforce segregation.

don't try to pass off revisionist history, you dumb shit.

Rob Roy said:
nor do I want to remain in a time when government forces integration.

again, those of us who aren't racist, like you, don't have to be forced.

Rob Roy said:
it was a wise move on your part not to go there as I would have flogged you hard.

you're a delusional racist.

go die quietly somewhere and spare us your retarded worldview.

Rob Roy · Apr 6, 2016

UncleBuck said:
the person who owns the store controls it though. so still no dice for your pathetic, flimsy, laughable, racist philosophy.

well you can't, because government didn't enforce segregation.

don't try to pass off revisionist history, you dumb shit.

again, those of us who aren't racist, like you, don't have to be forced.

you're a delusional racist.

go die quietly somewhere and spare us your retarded worldview.

Except, you're wrong.

Are there any smart Trump supporters?

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