Democrats to bureaucratize sex in California

abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Wilksey said:
Yup. A couple, actually.

Barracks whores.

Both chicks had a falling out with one dude or another. Both chicks made their accusations weeks after the supposed event took place. Both chicks were proven to be willing participants during the event they cited as "rape". Kind of hard to prove rape when there's pics of you posing with the lads with a bottle jammed up your ass.

I imagine the same things go down in college dorms as well.
Click to expand...
I bet your unit was one of the worst. Senior NCOs who just want to maintain combat readiness will never let one of their joes get charged with rape. Meanwhile, the US military pretends there's no problem. I'm sure your friday afternoon briefings made everything better, top.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, im one of those who should not be forced to engage in commerce with those i deem unsuitable for that commerce.

if you were a gun seller and you refused to sell guns to a guy you were certain was a criminal, you could be charged with "violating his civil rights" as long as he is part of some minority that has been granted victim status.

if you were a contractor, and refused to build a soundproofed rape dungeon under some asshole's house, you would be up on "civil rights" charges in short order, IF the "victim" of your "discrimination" is sufficiently brown to warrant protected status

if you ran an elementary school, and an applicant for a janitorial job set off all your internal alarm bells, you would still have to hire him if he were a "protected minority" even if your hippocampus were screaming "Pederast! Pederast! Pederast!" in the back of your brain.

why should i be compelled to disregard my own judgement out of fear of reprisal from the government?

because lefties want everything to be "fair" but life isnt fair.

it's time for lefties to grow up and realize that kindergarten rules dont work outside the playground.
Click to expand...
Now an example of refusing to sell someone a sandwich... You can do it.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
compelling others to do as you wish, against their will is unjust.

if you think it is just, then maybe you should consider your position more carefully.
Click to expand...















maybe you should reconsider your position more carefully instead.

i am pretty sure that "forcing" people like you to serve black patrons, despite their blackness, is perfectly just.

why you would ever question such a law speaks highly to your ignorance or your racism, and nothing else.

tldr, fuck off ya piece of shit.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Dude you know you pay for pussy. That's the only way you can get laid...unless you rape
One of the reasons you waste your time masturbating on doughnuts, is because you can't get it so often
Click to expand...
Everyone pays for pussy. I've never done a quid pro quo for pussy with cash. But most girls won't just meet you and sleep with you.

Although that has happened to me a few times, I still ended up spending money just out of habit.

I'm older now and don't fuck as much as I used to. It's not because I can't, I just don't feel like going out and trying to get laid.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
no, im one of those who should not be forced to engage in commerce with those i deem unsuitable for that commerce.
Click to expand...
how do the protected classes make someone "unsuitable for that commerce"?

in other words, you were willing to do business with someone, but then you found out about their race or color or national origin or religion or sex, and now you don't want to.

sounds like pure bigotry and racism to me, but let's see what phony and bogus examples you have cooked up.

Dr Kynes said:
if you were a gun seller and you refused to sell guns to a guy you were certain was a criminal, you could be charged with "violating his civil rights" as long as he is part of some minority that has been granted victim status.
Click to expand...
so the gun buyer passes a background check, but you are just so certain that the buyer's skin color or race or national origin makes him a criminal that you refuse to sell to him.

yep, pure racism.

Dr Kynes said:
if you were a contractor, and refused to build a soundproofed rape dungeon under some asshole's house, you would be up on "civil rights" charges in short order, IF the "victim" of your "discrimination" is sufficiently brown to warrant protected status
Click to expand...
thanks for dispelling the notion that you are also concerned about white people, whose skin color and race are also protected, by making it explicit that these concerns of yours only apply to those who are "sufficiently brown".

i thought for a second that you would at least have the brains to leave that escape hatch open for yourself.

Dr Kynes said:
if you ran an elementary school, and an applicant for a janitorial job set off all your internal alarm bells, you would still have to hire him if he were a "protected minority" even if your hippocampus were screaming "Pederast! Pederast! Pederast!" in the back of your brain.
Click to expand...
so your applicant passes his background check, but if he is "sufficiently brown", you automatically assume he is a criminal or a pedo and want to find a nice white person to mop up your floors instead.

once again, based purely in racism.

Dr Kynes said:
why should i be compelled to disregard my own judgement out of fear of reprisal from the government?
Click to expand...
we've tried letting racists like you apply your judgment without fear of reprisal before, it resulted in a shit ton of harm to those minorities you cowards are so scared of.

Dr Kynes said:
lefties want everything to be "fair" but life isnt fair.
Click to expand...
and racists want all brown people to be criminals, but not all brown people are. that's kindergarten mentality, kynes.

Dr Kynes said:
it's time for lefties to grow up and realize that kindergarten rules dont work outside the playground.
Click to expand...
one again, you accuse others of that which you are guilty of, just like when you try to invert the multiculturalists into being the monoculturalists that white nationalists like you so desperately yearn for.

you base your whole argument on not just "feels", but racist feels. he passed the background check, but you FEEL he is a criminal anyway based on his skin color or national origin or race. then you accuse lefties of protecting these classes not based upon the harm that racists like you have caused them, but on "feels".

it is simply ridiculous and a transparently racist argument.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
your position is based on FEELS not logic.
Click to expand...
and there it is.

that which kynes is guilty of, he tries to pin on his opponent.

kynes wants civil rights out of the way because he just "feels" that the person who wants to buy the gun or mop the floors is a dangerous criminal due to his race or skin color or nation of origin (especially if it is "sufficiently brown").

but his position is totally not based on "feels", because his "logic" is that brown = dangerous.

kkkynes, you really are spelling out the exact problems with letting racists like you have their way. you really should shut the fuck up to bolster your case.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:















maybe you should reconsider your position more carefully instead.

i am pretty sure that "forcing" people like you to serve black patrons, despite their blackness, is perfectly just.

why you would ever question such a law speaks highly to your ignorance or your racism, and nothing else.

tldr, fuck off ya piece of shit.
Click to expand...
Such slave. So persecuted. Wow. Much unfair!
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
how do the protected classes make someone "unsuitable for that commerce"?

in other words, you were willing to do business with someone, but then you found out about their race or color or national origin or religion or sex, and now you don't want to.

sounds like pure bigotry and racism to me, but let's see what phony and bogus examples you have cooked up.



so the gun buyer passes a background check, but you are just so certain that the buyer's skin color or race or national origin makes him a criminal that you refuse to sell to him.

yep, pure racism.



thanks for dispelling the notion that you are also concerned about white people, whose skin color and race are also protected, by making it explicit that these concerns of yours only apply to those who are "sufficiently brown".

i thought for a second that you would at least have the brains to leave that escape hatch open for yourself.



so your applicant passes his background check, but if he is "sufficiently brown", you automatically assume he is a criminal or a pedo and want to find a nice white person to mop up your floors instead.

once again, based purely in racism.



we've tried letting racists like you apply your judgment without fear of reprisal before, it resulted in a shit ton of harm to those minorities you cowards are so scared of.



and racists want all brown people to be criminals, but not all brown people are. that's kindergarten mentality, kynes.



one again, you accuse others of that which you are guilty of, just like when you try to invert the multiculturalists into being the monoculturalists that white nationalists like you so desperately yearn for.

you base your whole argument on not just "feels", but racist feels. he passed the background check, but you FEEL he is a criminal anyway based on his skin color or national origin or race. then you accuse lefties of protecting these classes not based upon the harm that racists like you have caused them, but on "feels".

it is simply ridiculous and a transparently racist argument.
Click to expand...
Better man then me .. I refuse to read his shit. Too damn long saying nothing
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
you get paid to make me a delicious sandwich. No one pays to get raped
Click to expand...

Not relevant. If the payment rendered were relevant it would first have to be a conclusion to an agreement of BOTH involved parties absent duress and freely entered into by both parties.

For instance, if a person comes to your house and rapes you with a pack of trained gerbils against your will, but leaves you a pile of gift certificates to Wendy's as a "payment" that does not answer the question of was the interaction (the gerbil fest) consensual does it? No, it doesn't.

The payment, and the amount of the payment is irrelevant if both of the parties did not agree to the interaction in the first place. Somebody got gerbilled (sic) against their will and no amount of payment changes that does it?


You continually act as if it is a persons right to make others serve them, rather than doing business on a consensual basis, why do you do that?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
he is totally not racist and would totally serve you a sandwich.

he also has no inclination to associate with you, has to be forced and coerced under threat of force to make a sandwich for you, and is enslaved and raped by the act of having to make a sandwich for you.

makes sense, right?
Click to expand...

One serious question for you sir :

If a person has no inclination to associate with you, is it best for you to leave them alone or threaten force against them if they do not associate with you?





What if the sandwich maker person hasn't washed their hands for awhile, because, well, the bathroom is "out of order" and smells funny? (see, I can put in irrelevant shit too)
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Not relevant. If the payment rendered were relevant it would first have to be a conclusion to an agreement of BOTH involved parties absent duress and freely entered into by both parties.

For instance, if a person comes to your house and rapes you with a pack of trained gerbils against your will, but leaves you a pile of gift certificates to Wendy's as a "payment" that does not answer the question of was the interaction (the gerbil fest) consensual does it? No, it doesn't.

The payment, and the amount of the payment is irrelevant if both of the parties did not agree to the interaction in the first place. Somebody got gerbilled (sic) against their will and no amount of payment changes that does it?


You continually act as if it is a persons right to make others serve them, rather than doing business on a consensual basis, why do you do that?
Click to expand...
Logically, I can see the point you're making and even how you arrived there. I think the problem with the analogy is the tenuous correlation between "a person comes to your house and rapes you" and "a person enters your store to buy goods that you presented as for sale to the public".

Example:

An American Indian walks into your doughnut shop. There is a box of day old doughnuts on a table near the door. Being an angry descendant of General Custer, you refuse to sell him the box of doughnuts. He places more than enough money to cover the posted price plus any sales tax, grabs the box and exits. Who was harmed and exactly how were they harmed? You received the full payment you were offering the goods for and sold goods that were soon to go from an asset to an expense.

The only harm I can see is mental. You weren't allowed to express your prejudice and it pisses you off. Not you personally, but you as in the store owner in this example.

As a current small business owner and seasoned salesman, the only color I see in my customers is green.
 
Last edited:
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
MuyLocoNC said:
Logically, I can see the point you're making and even how you arrived there. I think the problem with the analogy is the tenuous correlation between "a person comes to your house and rapes you" and "a person enters your store to buy goods that you presented as for sale to the public".

Example:

An American Indian walks into your doughnut shop. There is a box of day old doughnuts on a table near the door. Being an angry descendant of General Custer, you refuse to sell him the box of doughnuts. He places more than enough money to cover the posted price plus any sales tax, grabs the box and exits. Who was harmed and exactly how were they harmed? You received the full payment you were offering the goods for and sold goods that we're soon to go from an asset to an expense.

The only harm I can see is mental. You weren't allowed to express your prejudice and it pisses you off. Not you personally, but you as in the store owner in this example.

As a current small business owner and seasoned salesman, the only color I see in my customers is green.
Click to expand...
why can't you be like this more often
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
why can't you be like this more often
Click to expand...
To be clear, I wasn't dismissing his argument on the freedom to disassociate. I was only attempting to correct what I saw as a poor analogy.

I know how I feel and how I do business. I really am torn between my interest in as little government involvement in the marketplace as possible and my abhorrence that anyone could be so vile as to refuse service over race, sexual preference, etc.
 
W

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
I bet your unit was one of the worst. Senior NCOs who just want to maintain combat readiness will never let one of their joes get charged with rape. Meanwhile, the US military pretends there's no problem. I'm sure your friday afternoon briefings made everything better, top.
Click to expand...
One of these incidents happened on-post, and formal charges were never filed due to the pics I cited.

The other happened off-post during a block leave period, and charges were actually filed, but dropped prior to going to court.

The U.S. military has been pretending females were an asset to the force since before I first enlisted, and it only got worse when Clinton got elected. The right thing to do is analyze the data concerning chicks, realize that it is largely a mistake to include them in the force, except for a very limited list of duty positions, and stop enlisting them and assigning them to duties they have no business being in. That won't happen though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top