Forward Together; A New Model for Direct Action in Politics?

londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
So, you're okay with white people forcing black people to serve them, even when the black person is on his own property and makes it clear he's not interested in being forced to serve the white person ?

I'm sorry to hear that.

So, if a person owns a particular place, and he doesn't want to serve white people, isn't he saying he ISN'T open to the public ?
Click to expand...
open a business that is closed to the public. Charge a membership and you can be as racist as you wish. I fail to understand why you can't grasp this
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
open a business that is closed to the public. Charge a membership and you can be as racist as you wish. I fail to understand why you can't grasp this
Click to expand...



It sounds like you default to the idea that a group of people who call themselves government somehow have a right to force a black guy to serve people against his will until / unless they give him permission to do otherwise.

Wouldn't that mean the people who call themselves government are acting as if they own the black guy and the black guys property ? Since he clearly is unable to make choices about his own body and property without being threatened.

For example, can I force you to serve me and tell you how to use your property and kill you if you don't comply? I'd say I don't have that right and nobody does.

You seem to be saying if you get enough people, none of whom have a right to do something, they can add up all that zero right and somehow create something out of a pile of zeroes. Sounds like you have been indoctrinated into believing in two opposing things at once.

Let me guess, public schools?
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
It sounds like you default to the idea that a group of people who call themselves government somehow have a right to force a black guy to serve people against his will until / unless they give him permission to do otherwise.

Wouldn't that mean the people who call themselves government are acting as if they own the black guy and the black guys property ? Since he clearly is unable to make choices about his own body and property without being threatened.

For example, can I force you to serve me and tell you how to use your property and kill you if you don't comply? I'd say I don't have that right and nobody does.

You seem to be saying if you get enough people, none of whom have a right to do something, they can add up all that zero right and somehow create something out of a pile of zeroes. Sounds like you have been indoctrinated into believing in two opposing things at once.

Let me guess, public schools?
Click to expand...
Like I said these same laws work for your beautiful mother as well. I would hate if she ever went into a store open to the public and the owner called her out her name and kicked her out for only being female.

Did you ever total the numbers for the public services that you use ? You owe bro
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
Like I said these same laws work for your beautiful mother as well. I would hate if she ever went into a store open to the public and the owner called her out her name and kicked her out for only being female.

Did you ever total the numbers for the public services that you use ? You owe bro
Click to expand...
We owe people when these two things occur.
We are honoring an agreement we entered into on a mutual basis with another party or parties.
We take something which isn't ours. (violate another persons right)

Forcing a black guy to use his body on his property to serve you, against his wishes isn't honoring an agreement is it ? It sounds like you are okay with taking away his right to self determine, but since you'd take away every persons right to self determine, it's actually equality of oppression you are pushing.

You default to the idea that government people are exempt and somehow have some supernatural godlike ability to make others choices for them and that will make "everybody equal". Of course that is self contradictory isn't it?
Then you fail to address my mathematical proof that it's a lie. What is the sum of a million zeroes ? It's still zero isn't it?

So are you saying if I have what I consider a brilliant idea, I can charge you for it, whether you use it or not ?
I can prevent you from using alternatives and even if you do use alternative services, you'd own me anyway?



So when you say the law works for my mom, are you saying because you'd force a black guy to serve you against his will, you'd like my mom to join in with you and force people who don't want to, to serve her too?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
The point of the article in the OP is to have an organization that advocates for popular ideas but does not allow itself to be co-opted by candidates or parties, leaving it free to against for ideas and hold those in office accountable.

It has merit. All the more because the ballwashers hate it so much.
Click to expand...
It just sounds like another Super PAC that will show INBOX asking me for cash.

Bernie was the exception.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
We owe people when these two things occur.
We are honoring an agreement we entered into on a mutual basis with another party or parties.
We take something which isn't ours. (violate another persons right)

Forcing a black guy to use his body on his property to serve you, against his wishes isn't honoring an agreement is it ? It sounds like you are okay with taking away his right to self determine, but since you'd take away every persons right to self determine, it's actually equality of oppression you are pushing.

You default to the idea that government people are exempt and somehow have some supernatural godlike ability to make others choices for them and that will make "everybody equal". Of course that is self contradictory isn't it?
Then you fail to address my mathematical proof that it's a lie. What is the sum of a million zeroes ? It's still zero isn't it?

So are you saying if I have what I consider a brilliant idea, I can charge you for it, whether you use it or not ?
I can prevent you from using alternatives and even if you do use alternative services, you'd own me anyway?



So when you say the law works for my mom, are you saying because you'd force a black guy to serve you against his will, you'd like my mom to join in with you and force people who don't want to, to serve her too?
Click to expand...
I see you cleaned up your narrative to the point of Chinese handcuffs.

You were so busted.:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top