# White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD



## ShootSpeeders

So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.



> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”


----------



## ShootSpeeders

You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why

1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..

2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.

3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.

4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.


----------



## Harry Dresden

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.


out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....


----------



## Vastator

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

A move that the enemies of free speech will likely end up regretting...


----------



## Vastator

Harry Dresden said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
Click to expand...

For someone who didn't like his use of numbers; you sure were quick to spew some numbers. But only one, of the two of you has had their numbers independently verified... Guess who?


----------



## TheOldSchool

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

Uh oh talking about another forum


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vastator said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who didn't like his use of numbers; you sure were quick to spew some numbers. But only one, of the two of you has had their numbers independently verified... Guess who?
Click to expand...

^ Another in the top 3


----------



## Vastator

TheOldSchool said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who didn't like his use of numbers; you sure were quick to spew some numbers. But only one, of the two of you has had their numbers independently verified... Guess who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Another in the top 3
Click to expand...

^ Another consummate liar who fears the truth...


----------



## TheOldSchool

Vastator said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who didn't like his use of numbers; you sure were quick to spew some numbers. But only one, of the two of you has had their numbers independently verified... Guess who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Another in the top 3
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^ Another consummate liar who fears the truth...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Vastator said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For someone who didn't like his use of numbers; you sure were quick to spew some numbers. But only one, of the two of you has had their numbers independently verified... Guess who?
Click to expand...

were did i say anything about not liking his numbers?....and are you speedos spokes person,he cant defend himself?......and i believe its pretty much verified around here that speedos aint too bright....


----------



## Vastator

Tommy Tainant said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
Click to expand...

The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...


----------



## Coyote

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


Those are private companies.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Tommy Tainant said:


> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.




We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Vastator said:


> The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...



This will backfire on the white-hating racists but that's not why.  It's because this is such a hypocritical example of censorship.  They don't ban websites that support persecution of whites - meaning affirmative action.


----------



## Moonglow

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

You poor thang...Now you'll have to write letters to your supremacy bros..


----------



## Moonglow

ShootSpeeders said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
Click to expand...

And only race haters like you hate it..


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ShootSpeeders said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
Click to expand...

Absolutely , I have just cracked open a cold one to celebrate.

Anyway, where is their free speech under threat ?


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

I'm not too keen on Stormfront, as it's got lots of gung ho pro-Hitler rejects, and anti-Polish losers.

However, I don't hate Stormfront, and certainly don't wish for it's demise.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Tommy Tainant said:


> Anyway, where is their free speech under threat ?



If a liberal website was shut down for content, you'd be howling about free speech.  THINK, hater.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Amazing how college professors are alllowed to call for the extermination of white people and nothing is done to them  - and then this happens!!


----------



## Humorme

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.

After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:

I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.

The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet. 

In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid. 

Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:

On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.

That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda. 

So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.

This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.


----------



## Lewdog

Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.


----------



## Vastator

Tommy Tainant said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely , I have just cracked open a cold one to celebrate.
Click to expand...

Necrophilia is a crime. Even in wales... You sick bastard!


----------



## Vastator

Lewdog said:


> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.


It was already chock full of Democrats. Where've you been?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ShootSpeeders said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, where is their free speech under threat ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a liberal website was shut down for content, you'd be howling about free speech.  THINK, hater.
Click to expand...


Why would they be shut down ?

In fact nothing has been shut down. the hosting company have declined to host their poisonous shite. They are perfectly free to find someone who will.

Until then..................


----------



## John Baron

Humorme said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
Click to expand...

one of the oddest posts in a long long time.

When did you get released?


----------



## Moonglow

websites are private domains on public bandwidth ran by private companies.....don't think there is not some control over content, just like on TV and the radio..


----------



## hjmick

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...



Oh my, wherever will you get your talking points?


----------



## Harry Dresden

hjmick said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, wherever will you get your talking points?
Click to expand...

from the book "Talking Points for Dummies".....


----------



## Old Rocks

Humorme said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
Click to expand...

Po' po' baby, here, want a hanky? LOL


----------



## Death Angel

Lewdog said:


> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.


Maybe. But also those who honestly support FREE SPEECH.

Has Stormfront actively advocated VIOLENCE against those they disagree with? Antifa has
The Left is showing their true colors (black).

I hope you gloating Leftist retards understand what this is gonna do to the movement you hate. They will grow, and they will be even more angry. And in America, THEY WILL VOTE.



> Kristen Clarke, the head of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted Stormfront’s multiple links to real-world violence in a statement on Saturday, trumpeting the website being pulled down. Her organization successfully lobbied Web.com to remove Stormfront on the grounds that the site was violating its Acceptable Use Policy by spreading violent, racial hatred across the internet and throughout the world.
> The Neo-Nazi website Stormfront has been pulled offline by its web host


----------



## Lewdog

Death Angel said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But also those who honestly support FREE SPEECH.
> 
> Has Stormfront actively advocated VIOLENCE against those they disagree with? Antifa has
> The Left is showing their true colors (black).
> 
> I hope you gloating Leftist retards understand what this is gonna do to the movement you hate. They will grow, and they will be even more angry. And in Americas, THEY WILL VOTE.
Click to expand...



Not all people that hate racists are Lefties.  I'm not a leftie and never have been.  Honestly you folks that say this kind of stuff have never really been around a true leftie.  You should try one of my professors who said she isn't a Marxist because he isn't left enough.


----------



## Tax Man

Death Angel said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But also those who honestly support FREE SPEECH.
> 
> Has Stormfront actively advocated VIOLENCE against those they disagree with? Antifa has
> The Left is showing their true colors (black).
> 
> I hope you gloating Leftist retards understand what this is gonna do to the movement you hate. They will grow, and they will be even more angry. And in America, THEY WILL VOTE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kristen Clarke, the head of the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, noted Stormfront’s multiple links to real-world violence in a statement on Saturday, trumpeting the website being pulled down. Her organization successfully lobbied Web.com to remove Stormfront on the grounds that the site was violating its Acceptable Use Policy by spreading violent, racial hatred across the internet and throughout the world.
> The Neo-Nazi website Stormfront has been pulled offline by its web host
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

They have voted and look at what we have to put up with in tRumps misguided regime.


----------



## Slyhunter

Next lets kick the Boy Scouts off of the Internet for being anti-gay.


----------



## mdk

It's their business. If people find Network Solutions' practices abhorrent they a can always take their dollars elsewhere and use another website host. Let the free market decide.


----------



## Death Angel

I see they still have their youtube channel. Youtube is Google, so we'll see how long that lasts now that the Antifrseps smell blood in the water.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

I wonder how many of these SF-haters have ever been to the site.  People there don't hate blacks.  Their views are the same as lincoln's.  Blacks are mentally inferior and it would be best if they lived with their own kind in africa.  All his adult life lincoln encouraged blacks to go back to africa.


----------



## Humorme

John Baron said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> one of the oddest posts in a long long time.
> 
> When did you get released?
Click to expand...


Released?


----------



## Zander

I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.

This is a huge mistake.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

ShootSpeeders said:


> I wonder how many of these SF-haters have ever been to the site.  People there don't hate blacks.  Their views are the same as lincoln's.  Blacks are mentally inferior and it would be best if they lived with their own kind in africa.  All his adult life lincoln encouraged blacks to go back to africa.



I sincerely believe that there was a genetic split at some point and that there is a gene that makes "some" blacks savages while others are great people.  Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors

This video by Chris Rock probably explains it best......


----------



## fncceo

Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.


----------



## Lewdog

fncceo said:


> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.




I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.

https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own


----------



## fncceo

Lewdog said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
Click to expand...


A name can be copyrighted, of course.  But name registrations remain the property of the registrar.  That being said, it would be hard to prove in court that Stormfront is a unique name given its association with the Nazi _Sturmabteilung._


----------



## MaryL

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

It's odd I see a huge number of homeless white people and the huge increase in home prices, but yet Denver has become a sanctuary city for illegal aliens from Mexico.  There is a major disconnect here. Are we concerned with  ending poverty or are we just playing lip service? Because something isn't adding up here.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white....




You stupid jackass.  That's just more fake news from the media cartels.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

MaryL said:


> It's odd I see a huge number of homeless white people and the huge increase in home prices, but yet Denver has become a sanctuary city for illegal aliens from Mexico.  There is a major disconnect here. Are we concerned with  ending poverty or are we just playing lip service? Because something isn't adding up here.



No mystery too it.  All the officials in denver are raking in huge corporate bribes for supporting illegals. Business prefers illegals over the homeless since illegals will work for peanuts.


----------



## Snouter

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors



The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.


----------



## reconmark

ShootSpeeders said:


> I wonder how many of these SF-haters have ever been to the site.  People there don't hate blacks.  Their views are the same as lincoln's.  Blacks are mentally inferior and it would be best if they lived with their own kind in africa.  All his adult life lincoln encouraged blacks to go back to africa.


I have visited frequently and reviewed many threads that called for violence against minorities, excusing violence against minorities, policies to harm and discriminate against minority groups..
You can thank crybaby racists such as yourself and trump...nobody cares that you are lower class, low hanging white friut but your continued efforts to lower humanity to your level has created pushback.
Now live with it...


----------



## Gracie

I dunno. Mixed feelings on this. Stormfront being booted means they will spread out. Not so good. On the other hand, booting them for speaking just like BLM and ANTIFA does...that could pose a problem for those that are anti BLM and anti Antifa.
What/Who will be next to get booted? Be careful in thinking about this.

_First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist._

_Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist._

_Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew._

_Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me._


----------



## reconmark

Snouter said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
Click to expand...

No wonder you have no link to that...smh.


----------



## Syriusly

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


Poor little racist snowflakes. 

So confused about what the First Amendment means.


----------



## monkrules

Lewdog said:


> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.


There's a post in one of the other forums warning USMB members that a bunch of these stormfront losers would probably come here trying to stink up our board.


----------



## Snouter

Douchebags hate free speech!


----------



## monkrules

Snouter said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
Click to expand...

Wow. Now we've seen everything. Blaming your freaking racism on God. 

Lotsa luck with that...


----------



## frigidweirdo

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


Do you know SO little about the First Amendment? Can it really be true, or is this just your online persona? 

The First Amendment concerns the GOVERNMENT. Last I looked Stormfront didn't get kicked off by the government.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Snouter said:


> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
Click to expand...


What don't the facts show?

Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas. 

The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either. 

Facts won't tell you everything.


----------



## BULLDOG

Vastator said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...
Click to expand...


So tell me about this dark web. Is it a secret place where only those with a special decoder ring can find the site? If so, do you think the Nazis are the only ones who can fine their new site? What about the Nazis that don't have a decoder ring?


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
Click to expand...


By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.

New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.

Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

I've never visited Stormfront website because it's not something I want to view. But I am totaly against its removal.  What a dumbass thing to do in a country where we celebrate Free Speech.  I guess we should shutdown websites that promote Black Lives Matter if we are going to be consistant about banning hate sites.  I suspect the Left would be against that.


----------



## Vastator

AvgGuyIA said:


> I've never visited Stormfront website because it's not something I want to view. But I am totaly against its removal.  What a dumbass thing to do in a country where we celebrate Free Speech.  I guess we should shutdown websites that promote Black Lives Matter if we are going to be consistant about banning hate sites.  I suspect the Left would be against that.


The funny thing about Stormfront is this.... I'd never heard of it until I started posting here. And i learned of its existence from this boards liberals... Lol. I wonder how many of that sites members were turned onto it by bumbling misguided SJWs...?


----------



## Political Junky

Good riddance.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

Aw, jeez, now where are you sick racists gonna foment your hatred?


----------



## Faun

Vastator said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...
Click to expand...

How are they gonna do that without a web host?


----------



## Mac1958

I realize this is just another sophomoric & worthless online slap fight, but I do have a question:  I'm assuming that there was regularly material that would be considered by reasonable people to suggest, enable and inspire violence and other law-breaking.  

Would that be a fair assumption?

Just curious.  I do realize curiosity is frowned upon.
.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
Click to expand...

Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
Click to expand...


No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
Click to expand...

So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?


----------



## Faun

Lewdog said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
Click to expand...

That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CocaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.


----------



## Faun

AvgGuyIA said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
Click to expand...

If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.


----------



## fncceo

Faun said:


> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
Click to expand...


Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.

But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.


----------



## Faun

AvgGuyIA said:


> I've never visited Stormfront website because it's not something I want to view. But I am totaly against its removal.  What a dumbass thing to do in a country where we celebrate Free Speech.  I guess we should shutdown websites that promote Black Lives Matter if we are going to be consistant about banning hate sites.  I suspect the Left would be against that.


^^^ another imbecile who doesn't understand free speech.


----------



## Faun

fncceo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
Click to expand...

I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...


----------



## fncceo

Faun said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...
Click to expand...


Not cut-and-dried answers to questions of Tort Law ... time for them to lawyer up and roll their collective dice.


----------



## Faun

fncceo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name Registrars are private entities and not governmental.  This is not a First Amendment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not cut-and-dried answers to questions of Tort Law ... time for them to lawyer up and roll their collective dice.
Click to expand...

Won't help stormfront here since that is not their issue. Their issue is that their webhost seized their domain due to violating their terms of service.


----------



## Moonglow

Faun said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not cut-and-dried answers to questions of Tort Law ... time for them to lawyer up and roll their collective dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't help stormfront here since that is not their issue. Their issue is that their webhost seized their domain due to violating their terms of service.
Click to expand...

I tried to explain earlier how the internet is mostly a private enterprize and there is control of content...


----------



## Geaux4it

The libs need to be careful with their hate or USMB might be next to go

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

Faun said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe however if Stormfront has some kind of copyright in the name they can go to court and prove they own it because it is using their name.
> 
> https://www.quora.com/Can-a-company-force-me-to-give-them-a-domain-name-that-I-own
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not cut-and-dried answers to questions of Tort Law ... time for them to lawyer up and roll their collective dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't help stormfront here since that is not their issue. Their issue is that their webhost seized their domain due to violating their terms of service.
Click to expand...


After a bunch of lib lawyers went after the webhost

-Geaux


----------



## Moonglow

Geaux4it said:


> The libs need to be careful with their hate or USMB might be next to go
> 
> -Geaux


That is totally up to the owners of USMB....Not the Constitution or all the rightist that have a case of waded panties from Stormfront being closed.....Tissue?


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's not the case here because no one is using the domain, stormfront.org. What you're looking at is where "squatters" purchase commonly used names and then try to resell them. Like buying coke.com when it was available and then trying to sell it to CokaCola for big bucks. Courts have consistently ruled in favor of corporations owning their own name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coca Cola is a unique and original name ... Stormfront, not so much.
> 
> But, if the folks over at Stormfront really want it back, they need to pool their donut and Red Bull money and hire a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used CocaCola as an example. It can be any business name, celebrity, etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not cut-and-dried answers to questions of Tort Law ... time for them to lawyer up and roll their collective dice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't help stormfront here since that is not their issue. Their issue is that their webhost seized their domain due to violating their terms of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After a bunch of lib lawyers went after the webhost
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

Great, so the score is:

Liberal lawyers: 1
Conservative racists: 0


----------



## Tommy Tainant

AvgGuyIA said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
Click to expand...


Why would you want to do that ?

Ive just been looking a their site and it seems quite worthy to me.

*We are committed to acknowledging, respecting and celebrating difference(s) and commonalities.*
*
We are committed to collectively, lovingly and courageously working vigorously for freedom and justice for Black people and, by extension all people. As we forge our path, we intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.

We are committed to practicing empathy; we engage comrades with the intent to learn about and connect with their contexts.

We are committed to fostering an intergenerational and communal network free from ageism. We believe that all people, regardless of age, shows up with capacity to lead and learn.

We are committed to embodying and practicing justice, liberation, and peace in our engagements with one another.
*
I cant see any relation between these people and stormfront.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
Click to expand...


Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World


----------



## TNHarley

Hmmm don't see any anti white hate sites shut down on the news. Am I missing anything? Or is this war on hate sites just certain kinds?


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
Click to expand...


Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.


----------



## Geaux4it

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
Click to expand...


Acceptable risk to live in America

-Geaux


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
Click to expand...


The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.

However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.


----------



## bodecea

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

Well, most of you are over here now anyways....


----------



## bodecea

ShootSpeeders said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, where is their free speech under threat ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a liberal website was shut down for content, you'd be howling about free speech.  THINK, hater.
Click to expand...

Private companies are not under the restraints of the 1st Amendment.....you certainly should have known that if you DO think.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snouter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BasicHumanUnit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then again, most serial killers and mass murderers are white......so imbeciles and sick freaks come in ALL colors
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The facts show Blacks and other non-Whites are 200 times more likely than Whites to assault, murder and or rape other people.  Sorry!  Brain capacity in humans influences their conduct!  Not my fault.  God did it through evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
Click to expand...


Central American crime is driven by the US need for narcotics.The US is causing it.


----------



## bodecea

Lewdog said:


> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.


"will be"?


----------



## bodecea

Gracie said:


> I dunno. Mixed feelings on this. Stormfront being booted means they will spread out. Not so good. On the other hand, booting them for speaking just like BLM and ANTIFA does...that could pose a problem for those that are anti BLM and anti Antifa.
> What/Who will be next to get booted? Be careful in thinking about this.
> 
> _First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Socialist._
> 
> _Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Trade Unionist._
> 
> _Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
> Because I was not a Jew._
> 
> _Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me._


Wait.....the Alt-Right trumpanzees claim the NAZIS are the Socialists....they came for themselves?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Geaux4it said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Then don't complain about terrorists.


----------



## Geaux4it

frigidweirdo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
Click to expand...


Why?

-Geaux


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What don't the facts show?
> 
> Well, if we look at facts, we can see that crime isn't higher among black people, it's higher among AMERICAN PEOPLE, as Africa has lower levels of violent crime than America does. The worst 40 cities in the world for murder, 39 of them are in the Americas.
> 
> The facts don't tell you that slavery, segregation and the treatment of black people during this time up until today plays a major part in how society functions and how different groups see themselves. The facts don't tell you that the US's politicians have managed to avoid being seen as racist by simply targeting the poor, many of whom are black or other minorities, and they don't give a damn about any whites who get caught up in this either.
> 
> Facts won't tell you everything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
Click to expand...


So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white? 

I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up. 

The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes. 

What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people. 

Let's have a look

in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people. 
45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics) 

10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty. 
28.9% of black people were in poverty. 

There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty. 

This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics. 

Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia

If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle. 

US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor

"Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."

7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Geaux4it said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
Click to expand...


What did I just miss?  You wrote:

"_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."

INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.  

While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.

Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.  

By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?

Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
Click to expand...


Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.  

As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.

Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."


----------



## ShootSpeeders

reconmark said:


> [
> You can thank crybaby racists such as yourself and trump...nobody cares that you are lower class, low hanging white friut but your continued efforts to lower humanity to your level has created pushback.
> Now live with it...




HAHAHA.  The board notes that all you have is personal attacks on other posters. Thanks for admitting i'm right.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.



HAHAHA.  Did you really say that.??  If a webhoster banned a liberal site you'd be howling about censorship.  HYPOCRITE.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World


And that doesn't include all the murders on the highways.  Central American drivers are the most homicidal in the world. Passing on blind curves is routine there.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

TNHarley said:


> Hmmm don't see any anti white hate sites shut down on the news. Am I missing anything? Or is this war on hate sites just certain kinds?



That's it.  Libs tell us hating white people is not racism.  In fact it's a way to FIGHT racism!!!!


----------



## OldLady

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.


Peace and writing novels don't require brains?  LOL


----------



## Geaux4it

frigidweirdo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
Click to expand...


That's a false equivalence

-Geaux


----------



## ShootSpeeders

OldLady said:


> Peace and writing novels don't require brains?  LOL



HAHAHA.  Are you serious.?  Peace prize winners are usually just politicians. And novelists are just silly entertainers. They have as much intelligence as a football player.

Only Science winners count.  THINK, you wooly-brained liberal.


----------



## Coyote

Vastator said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...
Click to expand...

That is one concern I have as well, these creatures are better exposed to sunlight.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Coyote said:


> Vastator said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The victory is likely to be short lived. Now these people will take their forum to the dark web where no one can restrain them... Probably not such a smart move. Dumbasses... You had them all, right there in front of you... With a small measure of control to boot. And just like everything else you leftists touch; you done gone, and fucked it up... Dumbasses...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is one concern I have as well, these creatures are better exposed to sunlight.
Click to expand...

Read back on this thread and tell us how it could get worse.


----------



## Unkotare

ShootSpeeders said:


> And novelists are just silly entertainers. They have as much intelligence as a football player......





How many novels have you written? Can you write you own name? How many Nobel Prizes in Science do you have? Have you EVER accomplished ANYTHING in science or any other field?


----------



## OldLady

Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot.... 
had no brains, says our board intellectual, Shoot Speeders.  He should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch 12 solid hours of Charlie Rose.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  Did you really say that.??  If a webhoster banned a liberal site you'd be howling about censorship.  HYPOCRITE.
Click to expand...

Nah, I'm not a whiney little bitch like you.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> By American, you mean Native American, and Native American mixed peoples have the highest murder rates, and I'd agree.
> 
> New World Blacks have higher murder rates than those of Africa.
> 
> Of course Africa is very strict generally on crime, unlike New World Blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
Click to expand...


Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.

Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.

As for the White murder rate in the U.S.

Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.


----------



## EverCurious

Just as a note, and I didn't have time to read the article yet, but the domain name is different from the host.  For example all my domain names are through a completely different and unrelated company from my web site hosting company.  I'm guessing from the chatter in this thread that their host ditched them (web.com) - a minor issue frankly, they'll likely be back up, using the same domain name, on a new host shortly.  Takes about 2 days to redirect a domain name to a new host site.

Frankly /any/ right leaning content provider on the web right now should be backing up their data daily in preparation for being shut down by "brown shirts"  (YouTube, Google, Facebook and other left owned social media type companies are implementing the silencing of alternative voices.  I'm concerned for many of my favorite YouTube channels >.<)


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
Click to expand...


Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities. 

With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in. 

Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes. 

None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances. 

So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.

But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive. 

Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination. 

Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.


----------



## reconmark

ShootSpeeders said:


> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You can thank crybaby racists such as yourself and trump...nobody cares that you are lower class, low hanging white friut but your continued efforts to lower humanity to your level has created pushback.
> Now live with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  The board notes that all you have is personal attacks on other posters. Thanks for admitting i'm right.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA...the board notes that you are a sorry assed cry baby racists that started a pity party thread and can't hane the fact that you are a loser....
Thanks for admitting that my earlier post concerning you was correct.


----------



## reconmark

ShootSpeeders said:


> reconmark said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You can thank crybaby racists such as yourself and trump...nobody cares that you are lower class, low hanging white friut but your continued efforts to lower humanity to your level has created pushback.
> Now live with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  The board notes that all you have is personal attacks on other posters. Thanks for admitting i'm right.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA...the board notes that you are a sorry assed cry baby racists that started a pity party thread and can't handle the fact that you are a loser....
Thanks for admitting that my earlier post concerning you was correct.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
Click to expand...


Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much. 






Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.

The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Geaux4it said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a false equivalence
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


That's 4 1/2 words.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's not what I mean, but thanks for thinking you know me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.
> 
> As for the White murder rate in the U.S.
> 
> Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.
Click to expand...


Firstly, we're not dealing with absolutes. We're not saying if you have one and one you get two. This is far more complex than this. You can have places that will have higher murder rates because maybe there's a family who are complete scumbags and prefer to murder people. 

As I've said in another post. Poverty increases the chances people will commit crime. As do many other factors like educational achievement, being in an inner city area and other such things.

Prince George's County in Maryland has a large population, 800,000 people. That means there will be different areas within this county. Rich areas, poor areas. Many US govt facilities are in the area. 






As you can see crime is higher the closer it is to DC. 





Also the areas closest to DC are the poorest areas, while those further away are richer. 

It's not difficult to see that the issues here are not ones of race, but ones of poverty and other issues. There are other statistics that I can't find, like a map of education achievement. But I'd bet the closer you get to DC, the lower this achievement is. 

Simply said this county is too big to provide you with simple statistics to prove anything. 






The areas closest to DC are more black, but areas away from DC also have quite a lot of black people too, and aren't as crime ridden, because it's not about race.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptable risk to live in America
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
Click to expand...



Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

OldLady said:


> Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot....
> had no brains, says our board intellectual, Shoot Speeders.  He should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch 12 solid hours of Charlie Rose.



Your tiny little "brain" is confusing skill with brains.  Sure, it takes skill to be a novelist just like it takes skill to be a football player.  But brains no.  There is only one kind of intelligence and that is technical intelligence. Engineers, businessmen, scientists.  Those are the smart ppl and the important people.  THINK, america-hater.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then don't complain about terrorists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
Click to expand...


There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential. 

Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.


----------



## frigidweirdo

ShootSpeeders said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot....
> had no brains, says our board intellectual, Shoot Speeders.  He should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch 12 solid hours of Charlie Rose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little "brain" is confusing skill with brains.  Sure, it takes skill to be a novelist just like it takes skill to be a football player.  But brains no.  There is only one kind of intelligence and that is technical intelligence. Engineers, businessmen, scientists.  Those are the smart ppl and the important people.  THINK, america-hater.
Click to expand...


Which of course is complete nonsense. Intelligence is having something that is better than average within the brain. Social intelligence is what makes the richest make their money, for example.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
Click to expand...



First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.

We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.

*NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.  

There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:

*Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:

The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and 

The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.  

It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.

I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.

One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.

Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.  

Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential.
> 
> Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.
Click to expand...


_A sick and cancer prone society, being necessary to insure the exorbitant rates of hospital care, the right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed_.  

Which Amendment is that again?


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
Click to expand...


Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.

London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems. 

Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes. 

No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.

It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..." 

Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination. 

But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of 10,000 murders a year with guns is an acceptable part of living in the US, then a few terrorist acts in order to keep freedoms must also be acceptable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential.
> 
> Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A sick and cancer prone society, being necessary to insure the exorbitant rates of hospital care, the right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed_.
> 
> Which Amendment is that again?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, what are you doing?

You said "Firearms are protected by the law", you did NOT say "protected by the Constitution".


----------



## Slyhunter

violent crimes, crimes with victims, are more likely to happen by poor perpetrators.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Faun said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
Click to expand...

. Has Stormfront website ever advocated violence against anybody?  I doubt it.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

*They Would Kill Every White Who Gets Out of Step in the Goosestep*

Why should we care what happens to Stormfart's foaming at the mouth fanatics?  This "slippery slope" fallacy is preached by self-important political nannies the multi-ideological Establishment hired to confuse us and weaken us.


----------



## Faun

AvgGuyIA said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . Has Stormfront website ever advocated violence against anybody?  I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt they have. This forum has even seen its share of lunatics calling for the death of others. No question Stormfront saw its share.


----------



## Political Junky

ShootSpeeders said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot....
> had no brains, says our board intellectual, Shoot Speeders.  He should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch 12 solid hours of Charlie Rose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little "brain" is confusing skill with brains.  Sure, it takes skill to be a novelist just like it takes skill to be a football player.  But brains no.  There is only one kind of intelligence and that is technical intelligence. Engineers, businessmen, scientists.  Those are the smart ppl and the important people.  THINK, america-hater.
Click to expand...

OMG


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Lewdog said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lewdog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh awesome... now this forum will be flooded with racist idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe. But also those who honestly support FREE SPEECH.
> 
> Has Stormfront actively advocated VIOLENCE against those they disagree with? Antifa has
> The Left is showing their true colors (black).
> 
> I hope you gloating Leftist retards understand what this is gonna do to the movement you hate. They will grow, and they will be even more angry. And in Americas, THEY WILL VOTE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not all people that hate racists are Lefties.  I'm not a leftie and never have been.  Honestly you folks that say this kind of stuff have never really been around a true leftie.  You should try one of my professors who said she isn't a Marxist because he isn't left enough.
Click to expand...

*College Students Come From the Shallow End of the Talent Pool*

Using "people that hate" instead of "people who hate" shows you think of people as impersonal objects. Because Diploma Dumbo can't understand patterns, I must also cite "folks that say."

It is also significant that the only time you use it correctly is "one of my professors who said."  This reveals that no matter how much you disagreed with her politically, you at least think of her as human and a superior being to all those impersonal-object particulates polluting the air outside the Ivory Tower.


----------



## The Sage of Main Street

Death Angel said:


> I see they still have their youtube channel. Youtube is Google, so we'll see how long that lasts now that the Antifrseps smell blood in the water.


The blood Aunt Tifa smells is coming out of her own...whatever.


----------



## sealybobo

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.


They don't play chess. Ever play one in a game of Umfofo or Bunga Bunga?


----------



## sealybobo

Harry Dresden said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
Click to expand...

And why the fuck does he care what other whites have done and what some blacks haven't done? I could find a black man smarter than him and a better chess player, one with more money, better SAT scores. 

What about him personally? Did he win a Nobel prize in science? So why he taking credit for what others have done?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

sealybobo said:


> They don't play chess. Ever play one in a game of Umfofo or Bunga Bunga?



I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think.  Blacks sing and dance and play sports.  They put on shows for white ppl.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

sealybobo said:


> And why the fuck does he care what other whites have done and what some blacks haven't done? I could find a black man smarter than him and a better chess player, one with more money, better SAT scores.



And what would that prove, you simpleton?  You don't even know what an average is.  Like all traits, intelligence is spread out over a wide range so of course there are some smart black people just like there are   people 7 feet tall.   But there aren't very many smart blacks and there never will be. THINK, you miserable white-hating racist wretch.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> Central America which is very Native American in origins, has the highest murder rates in the World
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.
> 
> As for the White murder rate in the U.S.
> 
> Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, we're not dealing with absolutes. We're not saying if you have one and one you get two. This is far more complex than this. You can have places that will have higher murder rates because maybe there's a family who are complete scumbags and prefer to murder people.
> 
> As I've said in another post. Poverty increases the chances people will commit crime. As do many other factors like educational achievement, being in an inner city area and other such things.
> 
> Prince George's County in Maryland has a large population, 800,000 people. That means there will be different areas within this county. Rich areas, poor areas. Many US govt facilities are in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see crime is higher the closer it is to DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the areas closest to DC are the poorest areas, while those further away are richer.
> 
> It's not difficult to see that the issues here are not ones of race, but ones of poverty and other issues. There are other statistics that I can't find, like a map of education achievement. But I'd bet the closer you get to DC, the lower this achievement is.
> 
> Simply said this county is too big to provide you with simple statistics to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The areas closest to DC are more black, but areas away from DC also have quite a lot of black people too, and aren't as crime ridden, because it's not about race.
Click to expand...


I don't think you grasp the proportionate differences.

The fact is all the middle class, and rich parts of Prince George's County, Maryland, which are nearly 95% of the county, should be enough to pull the crime rate down.

That's just not the case.

Many poorer White areas in the U.S.A, and also Europe also don't have such high murder rates as Prince George's County, Maryland.

Heavily White Places from modest income Scranton, Pennsylvania, to poor Ukraine have lower murder rates than high income Prince George's County, Maryland, despite the glaring wealth disparity between these regions, favoring the heavily Black PG county in income by a lot.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I know. But then the US is the first world country with the highest murder rates too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.
> 
> As for the White murder rate in the U.S.
> 
> Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, we're not dealing with absolutes. We're not saying if you have one and one you get two. This is far more complex than this. You can have places that will have higher murder rates because maybe there's a family who are complete scumbags and prefer to murder people.
> 
> As I've said in another post. Poverty increases the chances people will commit crime. As do many other factors like educational achievement, being in an inner city area and other such things.
> 
> Prince George's County in Maryland has a large population, 800,000 people. That means there will be different areas within this county. Rich areas, poor areas. Many US govt facilities are in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see crime is higher the closer it is to DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the areas closest to DC are the poorest areas, while those further away are richer.
> 
> It's not difficult to see that the issues here are not ones of race, but ones of poverty and other issues. There are other statistics that I can't find, like a map of education achievement. But I'd bet the closer you get to DC, the lower this achievement is.
> 
> Simply said this county is too big to provide you with simple statistics to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The areas closest to DC are more black, but areas away from DC also have quite a lot of black people too, and aren't as crime ridden, because it's not about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you grasp the proportionate differences.
> 
> The fact is all the middle class, and rich parts of Prince George's County, Maryland, which are nearly 95% of the county, should be enough to pull the crime rate down.
> 
> That's just not the case.
> 
> Many poorer White areas in the U.S.A, and also Europe also don't have such high murder rates as Prince George's County, Maryland.
> 
> Heavily White Places from modest income Scranton, Pennsylvania, to poor Ukraine have lower murder rates than high income Prince George's County, Maryland, despite the glaring wealth disparity between these regions, favoring the heavily Black PG county in income by a lot.
Click to expand...


No, it's not the case. But you haven't analysed so much. What's the compatible difference between this and other counties that sit next to large, violent cities? You don't know, because you didn't look it up. DC only fits into a certain size, but the reality is this county makes up part of the city of Washington. The crime spills over. DC has major crime problems and they leak out into this city. 

How many of the crimes in this city are committed either by people living in DC, or people who live very close to it? 

Also, why do you have lots of black people in DC? Those reasons are mainly historical. Now, if you have areas with large black populations, what do the govts do for these black people? Not much. How much has the federal govt done for DC? 

This is because of the racism and problems the US has suffered for hundred of years. It's impacted area with lots of black people, who are mostly poor. Poverty rates are around 25% for black people today, go back 100 years and you'd have been looking up much higher figures than that. This has a massive impact on how the children do in society. 

Scranton Pennsylvania. You want a comparison that you couldn't be bothered to actually do.

Population of 77,000, more than ten times smaller than that of Prince George's. No where near Philli, or Pittsburgh which would make it comparable to Prince George's. In fact Scranton is in a valley, to either side there's nothing but countryside. 

Different factors play here. It's not just poverty, it's poverty and some more, and large inner city poverty plays out differently than rural poverty for many different reasons. 

But just going "look at the statistics, blacks commit more crimes" doesn't tell you anything unless this is all you want to know.


----------



## Unkotare

Unkotare said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> And novelists are just silly entertainers. They have as much intelligence as a football player......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many novels have you written? Can you write you own name? How many Nobel Prizes in Science do you have? Have you EVER accomplished ANYTHING in science or any other field?
Click to expand...

.


----------



## Political Junky

What's amusing is that the racists are surprised that others are against racism.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
Click to expand...


When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there are more like 30,000 people killed by guns in the United States each year.  There are more than that killed by drunk drivers.  But, we tolerate alcohol.
> 
> As a *nonsmoker *in the United States, your chances of being killed by second hand smoke is* FIVE TIMES* greater than your chance of being killed by a firearm - and that includes military and police actions!  Adding insult to injury, cigarettes kill more Americans per year than any war ever fought by the American people.  Still, cigarettes are legal.
> 
> Since we could reduce gun violence *without* gun gun control and choose not to do so, maybe we will have to learn how to live with terrorist acts - at least until some American puts a slug in a would be terrorist and the LEO community has a conniption fit with that worn out line "_you can't take the law into your own hands_."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential.
> 
> Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A sick and cancer prone society, being necessary to insure the exorbitant rates of hospital care, the right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed_.
> 
> Which Amendment is that again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what are you doing?
> 
> You said "Firearms are protected by the law", you did NOT say "protected by the Constitution".
Click to expand...


Very little difference in the eyes of the judges.  You say law the purists get pissed; say Constitution, the left goes nuts.  Can't please everybody.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
Click to expand...


Oh, how did it get debunked exactly? Because you decided it was so? 

The world doesn't work by you deciding you don't like something so everyone else has to stop using it.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cigarettes are different because it's about personal choice. Drink driving is a problem that should be addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The US has a 31% level of accidents involving alcohol, Germany has 9%. Why the difference? Well there are probably reasons, like dealing with the issue. In the US it doesn't really get dealt with that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same in the US, why such a difference? Seems to be many liberal states are the ones dealing with the issues, and many conservative states not.
> 
> The problem here is that there are those that want to control what the people do, and they use terrorism as an issue which allows them put in policies which wouldn't be acceptable without this threat. Terrorist activities will become headline news, whereas gun shootings are normal everyday events. People are scared of being killed by terrorists, but just accept normal gun shootings because that's how people want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential.
> 
> Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A sick and cancer prone society, being necessary to insure the exorbitant rates of hospital care, the right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed_.
> 
> Which Amendment is that again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what are you doing?
> 
> You said "Firearms are protected by the law", you did NOT say "protected by the Constitution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very little difference in the eyes of the judges.  You say law the purists get pissed; say Constitution, the left goes nuts.  Can't please everybody.
Click to expand...


The difference is actually quite large, but if you don't know this, then why the fuck are you here?


----------



## sealybobo

ShootSpeeders said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why the fuck does he care what other whites have done and what some blacks haven't done? I could find a black man smarter than him and a better chess player, one with more money, better SAT scores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would that prove, you simpleton?  You don't even know what an average is.  Like all traits, intelligence is spread out over a wide range so of course there are some smart black people just like there are   people 7 feet tall.   But there aren't very many smart blacks and there never will be. THINK, you miserable white-hating racist wretch.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you wouldn't be a smart black. Dumb whites aren't as smart as average blacks and you're dumb.

And I'm white dummy


----------



## sealybobo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
Click to expand...

Notice it's the Steve bannon alt righties stoking the flames? This thread is proof the racists have been emboldened.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could give some examples of how these people dealt with it ?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

I would imagine that a lot of good people have worked hard to influence this decision and I applaud them for that.

The way forward has to be in lobbying the organisations that support these types.

Where do they bank,who are there lawyers and so on.

The "nice" people are happy enough to take the shilling but less keen to be associated with hate.

A few thousand people turning up at their bank head office or even at the bank presidents home would concentrate their minds immensely. And its a lot less stressful than beating up bubba.

A few years ago I was involved with a campaign group and we did just this. It was very effective.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

frigidweirdo said:


> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> The White murder rate in the U.S isn't much different than Scotland, or Finland.
> 
> However, 1/4th of U.S.A, (Blacks, and Hispanics) commit about 3/4th of the murder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.
> 
> As for the White murder rate in the U.S.
> 
> Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, we're not dealing with absolutes. We're not saying if you have one and one you get two. This is far more complex than this. You can have places that will have higher murder rates because maybe there's a family who are complete scumbags and prefer to murder people.
> 
> As I've said in another post. Poverty increases the chances people will commit crime. As do many other factors like educational achievement, being in an inner city area and other such things.
> 
> Prince George's County in Maryland has a large population, 800,000 people. That means there will be different areas within this county. Rich areas, poor areas. Many US govt facilities are in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see crime is higher the closer it is to DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the areas closest to DC are the poorest areas, while those further away are richer.
> 
> It's not difficult to see that the issues here are not ones of race, but ones of poverty and other issues. There are other statistics that I can't find, like a map of education achievement. But I'd bet the closer you get to DC, the lower this achievement is.
> 
> Simply said this county is too big to provide you with simple statistics to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The areas closest to DC are more black, but areas away from DC also have quite a lot of black people too, and aren't as crime ridden, because it's not about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you grasp the proportionate differences.
> 
> The fact is all the middle class, and rich parts of Prince George's County, Maryland, which are nearly 95% of the county, should be enough to pull the crime rate down.
> 
> That's just not the case.
> 
> Many poorer White areas in the U.S.A, and also Europe also don't have such high murder rates as Prince George's County, Maryland.
> 
> Heavily White Places from modest income Scranton, Pennsylvania, to poor Ukraine have lower murder rates than high income Prince George's County, Maryland, despite the glaring wealth disparity between these regions, favoring the heavily Black PG county in income by a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the case. But you haven't analysed so much. What's the compatible difference between this and other counties that sit next to large, violent cities? You don't know, because you didn't look it up. DC only fits into a certain size, but the reality is this county makes up part of the city of Washington. The crime spills over. DC has major crime problems and they leak out into this city.
> 
> How many of the crimes in this city are committed either by people living in DC, or people who live very close to it?
> 
> Also, why do you have lots of black people in DC? Those reasons are mainly historical. Now, if you have areas with large black populations, what do the govts do for these black people? Not much. How much has the federal govt done for DC?
> 
> This is because of the racism and problems the US has suffered for hundred of years. It's impacted area with lots of black people, who are mostly poor. Poverty rates are around 25% for black people today, go back 100 years and you'd have been looking up much higher figures than that. This has a massive impact on how the children do in society.
> 
> Scranton Pennsylvania. You want a comparison that you couldn't be bothered to actually do.
> 
> Population of 77,000, more than ten times smaller than that of Prince George's. No where near Philli, or Pittsburgh which would make it comparable to Prince George's. In fact Scranton is in a valley, to either side there's nothing but countryside.
> 
> Different factors play here. It's not just poverty, it's poverty and some more, and large inner city poverty plays out differently than rural poverty for many different reasons.
> 
> But just going "look at the statistics, blacks commit more crimes" doesn't tell you anything unless this is all you want to know.
Click to expand...


Black Americans actually have high incomes on a global scale, despite having high murder rates.

Even when you adjust for poverty, you can't explain it all away.


----------



## frigidweirdo

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SobieskiSavedEurope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, what is the white murder rate in the US and what is the murder rate in Scotland or Finland and how many people in Scotland or Finland aren't white?
> 
> I'd love to know that you're not talking out of your ass, but I get the feeling you just made this stuff up.
> 
> The fact that many of the murders in the US are committed by blacks or Hispanics and the fact that 1/4 of blacks and Hispanics are in poverty, might go some way to explain why blacks and Hispanics commit so many crimes.
> 
> What do you think the crime rate is like by income? I'd bet you'd find that middle class black people commit about the same amount of murders as middle class white people.
> 
> Let's have a look
> 
> in 2013 52.2% of murderers arrested were black people.
> 45.3% were white (which includes Hispanics)
> 
> 10.1% of all white people (which includes Hispanics) were in poverty.
> 28.9% of black people were in poverty.
> 
> There are 40 million black people. Which means that 11.56 million black people are in poverty
> There are 233 million white people (including Hispanics). Which means 23 million are in poverty.
> 
> This doesn't quite amount to 52.2% of black people being arrested. If there were direct corrolation then it would be about double for white people, but it's not. That's because it's not just about poverty. Crime is much higher in inner city areas, and it's those inner city ghettos that are often the problem and often filled with black people or Hispanics.
> 
> Race and crime in the United States - Wikipedia
> Poverty in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle.
> 
> US poverty data: 1 in 15 people among America's poorest poor
> 
> "Just over 7% of all African-Americans nationwide now live in traditional ghettos, down from 33% in 1970."
> 
> 7% of 40 million is 2.8 million. That's a lot of black people living in ghettos, inner city areas where there is no hope in life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland says otherwise, despite being a solidly middle class county, and above mostly, with low poverty rates, and a massive Black population.
> 
> Prince George's County, Maryland still manages to have a high murder rate.
> 
> As for the White murder rate in the U.S.
> 
> Here's a couple of charts which put things into perspective.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Firstly, we're not dealing with absolutes. We're not saying if you have one and one you get two. This is far more complex than this. You can have places that will have higher murder rates because maybe there's a family who are complete scumbags and prefer to murder people.
> 
> As I've said in another post. Poverty increases the chances people will commit crime. As do many other factors like educational achievement, being in an inner city area and other such things.
> 
> Prince George's County in Maryland has a large population, 800,000 people. That means there will be different areas within this county. Rich areas, poor areas. Many US govt facilities are in the area.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see crime is higher the closer it is to DC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also the areas closest to DC are the poorest areas, while those further away are richer.
> 
> It's not difficult to see that the issues here are not ones of race, but ones of poverty and other issues. There are other statistics that I can't find, like a map of education achievement. But I'd bet the closer you get to DC, the lower this achievement is.
> 
> Simply said this county is too big to provide you with simple statistics to prove anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The areas closest to DC are more black, but areas away from DC also have quite a lot of black people too, and aren't as crime ridden, because it's not about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think you grasp the proportionate differences.
> 
> The fact is all the middle class, and rich parts of Prince George's County, Maryland, which are nearly 95% of the county, should be enough to pull the crime rate down.
> 
> That's just not the case.
> 
> Many poorer White areas in the U.S.A, and also Europe also don't have such high murder rates as Prince George's County, Maryland.
> 
> Heavily White Places from modest income Scranton, Pennsylvania, to poor Ukraine have lower murder rates than high income Prince George's County, Maryland, despite the glaring wealth disparity between these regions, favoring the heavily Black PG county in income by a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not the case. But you haven't analysed so much. What's the compatible difference between this and other counties that sit next to large, violent cities? You don't know, because you didn't look it up. DC only fits into a certain size, but the reality is this county makes up part of the city of Washington. The crime spills over. DC has major crime problems and they leak out into this city.
> 
> How many of the crimes in this city are committed either by people living in DC, or people who live very close to it?
> 
> Also, why do you have lots of black people in DC? Those reasons are mainly historical. Now, if you have areas with large black populations, what do the govts do for these black people? Not much. How much has the federal govt done for DC?
> 
> This is because of the racism and problems the US has suffered for hundred of years. It's impacted area with lots of black people, who are mostly poor. Poverty rates are around 25% for black people today, go back 100 years and you'd have been looking up much higher figures than that. This has a massive impact on how the children do in society.
> 
> Scranton Pennsylvania. You want a comparison that you couldn't be bothered to actually do.
> 
> Population of 77,000, more than ten times smaller than that of Prince George's. No where near Philli, or Pittsburgh which would make it comparable to Prince George's. In fact Scranton is in a valley, to either side there's nothing but countryside.
> 
> Different factors play here. It's not just poverty, it's poverty and some more, and large inner city poverty plays out differently than rural poverty for many different reasons.
> 
> But just going "look at the statistics, blacks commit more crimes" doesn't tell you anything unless this is all you want to know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Black Americans actually have high incomes on a global scale, despite having high murder rates.
> 
> Even when you adjust for poverty, you can't explain it all away.
Click to expand...


Poverty is often related to the society you are in. The only reason black people have more money than others in other countries is because of the exchange rate and nothing more. Sure, if those black people were to go to Vietnam, they'd find themselves rich, but they're not in Vietnam, they're in a place where they can't afford the rent of a decent house to get a decent school to escape the ghetto.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, how did it get debunked exactly? Because you decided it was so?
> 
> The world doesn't work by you deciding you don't like something so everyone else has to stop using it.
Click to expand...



The rest of the world is well within their rights to be wrong in their opinions, but it still gets old.  It doesn't solve anything and it doesn't allow people to move forward.

The woe is me attitude about slavery breeds generations of people that think the world owes them a living.  *THAT* is the primary reason you have non-whites declaring war against the whites in this country, providing fertile ground for racists on both sides.

But, back to your original question:

During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.

The book is entitled Time on the Cross, The Economics of American Negro Slavery.  

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-E...c=1&refRID=RMM32PSJ3ECCA3VZ3R4Q&tag=ff0d01-20

It is, by no stretch of the imagination, a racist book.  It will make you think and it will challenge you.  So, before you try to debate what's in the book, you should try reading it.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsmokers subjected to cigarette smoke have no choice and firearms are protected by law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a difference between having smoking allowed everywhere, and limited places where you can smoke. Laws banning smoking in enclosed public spaces is essential.
> 
> Firearms are protected by law, so are cigarettes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _A sick and cancer prone society, being necessary to insure the exorbitant rates of hospital care, the right of the people to keep and smoke cigarettes shall not be infringed_.
> 
> Which Amendment is that again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, what are you doing?
> 
> You said "Firearms are protected by the law", you did NOT say "protected by the Constitution".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very little difference in the eyes of the judges.  You say law the purists get pissed; say Constitution, the left goes nuts.  Can't please everybody.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference is actually quite large, but if you don't know this, then why the fuck are you here?
Click to expand...


That's a non-responsive post.  You'll have to elaborate if you expect a response.


----------



## Humorme

sealybobo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Notice it's the Steve bannon alt righties stoking the flames? This thread is proof the racists have been emboldened.
Click to expand...


In all honesty, I don't know much about Steve Bannon.  It wasn't until a week or two ago that the tv show 20 / 20 did a piece about the white nationalists, the nazis, and Antifa that I even had an inkling what they were about.  It's like a lot of separate factions of the KKK / National Alliance / Nazis versus a radical communist left.  

I had the polar opposite thought when the white activist factions woke up one day to find they no longer had the Internet.  I don't see racists as being emboldened; I see them as being a defeated and frustrated -political position that has long been separated from their culture to play the blame game with the left.


----------



## Harry Dresden

sealybobo said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why the fuck does he care what other whites have done and what some blacks haven't done? I could find a black man smarter than him and a better chess player, one with more money, better SAT scores.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what would that prove, you simpleton?  You don't even know what an average is.  Like all traits, intelligence is spread out over a wide range so of course there are some smart black people just like there are   people 7 feet tall.   But there aren't very many smart blacks and there never will be. THINK, you miserable white-hating racist wretch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah but you wouldn't be a smart black. Dumb whites aren't as smart as average blacks and you're dumb.
> 
> And I'm white dummy
Click to expand...

like i said bobo the guy is a top 3 dumbshit....and he put me on ignore because he cant counter what i say about him....he is also one of the biggest pussies around here.....


----------



## Humorme

Tommy Tainant said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did I just miss?  You wrote:
> 
> "_If you want to take a few simple facts and try and understand a very complex issue, you're going to struggle_."
> 
> INCLUDED in your post are misleading statistics.  You are trying to say, without actually saying it, that poverty = higher rates of crime.
> 
> While poverty can play a large role, it is not the only factor OR maybe even the main factor.
> 
> Georgia has 159 counties.  Within each county you have at least one or more police precincts (the county I live in has at least four that I know of.)  I cannot find a total number of precincts.  Be that as it may, at least HALF of the violent crimes committed in this state come from only *FIVE* precincts.   All of those precincts are in predominantly (meaning 75 percent or more ) black neighborhoods.
> 
> By contrast, some of the smaller, predominantly low income, white counties have crime rates on the lower end of the scale.  So, in my view poverty is not the magic excuse you need to explain away the numbers.  And how about Chicago?  How is their poverty any greater than New York?  Which city do you think is the most violent by a whopping margin?
> 
> Could it be that non-whites cannot assimilate into a white Christian culture due to some difference other than poverty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you seem to have missed the bit where I said that there isn't a direct correlation and you need to take other factors into account, such as the impact of inner cities.
> 
> With a massive range of statistics taken from local levels, looking at many different things, you start to see things more clearly. I don't have all these statistics. I did something about London where there are quite a lot more local level statistics and you see the issue isn't race at all, it's merely the conditions that people live in.
> 
> Poverty doesn't cause crime. This is what you wanted to read into what I said so you could bash it. Whatever. But people in poverty are more likely to commit crimes. People in inner city ghettos are also more likely to commit crimes. Men are more likely to commit crimes. People with lower levels of education are more likely to commit crimes.
> 
> None of these things automatically leads to people committing crimes. They just increase the chances.
> 
> So, you are trying to make a case for your part of the world, and you see that the main crime areas are black neighborhoods. This doesn't tell me anything. I don't know the factors that exist that lead to there being more crime. I'm betting the more you look into it, the less you're going to see it's about the color of people's skin.
> 
> But then you didn't provide a single bit of evidence. Just what you perceive.
> 
> Could it be that these black people can't assimilate into white Christian society? I'd say it's probably the other way around, that white Christian society has made such people outcasts. I mean the evidence is there. Slavery, you're in Georgia, segregation, and what came after that which some people try and pretend wasn't discrimination, but there's been a lot of discrimination.
> 
> Such discrimination has an impact on people. When people believe that crime is their only way to make money, they're more likely to accept that role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First and foremost, we are in America.  Our culture is much different that that of London.  Add to that we have 280 million more people at a minimum.  So, we have quite a spread of income levels and even areas of population density.
> 
> We are in agreement that poverty does not cause crime.  OTOH, you are sorely mistaken to conclude that wealth breeds a law abiding society.  It does not.  If you look at the very top of the food chain, you start seeing people like George Soros, Donald Trump and his Goldman Sachs buddies and you can also find the people like Mike Bloomberg.  Aside from them, you find lots of shady professions from organized crime to the lawyer lobby, bankers, etc.
> 
> *NOBODY* can provide you the evidence to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt that they have *THE* answer.  You blame segregation, but I've been in Chinatown in San Francisco and I've seen other smaller communities where people of one kind congregate and flourish.
> 
> There is one constant in all of this.  Sometimes the facts ARE there to prove a proposition, just nobody wants to consider them and even when they do, they don't intend to do a damn thing about it.  Case in point:
> 
> *Most* mass murders (and we're talking in excess of 95 percent) are committed by only two categories of people:
> 
> The first group is your political jihadists - the overwhelming majority are Muslim and
> 
> The second group being white males between 17 and 34 or so.  virtually *ALL* of them have been under the care of a psychiatrist or psychologist or other mental health official (and known to pose a threat) and / or on a schedule of drugs called SSRIs... in my own research I've yet to find a non-political mass murderer who was not on SSRIs.
> 
> It's getting old to blame slavery.  The United States was not the first country to adopt it and while everyone is pointing to how superior they think the rest of the world is, many of those countries have experienced slavery just as third world enclaves like Haiti has.  So, the slavery excuse is good for a generation or two, but today's blacks have to go back *MANY* generations to even find a slave in their past.
> 
> I knew a lot of people that would go to third world African countries and begin building up communities to be self sufficient with the capability to become much like us.  But, many Peace Corps volunteers would say that the white man's religion and culture would leave when the white man would leave.
> 
> One guy in particular told me that he returned five years after he left.  The running water (via hand dug irrigation trenches) was not kept up and the people were back to hauling water on the top of their heads in buckets.  Farm tractors were overgrown with weeds and bushes.
> 
> Some people simply do not accept foreign cultures like you think.  At any given time in the U.S. different people have had to fight for acceptance and then they have built a community in short order.  The Irish, Italians... even the Mormons have been outcasts and locked out of society, but were eventually able to succeed.
> 
> Despite guaranteed jobs, government programs, and a decided preference in the new society, the blacks are represented by hate mongering liberals that blame their every failure on the whites.  Butm any time you want to get down to hair splitting and examining the stats, we'll do it... but be prepared for some long posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, London is different. Everywhere is different, that doesn't mean you bury your head in the sand and pretend that it's completely different.
> 
> London is a very populous area, just like big cities in the US. The size of the US doesn't matter here. The UK is far more densely populated than the US, which in turn would suggest more problems.
> 
> Yes, I didn't say that wealthy people don't commit crimes. Often their crimes are different. Often they're able to legitimize their crimes.
> 
> No, I didn't blame segregation as different races living in different areas, I blamed segregation as an official policy back before the 1960s.
> 
> It might be getting old to blame slavery, but it's also getting old to make an argument to brush off things that happened and still have an impact today. It's simply not a good argument to say "it's getting old..."
> 
> Slavery led to segregation, segregation led to discrimination, all of this is seen by people today, it comes out as discrimination in the modern era, but you have to think that for people suffering such discrimination they will look back at slavery and see not much difference between that slavery and the present discrimination.
> 
> But burying your head under "it's getting old...." will get you no where.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a theory has been debunked, it gets old to try and use it any more.  At one time or another lots of people have been subject to slavery, discrimination, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you could give some examples of how these people dealt with it ?
Click to expand...


My exchanges were quite long and I'm not sure what you're asking.  

Throughout history, many people have faced slavery, discrimination, racism, etc., etc.  Though I* disagree *with their religion, the Mormons faced religious persecution, discrimination, etc. when times were much worse than they are today.  But, they went to a place where they thought they should be and carved out a piece of the American pie for themselves.

Today, a LOT of  people disagree with the Mormons.  But we respect their ideology of self reliance, self sufficiency, independence and survival.  Liberals should take a page out of the Mormons playbook on that.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Political Junky said:


> What's amusing is that the racists are surprised that others are against racism.



You support affirmative action which means YOU support racism.  You want jobs handed out based on skin color!!


----------



## ShootSpeeders

SobieskiSavedEurope said:


> Black Americans actually have high incomes on a global scale, despite having high murder rates.
> .



HAHAHA.   You libs always count welfare checks as "income" and you can't do that, you fool.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Humorme said:


> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .



People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.


----------



## Humorme

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
Click to expand...


You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.  

Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.

You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
Click to expand...

Who do you think should pay taxes?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
Click to expand...


Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that doesn't actually answer the question I asked.


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
Click to expand...


I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.


----------



## OldLady

ShootSpeeders said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Toni Morrison, Gabriel Garcia Marquez, William Faulkner, T.S. Eliot....
> had no brains, says our board intellectual, Shoot Speeders.  He should be strapped into a chair and forced to watch 12 solid hours of Charlie Rose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your tiny little "brain" is confusing skill with brains.  Sure, it takes skill to be a novelist just like it takes skill to be a football player.  But brains no.  There is only one kind of intelligence and that is technical intelligence. Engineers, businessmen, scientists.  Those are the smart ppl and the important people.  THINK, america-hater.
Click to expand...

Okay, the fact that you just called me an America-hater shows how much intelligence you've got.  There are actually many types of "intelligence" and the human experience would be much poorer without those who observe and see things around them in a slightly different light.  Expressing that through art, music, writing or dance can be mind opening for all the people who share it.
There's certainly nothing wrong with engineers, businessmen and scientists, and I'm pretty sure you made the post just to piss me off, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> During slavery the majority of black slaves were paid for their work, families were kept together if possible, and blacks were better fed than their blue collar, white counterparts.  Two university professors did an in depth study back in the 1970s and debunked many of the beliefs that people have about slavery.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
Click to expand...

And how much tax would each individual have to pay?


----------



## usmbguest5318

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.



You're the one who offered the unfounded assertions.  Consequently, I doubt you'd take the time to read an compelling and empirical explanation were you presented with one.  Also, I doubt that because such sound, rigorously developed and presented explanations already exist and you've not bothered to cite any of them and then establish that they are materially flawed.
I went to a posh white boarding school.  I can attest to the fact that the black kid in my high school class performed as well as almost everyone else, finishing with a GPA well over 4.0.  Who didn't have 3.9 or higher GPAs?  The guys who needed to go to college to say later that they had done and the guys who when asked where they wanted to go, they responded by stating where the men in their family go.

The same is so of the black college friend whom I grew to know well and who'd graduated from a posh black boarding school.  We both graduated _summa cum laude _from an Ivy League university.  Neither of us was the valedictorian because the person who was, along with the salutatorian, had more credit hours, thus a larger quantity of "As" than we did.  Why do I know this?  Because he and I had a friendly competition going regarding our grades.  

In our second and third years, we both were actually trying to be the valedictorian.  Then we found out that we weren't the only people with "boring transcripts," and that some of the others had more credit hours and more 4-credit classes than we did.  The next thing we discovered was that the choice also has to do with who's nominated.  Once I discovered that, I knew he had a better chance than I.  

He got nominated and attended a reception for everyone who was, but he didn't get selected.  I didn't get nominated, which didn't surprise me as I was merely a typical "rich" kid who did well in school, joined a club, and traveled a lot.  He had the same grades, and he was more active on and did volunteer work off campus.  You know what I did off campus?  Visit friends and occasionally family at other schools (go on"rolls"), a pursuit that had everything to do with meeting college women.  LOL

What that says to me is that when situated similarly to whites, blacks perform pretty much the same as whites.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are idiots and judge things by what they are called.  If slaves were called indentured servants nobody would care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
Click to expand...


It depends upon how big you want government to become.  Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.  

One alternative, and I am not endorsing it, but mentioning it because there are options on the table is the Fair Tax.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have a practical point.  Today, you can force a man to go to an employment agency in order to get a job.  Today's generation never saw a paper application for a job.  So, you go to the employment agency and sell yourself into slavery.  Some guy gets part of your check for a period of time and literally owns you unless and until an employer offers you a position.
> 
> Then you give up a portion of your wages via the income tax.  The income tax steals from the worker the sweat of his brow simply because he produces.  It's a plank out of the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> You don't have real Rights - only the illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
Click to expand...

Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.



Humorme said:


> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.


How do you figure that?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Xelor said:


> I went to a posh white boarding school.  I can attest to the fact that the black kid in my high school class performed as well as almost everyone else, finishing with a GPA well over 4.0.  .



Stupid illogical jackass!!! Individual cases prove nothing. Like saying one man is 7 feet tall so all men are,.  No one disputes that there are SOME smart blacks. But on average they are mentally inferior to all other races and the evidence is overwhelming..


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who do you think should pay taxes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?
Click to expand...


The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:

How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet

Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Firearms License Tax
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel permit tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
Sales Taxes
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone federal excise tax
Telephone federal universal service fee tax
Telephone federal, state and
local surcharge taxes
Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
Telephone state and local tax
Telephone usage charge tax
Toll Bridge Taxes
Toll Tunnel Taxes
Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
Trailer Registration Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax 

Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.

And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.


----------



## EverCurious

^^ ... Bullshit

30% of ones paycheck on taxes, then there's business taxes, self-employment taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, sales tax, taxes on certain products (cigarettes for example), etc. etc. etc.

I'd say spending about half of their income on taxes is about right, if not a little low.


----------



## Humorme

EverCurious said:


> ^^ ... Bullshit
> 
> 30% of ones paycheck on taxes, then there's business taxes, self-employment taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, registration fees, sales tax, taxes on certain products (cigarettes for example), etc. etc. etc.
> 
> I'd say spending about half of their income on taxes is about right, if not a little low.



I'd say if you pay over 27 percent in federal income taxes, it would probably be well over half of your paycheck for other taxes AND that does not include mandatory health, auto, and home insurance (esp if you have a mortgage.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes should not be based upon your labor.  America existed from 1789 up until 1913 without an income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
Click to expand...

Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.

At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.


----------



## Asclepias

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


Good to hear. Now the monkeys will have to find another way to collaborate out in the open.


----------



## EverCurious

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see your point.  Sorry.  Everybody pays taxes.  Realistically, we could do away with the private corporation called the Federal Reserve; we could eliminate the interest on the federal debt with the stroke of a pen (the same way it was created) and eliminate the 16th Amendment  without any negative impact on the average American.
> 
> 
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
Click to expand...


You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)

I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)

If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.


----------



## Faun

EverCurious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how much tax would each individual have to pay?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
Click to expand...

I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends upon how big you want government to become.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now, you spend over half what you make paying taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
Click to expand...


You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's say to keep the government operating at its current size.
> 
> How do you figure that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
Click to expand...

Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. .



HAHAHA.  Everybody knows you're a welfare queen.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The average taxpayer is spending 27 percent of their wages on income taxes:
> 
> How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet
> 
> Accounts Receivable Tax
> Building Permit Tax
> Capital Gains Tax
> CDL license Tax
> Cigarette Tax
> Corporate Income Tax
> Court Fines (indirect taxes)
> Dog License Tax
> Federal Income Tax
> Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
> Firearms License Tax
> Fishing License Tax
> Food License Tax
> Fuel permit tax
> Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
> Hunting License Tax
> Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
> Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
> IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
> Liquor Tax
> Local Income Tax
> Luxury Taxes
> Marriage License Tax
> Medicare Tax
> Property Tax
> Real Estate Tax
> Septic Permit Tax
> Service Charge Taxes
> Social Security Tax
> Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
> Sales Taxes
> Recreational Vehicle Tax
> Road Toll Booth Taxes
> School Tax
> State Income Tax
> State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
> Telephone federal excise tax
> Telephone federal universal service fee tax
> Telephone federal, state and
> local surcharge taxes
> Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
> Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
> Telephone state and local tax
> Telephone usage charge tax
> Toll Bridge Taxes
> Toll Tunnel Taxes
> Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
> Trailer Registration Tax
> Utility Taxes
> Vehicle License Registration Tax
> Vehicle Sales Tax
> Watercraft Registration Tax
> Well Permit Tax
> 
> Workers Compensation Tax
> 
> Those who do pay (half the population) are carrying those who cannot or will not work.
> 
> And, so my response is that the half of Americans who depend upon Uncle Scam need to be looked at closely and most of them put into the job market.  So, we incentivize employers to hire Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
Click to expand...


It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.  

Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.

I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.

1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve

2)  Dismantle the income tax

3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start

4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI

5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states 

We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  Everybody knows you're a welfare queen.
Click to expand...

Slobbers the forum's racist idiot.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very few of those apply to me. My effective income tax rate is around 20%. Add maybe another 10% for various other taxes. Still nowhere near 50%.
> 
> At any rate... we spend close to $4t annually. The federal government takes in almost $2t from income tax revenue. I still don't see where your plan makes up for that $2 trillion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
Click to expand...

What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.


----------



## Linkiloo

Great news.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
Click to expand...


Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na


Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be odd and/or poor.  I get nailed by damn near all of those bastard taxes and fees AND we end up paying minimum 40% straight off the top of our paychecks even if we don't pull anything out of our stocks...  The only ones I get out of is state income and sales tax because our state/muni has had a budget surplus for like 30 years - that's changing because our gov won't cut spending, they expect the oil prices to go back up; much to the displeasure of the majority of Alaskan's who'd rather start paying a sales or income tax AND cut spending now so we don't use up our reserves and leave our kids with a debt.)
> 
> I agree with Humorme on the social programs thing, we have got to get that shit under control.  ACA needs to go (& EMTALA plus a crap ton of medical taxes and fees need to be repealed to fix the high medical costs), welfare, food stamps, housing assistance all need to have hard limits (I say 5 years max), anchor baby'ing needs to be stopped and these folks sent home (I say if you have a parent who's a citizen yea you're a citizen, but if both parents are illegal, you're out.)
> 
> If we /really/ want to balance our budget and start paying off our outrageous debt, then we need to stop giving money away. Fed spends $668 Billion on 126 welfare programs, state and local push that figure up to $1 Trillion.  ACA alone is estimated to cost $1.2 to $2.6 trillion over the next decade (no one who supports ACA wants to talk about the actual costs of ACA though. For example, MANY states are complaining that the expansion of Medicaid due to ACA will cost them up to $27 billion over the next decade; which is why many states opted out.)  How about we stop sending money to foreign nations? $35-37 billion spend on that every year.  I'm sure there's other bullshit spending we could cut as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
Click to expand...


Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.

I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in the top 2-3 percent of income earners, so not poor. And I pay the same taxes as many in my area, so not odd. As far as ACA, it's only a tax if you don't have health insurance. The penalty is considered a tax. Otherwise, you have health insurance. Something I pay for whether mandated or not. So that is not a tax for me. As far as other social programs, Humorme says he has a plan to keep the government running at its current level. I'm still waiting to hear what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
Click to expand...

Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.


----------



## koshergrl

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...

I think more lefties post on that site anyway.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already heard some of the initial ideas and didn't even have to hear from me.  Let's see what Trump proposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
Click to expand...


My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.

Let's talk turkey:

You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???  

Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?  

You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?

On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.  

You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.


----------



## WinterBorn

A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you're the one promoting the elimination of income tax, something I'm fairly certain Trump isn't even considering. If you won't, or can't, explain how that would work, then it sounds to me like it wouldn't work. Oh well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.
> 
> Let's talk turkey:
> 
> You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???
> 
> Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?
> 
> On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.
> 
> You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.
Click to expand...

You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.

Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.

Another billion for the ATF.

Welfare, $370b...

All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




No wonder it's not on the table.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> 
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> It basically works the same way as *before* you had an income tax.
> 
> Research the Fair Tax.  It's an option.
> 
> I don't know how we went from a thread about Stormfront getting the boot to an in depth analysis of the income tax.
> 
> 1)  Audit the Federal Reserve and then stop the practice of paying interest to private bankers to do a job the Constitution makes no allowance for - Eliminate the Federal Reserve
> 
> 2)  Dismantle the income tax
> 
> 3)  Shut down agencies that should not exist - federal Dept. of Education and the Dept. of Homeland (IN) Security would be a start
> 
> 4)  Scale back on all federal agencies.  The BATFE could be dismantled.  Alcohol and Tobacco laws would be enforced by the DEA; firearms violations would be handled by the FBI
> 
> 5)  Get the federal government completely out of education and welfare, leaving it to the states
> 
> We could be here for days explaining how all this works out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.
> 
> Let's talk turkey:
> 
> You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???
> 
> Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?
> 
> On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.
> 
> You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.
> 
> Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.
> 
> Another billion for the ATF.
> 
> Welfare, $370b...
> 
> All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder it's not on the table.
Click to expand...



Blah, blah, blah.  Cutting the size, power and scope of government raises taxes.  Yeah right.  I'm not wasting time playing your game.  If I were going to have a battle of wits, I'd expect you to come armed.  And simply put:  You got nothing but criticisms because you have no original ideas.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.



There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.

If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.  

Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?

When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're suggesting does not keep federal spending where it's currently at, which is what you implied could be achieved. So I see no reason to throw away the current system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.
> 
> Let's talk turkey:
> 
> You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???
> 
> Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?
> 
> On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.
> 
> You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.
> 
> Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.
> 
> Another billion for the ATF.
> 
> Welfare, $370b...
> 
> All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder it's not on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Cutting the size, power and scope of government raises taxes.  Yeah right.  I'm not wasting time playing your game.  If I were going to have a battle of wits, I'd expect you to come armed.  And simply put:  You got nothing but criticisms because you have no original ideas.
Click to expand...

LOL

Your idea is such a failure, it adds debt while eliminating most social services; and that's somehow my fault??


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.



If the webhoster banned a liberal site because of content, you would be howling about the first amendment. THINK, hater.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
Click to expand...

Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ideas are only the start and just that alone would REDUCE the na
> Not only would those ideas reduce federal spending, they would reduce the national debt.  And we're just starting with those ideas.  Thank you though for not having me waste my time with the whole litany of cuts.
> 
> I figured I was wasting my time with you.  And now back to your regularly scheduled thread regarding the censorship against Stormfront, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.
> 
> Let's talk turkey:
> 
> You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???
> 
> Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?
> 
> On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.
> 
> You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.
> 
> Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.
> 
> Another billion for the ATF.
> 
> Welfare, $370b...
> 
> All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder it's not on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Cutting the size, power and scope of government raises taxes.  Yeah right.  I'm not wasting time playing your game.  If I were going to have a battle of wits, I'd expect you to come armed.  And simply put:  You got nothing but criticisms because you have no original ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your idea is such a failure, it adds debt while eliminating most social services; and that's somehow my fault??
Click to expand...


Eliminate social services?  You need to get off the net.  You are making yourself look terribly stupid.  I can't fix that.

States can handle social services without the federal government adding more bureaucracies, middle men, and extra expenses.  Your idiotic criticism are a colossal fail.

You really should push yourself away from the computer and get out into the real world.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
Click to expand...

The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.


----------



## Humorme

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the webhoster banned a liberal site because of content, you would be howling about the first amendment. THINK, hater.
Click to expand...


That guy is not capable of thinking.  He /she is most likely a welfarite and this is their entire life - criticizing people who *do* take the time to think.


----------



## EverCurious

It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.

The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.


----------



## Humorme

EverCurious said:


> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.



So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.


----------



## EverCurious

Humorme said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
Click to expand...


I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN. 

We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<

The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your plan was a waste of time. It doesn't reduce the debt, it adds to it as the spending cuts you suggest don't make up for the $2 trillion you'd be losing by eliminating income taxes and it relies on the Fair Tax which you yourself don't endorse. And of course, it's a fairy tail because eliminating income taxes is not on the radar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My plan does not rely on the Fair Tax.  It is a separate proposal.  And my plan would save more than what is stolen via the income tax.
> 
> Let's talk turkey:
> 
> You claim to be in the upper income bracket in America, but here you are on a discussion board where - what fifty people might read this exchange IF you're lucky???
> 
> Who were you going to make believe that?  Me or you?
> 
> You worry about that $2 TRILLION in income taxes.  Where do you suppose they found the TRILLIONS to wage a silly ass war against foreigners - and build up the ultimate *POLICE STATE *in the process?
> 
> On that issue alone, I could have saved all that money and addressed 99 percent of the issues.
> 
> You shouldn't rattle my cage.  You don't pack the gear to be in this discussion and trying to belittle others exposes the fact that you are not what you claim to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want to cut the Department of Education. That saves little more than a $100b.
> 
> Department of Homeland Security, another $70b.
> 
> Another billion for the ATF.
> 
> Welfare, $370b...
> 
> All total, less than $600b. Far short of the $2t collected in income taxes. Great plan, you're now increasing the debt by another 1+ trillion dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No wonder it's not on the table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blah, blah, blah.  Cutting the size, power and scope of government raises taxes.  Yeah right.  I'm not wasting time playing your game.  If I were going to have a battle of wits, I'd expect you to come armed.  And simply put:  You got nothing but criticisms because you have no original ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your idea is such a failure, it adds debt while eliminating most social services; and that's somehow my fault??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eliminate social services?  You need to get off the net.  You are making yourself look terribly stupid.  I can't fix that.
> 
> States can handle social services without the federal government adding more bureaucracies, middle men, and extra expenses.  Your idiotic criticism are a colossal fail.
> 
> You really should push yourself away from the computer and get out into the real world.
Click to expand...

You poor thing. Bless your heart. Everything I've said was in regards to federal spending/revenues.

Your plan failed. It increased the debt dramatically while eliminating social services.


----------



## Humorme

EverCurious said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
Click to expand...


You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.  

And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.

OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.

The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.

See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.

They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.  

Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.  

Let the left build their own Hell on earth.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
Click to expand...


First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.

Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the webhoster banned a liberal site because of content, you would be howling about the first amendment. THINK, hater.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.   I would be saying the same thing.  And I have said the same thing consistently.


----------



## EverCurious

Humorme  So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet.  Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology.  I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.  

Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.)  There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.

Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America?  There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~


----------



## Faun

EverCurious said:


> Humorme  So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet.  Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology.  I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.
> 
> Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.)  There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.
> 
> Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America?  There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~


I don't know the specifics about stormfront, but I know that Cloudflare dropped the dailystormer following allegations that people on the dailystormer were falsely claiming that cloudflare secretly supported them. That was the reason Cloudflare dropped them following the death of Heather Heyer.

Cloudflare is s private company which provides webhosting services. How is it not within their right to terminate service with a customer who is committing libel against them?


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
Click to expand...


OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.

The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
Click to expand...


The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


And just to clarify, I don't hate whites.  I don't hate based on skin color at all.  I dislike idiots and people who threaten violence based on skin color or other trivial matters.


----------



## Humorme

EverCurious said:


> Humorme  So basically you do not agree with freedom of speech/belief/opinion on the internet.  Sorry bud, I'm on the other end of the web from that ideology.  I'm an American who's had the freedom to say and think as I damn well wish my entire life, I have no desire to be word and thought policed by idiots who get offended by fucking banana peels. I expect people to be responsible for their own feelings and opinions - which means if you get "terrified" by banana peels bummer, learn to deal.
> 
> Kind of like I have a legit phobia of needles and bees - I'm not out there saying folks can't talk about that shit, even though it does make me exceptionally uncomfortable, to the point of squealing like a little girl (at the age of fucking 43.)  There is no way in hell I'd expect anyone else to understand much less "cater" to my personal and individual phobia; even if it was a rational thing to fear.
> 
> Whatever, why don't you freedom haters leave America?  There are nations where they monitor everything said and nothing offensive is allowed, why not go there instead of trying to make America ditch freedom of speech/opinion/thought? ~sigh~



I'm not a _"freedom hater_" by any stretch of the imagination.  I would fight for your Right to say whatever you want.

But, America doesn't have an organization that *stands up *for your Rights.  What you have is a shadow government that out-maneuvered the white people of this country at every level.  For the past twenty years, the _powers that be_ have worked diligently to make  this country a toothless tiger.

People have become accustomed to talking trash on the Internet and not having to back it up.  That is the only problem I have with it.  Most of these discussion boards and other social media have been teaching the people to depend upon others in make believe positions of authority to protect you.  The Internet made people lazy.  

There was a time when, if a man had something to say to you personally, if he wanted to call you out, he stood up to you, face to face.  Here, people can insult you, threaten you, etc. and most social media will not stand up for you if you are not in the majority.  Most social media forces you to take B.S. and if you respond, they ban you.  From that perspective, there is an attempt to program people, Pavlovian style, so I would definitely be FOR more freedom on the Internet.

Where the major problem is was created by the right being irresponsible.  While I am all for their Freedom and Liberty, they acted irresponsibly by using a lot of inflammatory and incendiary language.  While they have* every Right* to do so, it made it hard for profiteers to defend them.  So now, the ADL, SPLC, etc. applies a little pressure and the Internet profiteers run like scared jackrabbits.  Google and other such companies have* NO* interest in your Liberty.  They don't care about anything outside the almighty dollar.  And if you make it hard for them to defend you, they drop you.

I'd like to see those people who are constitutionalists rise up and reclaim America.  The Constitution is dead, but the spirit of Liberty transcends that document.  They can't do it when they are beholden to profiteers to get their message out.  So, let the profiteers throw away *billions *in profits. Go old school on the liberals.  Read books, subscribe to newsletters that come through the U.S. mail.  Talk to people on the phone.  Buy CDs and DVDs... VHS if need be.  Hold get togethers around the kitchen table.  

The old way will help you regain focus, plan better strategies and once the profiteers begin to see what they're losing for sucking up to the extreme left, they will come courting you for your business once again.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.

The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.

If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.  

But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
Click to expand...


No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
Click to expand...

Oh, for christ's sake. 

Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
Click to expand...


OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
Click to expand...


BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for christ's sake.
> 
> Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.
Click to expand...


That is the dumbass post of the century.  WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.

The right, even today, doesn't control squat.  RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.  Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
Click to expand...


That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for christ's sake.
> 
> Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dumbass post of the century.  WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.
> 
> The right, even today, doesn't control squat.  RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.  Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.

Here, this one's for you...


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
Click to expand...


The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.


----------



## Death Angel

Humorme said:


> The right, even today, doesn't control squat. RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.


Thank you. You beat me to it.

If they think "Republican" is synonymous with "conservative," they are of the FAR Left.

The MAJORITY of Republicans are Progressives, and not Constitutionalist.


----------



## impuretrash

WinterBorn said:


> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.



The only reason it was taken down is due to the hysterical media and corporate elite, from both sides of the aisle. Republicans have thrown all Trump supporting conservatives to the wolves, opening up the floodgates for violent suppression and corporate sponsored censorship. Anti-white racism has been normalized, it's hard not to notice unless you have your head buried in the sand or are one of those people who think white people deserve to be demonized, abused and replaced because of 'muh oppression'.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
Click to expand...


Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.

The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)

In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK... first of all, Freedom *of* Religion IS a First Amendment issue.  But no matter how the left spins it, they have the right to force their views onto others and be protected against the right from putting their views out there.
> 
> The bakers lost because the government sticks it's head into the private sector for the purposes of enforcing "_public policy_"  - the shy terminology for the unofficial state religion- secular humanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for christ's sake.
> 
> Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dumbass post of the century.  WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.
> 
> The right, even today, doesn't control squat.  RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.  Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.
> 
> Here, this one's for you...
Click to expand...


And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket.  What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?

I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gov't passed laws concerning discrimination.   The bakers violated those laws.   It is really that simple.  They are welcome to their beliefs.  But if your religion says you do not cater to blacks, you either get out of business or you violate that law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for christ's sake.
> 
> Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dumbass post of the century.  WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.
> 
> The right, even today, doesn't control squat.  RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.  Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.
> 
> Here, this one's for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket.  What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?
> 
> I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Click to expand...

Who knows what you think my income has to go with my posts? But regardless, go cry me a river. I don't really care to hear another idiot on this forum whining victimhood.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not "legal discrimination".    It is a case of cafeteria christians picking which bible verses they want to keep.   They violated anti-discrimination laws.  They didn't protest when the laws were passed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.
> 
> The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
> 
> In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
Click to expand...

I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....  

Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> First of all, the case with the bakers had nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
> 
> Second of all, the bakers lost because of anti-discrimination laws for businesses open to the public.



So if you ask walmart to bake  a cake in the shape of a swastika, they should be required to do so.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?



As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags.  It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists.  Both are  right or both are wrong.  THINK,  hater.


----------



## westwall

Tommy Tainant said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
Click to expand...









I disagree.  Now they will go underground and we won't have the ability to see what they are plotting.  Far better to be able to watch what morons like that are doing in real time, then having to figure out what they were talking about after they have committed a crime.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags.  It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists.  Both are  right or both are wrong.  THINK,  hater.
Click to expand...

Where was that baker's terms of service written and when did the lesbian couple agree to it?


----------



## EverCurious

Again, as I hear it was /NOT/ the web host (basically a hard drive) that dropped them. It was the domain registrar. - aka the www.stormfront.org /name/ itself - the IP address registration used to be protected under America's 1st and ICANN until we stupidly gave it away in March.  Already we see freedom of the internet being compromised.  It is a horrible thing, you'll all have to learn the hard way it seems...


----------



## Faun

EverCurious said:


> Again, as I hear it was /NOT/ the web host (basically a hard drive) that dropped them. It was the domain registrar. - aka the www.stormfront.org /name/ itself - the IP address registration used to be protected under America's 1st and ICANN until we stupidly gave it away in March.  Already we see freedom of the internet being compromised.  It is a horrible thing, you'll all have to learn the hard way it seems...


Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.

InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts

*Prohibited Uses

I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:


Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
*Violations*

If Network Solutions determines in its sole discretion that you or your customers conduct violate the terms of this Acceptable Use Policy, *Network Solutions may suspend, restrict, terminate, or take any other appropriate action with regard to those services without any obligation to refund fees paid. Network Solutions reserves the right to take such actions without notice to you. You understand that we reserve the right to conclude that your or your customers’ conduct is in violation of the standards set forth in this Acceptable Use Policy, and we may arrive at such a conclusion even if it is based upon our opinion or mere suspicion or belief, without any duty to prove that our opinion or suspicion is well founded, and even if (i) our opinion or suspicion is proven not to be well founded or (ii) we provide other customers’ services that have similar characteristics or are being used in a similar manner as your services.* You agree that we, in responding to a third party complaint, reserve the right in our sole discretion to suspend or terminate the services subject to this Acceptable Use Policy without notice and with no obligation to refund fees paid. You also understand and agree that by providing you services, Network Solutions in no way endorses your or your customers’ Web site or deems content to be suitable under the terms of this Agreement.​


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG.  It is what is known as legal discrimination.  The left gets to cherry pick what the Constitution says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.
> 
> The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
> 
> In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....
> 
> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
Click to expand...


Don't be a dumb ass.  You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:

The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate.  The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.

The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.)  That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is really simple.  The government passes unconstitutional laws to enforce *public policy*.  I'm not a damn idiot.  You aren't telling me anything that is earth shattering news.
> 
> The bottom line is:  The baker is not entitled to his views and whites are not entitled to constitutional protections.
> 
> If the Bill of Rights does not extend to help the baker, it should not be a bar against them either.  You have that little thing called the 14th Amendment and the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> But, again, it's amazingly simple:  the left is in charge so the laws that protect one side of the political coin are not available to the other side... because you can commit "legal" discrimination.  It's that simple, but it is a problem
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for christ's sake.
> 
> Public accommodation laws have not been ruled unconstitutional. And you can't blame the left because you don't like those laws. The right controls the Executive branch, both chambers in the Congress, some 30 governorships. And those laws remain on the books and constitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the dumbass post of the century.  WHEN the laws were passed that I complain about, America was under the control of Democrats.
> 
> The right, even today, doesn't control squat.  RINOs in Congress aren't on the right by a long shot.  Add to that I am not right, but constitutionalist and you should understand... I have damn few allies on Capitol Hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Imbeciles like you could hold all 535 seats in Congress, all 9 USSC seats, and all 50 governorships-- and you'd still cry like a bitch that you don't control shit.
> 
> Here, this one's for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're the one trying to claim you are in the upper income bracket.  What do you think it is that the people I vote for control?
> 
> I'm sick most of the time because I get nauseous having to choose between the lesser of two evils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what you think my income has to go with my posts? But regardless, go cry me a river. I don't really care to hear another idiot on this forum whining victimhood.
Click to expand...


You must really think you're an idiot then, YOU are the one playing victim.

You post here every day, looking for people to troll.  That tells me you don't have a job.  You have too much of an ego, thinking this board jockeying makes a rip, so you aren't that well educated.

You are attempting to impute your shortcomings onto others, so you have an inferiority complex.  You can't stay on point; you think every exchange is an opportunity for you to prove you are smarter than anyone you address when the opposite is a bit more accurate.

But, who knows.  When you have an original idea or something more than you don't believe what others say and therefore they're idiots come back and talk with us.  Other than that, unless you plan on going to PM and calling people out - I'm not going to be of much use to you.  And if the posts keep being personal as opposed to addressing the topic, don't be surprised if I look up the ignore feature here.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags.  It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists.  Both are  right or both are wrong.  THINK,  hater.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that baker's terms of service written and when did the lesbian couple agree to it?
Click to expand...


HAHAHA.  Who says it has to be written??


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.



Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> BOTH sides cherry pick what they want the US Constitution says.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.
> 
> The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
> 
> In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....
> 
> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be a dumb ass.  You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:
> 
> The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate.  The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.
> 
> The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.)  That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.
Click to expand...

You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.

 Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.

The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's more accurate than what you previously said.  In any event, the laws are skewed against the white people being able to believe in what they want to believe in.  And there is always some rip roaring _"legal_" pretext used to avoid reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.
> 
> The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
> 
> In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....
> 
> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be a dumb ass.  You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:
> 
> The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate.  The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.
> 
> The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.)  That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.
> 
> Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.
> 
> The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.
Click to expand...



Counselor, you *presume* that a group violated the terms of the contract.  If you don't like what someone else says, you attribute it to hate propaganda.  It sounds like you're the one trying to compensate for some kind of shortcoming.  

You talk a lot of skeet on this board.  If you spewed that disrespect to a man's face, he would bend you over his knee and take a leather strap to your hind quarters.  And if I knew your mother, I'd ask her permission to introduce you to it.


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
Click to expand...







"Becoming a communist nation "?

???


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
Click to expand...






"The most idiotic people on the planet"?  Like LARPers playing 'militia' in the woods?


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
Click to expand...






A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?


???


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The website that StormFront was on is owned by a private company.   They decided to discontinue the site.   No 1st Amendment violation there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody understands that.  But, people still have a Right to Free Speech, religion, etc..  Yes or no?  If you claim that it only applies to the government, then you have to accept the fact that a law that forces someone to do things against their will in the private sector is a violation of their Rights as well..*.regardless of any statutory laws to the contrary*.
> 
> The person in a private business should have the same right to accept or reject clientele based upon what the business owner wants.  You can misapply laws all day long, but there are maxims of law that you should consider (which you obviously cannot.)
> 
> In the case of a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a gay couple, he does exactly what?  Doesn't he run his business subject to the dictates of his conscience?  But, he has to pay.  He cannot "_discriminate_."  However, the private company that owned the StormFront site *can* "discriminate."   You simply choose to treat it differently when the bottom line is the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll ask again, maybe I'll get a answer this time....
> 
> Stormfront was dropped by their webhost for violating the terms of their service agreement. What agreement did the gay couple shopping for a cake violate to warrant being denied service by the baker?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be a dumb ass.  You apply two different laws to justify a different result when the bottom line issue is the same:
> 
> The web host provided a service and were allowed to discriminate.  The baker offered a service and was not allowed to discriminate.
> 
> The fact that you can create different statutes in order to justify an unjust outcome does not make what you say the right thing to do... and more importantly, constitutional (in a de jure / lawful, constitutional Republic.)  That's your answer and if you don't like it... bite me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain stupid. Network solutions did not discriminate. The baker did.
> 
> Stormfront entered an agreement when they contracted Network Solutions to be their webhost. Stormfront violated that agreement and was rightfully booted. That's not discrimination.
> 
> The gay person who wanted a cake baked by a baker who bakes cakes, never entered any such agreement. Unlike Stormfront, they were denied service for no reason other than whom they choose to legally marry. That is discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Counselor, you *presume* that a group violated the terms of the contract.  If you don't like what someone else says, you attribute it to hate propaganda.  It sounds like you're the one trying to compensate for some kind of shortcoming.
> 
> You talk a lot of skeet on this board.  If you spewed that disrespect to a man's face, he would bend you over his knee and take a leather strap to your hind quarters.  And if I knew your mother, I'd ask her permission to introduce you to it.
Click to expand...




Another tough boy...


----------



## Humorme

Unkotare said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
Click to expand...


You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.


----------



## Coyote

*Thread has been cleaned of a significant derailment...for those who apparently suffered a temporary memory lapse...food fights and tough guy callouts belong in the CD*


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a previous poster explained, the baker has a policy not to bake cakes for fags.  It's the same as the webhoster saying we do not provide service for white nationalists.  Both are  right or both are wrong.  THINK,  hater.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was that baker's terms of service written and when did the lesbian couple agree to it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  Who says it has to be written??
Click to expand...

There's no other way to prove s contract. What the baker did was to discriminate against someone because they don't like who that person was sleeping with.

Whereas what Network Solutions did was drop a customer who violated their terms of agreement.

There is no comparison to the baker, but some here are trying to draw a false equivalence where none exists. Well if you're going to do that, you'll need to show the contract violated by the homosexual trying to purchase a cake from a baker who bakes cake for the public -- just as I showed the contract violated by Stormfront, which led to them being banned from Network Solutions.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
Click to expand...

There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
Click to expand...


All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:

This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:
> 
> This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone
Click to expand...

Thanks to public accommodations laws, those signs no longer exist.


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the domain name folks, not the host.  ICANN used to be under US freedom of speech protection, but we gave it to corporations who now sell it out to the highest bidder.
> 
> The internet is no longer protected by free speech, it is no longer free (in the ideological aspect, not the financial one) get used to it, more people will be losing domain names they've held for decades, some of us have had one since the beginnings of the internet - now we risk losing that address if we say something someone else doesn't like.  It's horrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
Click to expand...





And advancing Civil Rights in America.


----------



## Humorme

Unkotare said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a lot of people will leave the Internet and do things the old fashioned way.  But, the people that defend the censorship didn't feel that way when they were on the receiving end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
Click to expand...


The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:
> 
> This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to public accommodations laws, those signs no longer exist.
Click to expand...


Yep.  Now you can impose yourself on anyone, then deny people you don't like the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...

At the expense of unalienable rights due to blacks.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Stormfront violated Network Solutions, LLC acceptable terms of use contract, which Stormfront, like all of their customers, agree to abide by.
> 
> InQuent The Private Label Hosting Experts
> 
> *Prohibited Uses
> 
> I.* You and your customers agree to comply with all applicable local, state, national and international laws and regulations regarding use of all services delivered by Network Solutions. The following are prohibited uses of our services:
> 
> 
> Transmission, distribution, uploading, posting or storage of any material in violation of any applicable law or regulation is prohibited. This includes, without limitation, material protected by copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right used without proper authorization, material kept in violation of state laws or industry regulations such as social security numbers or credit card numbers, and material that is obscene, defamatory, libelous, unlawful, harassing, abusive, threatening, harmful, vulgar, constitutes an illegal threat, violates export control laws, *hate propaganda*, fraudulent material or fraudulent activity, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable material of any kind or nature. You or your customers may not transmit, distribute, or store material that contains a virus, "Trojan Horse," adware or spyware, corrupted data, or any software or information to promote or utilize software or any of Network Solutions services to deliver unsolicited e-mail. You and your customers further agree not to transmit any material that encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense, gives rise to civil liability or otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law or regulation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:
> 
> This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to public accommodations laws, those signs no longer exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Now you can impose yourself on anyone, then deny people you don't like the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

The laws are applied equally. All businesses serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers.


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...




Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.


----------



## Coyote

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think freedom is paramount, and we're damned fools to have given away ICANN.
> 
> We're going to end up in a proverbial dark ages with our information being filtered and approved by foreign nations... It's only a matter of time before politics "buy" the domain registrars and start shutting down the opposition. That kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<
> 
> The conspiracy theorists were right; it's only a matter of time before the internet becomes as biased and full of shit as the media, and perhaps even worse because there will be nothing but small isolated pockets with no voice who can speak the truth to the lies being spread. This nation is going to go socialist or communist mark my words. That also kind of scares the piss out of me to be honest >.<  I don't' want my children, my grandchildren, to grow up in that shit; if I did I'd have left America already...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...

Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.


----------



## Humorme

Coyote said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
Click to expand...


And so the baker who refuses to compromise his *unalienable* Rights to satisfy the majority and "_public policy_" is well within their Rights to exercise civil disobedience.


----------



## Humorme

Unkotare said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.
Click to expand...


What _"facts_" are you relying on?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hate propaganda???  You mean like posters  here at USMB who advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america?
> 
> 
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:
> 
> This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to public accommodations laws, those signs no longer exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Now you can impose yourself on anyone, then deny people you don't like the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws are applied equally. All businesses serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers.
Click to expand...


And yet web hosts force customers into adhesion contracts for the sole purpose of limiting the customer's rights.


----------



## Humorme

Coyote said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can always begin petitioning Congress to go back to ICANN control of the net.
> 
> And, I'm with you.  The amounts of control and America becoming a communist nation are fears that are about to be realized.
> 
> OTOH, I used to belong to the largest civilian militia in America.  When the Internet came along, the anti-immigrant lobby came along and emptied the militias to become Internet champions of the world.  People sat around and lobbying your Congresscritters went back to the lobbyists.  Training hit an all time low.  People sitting around their kitchen table, in restaurants, churches, etc. and actually *discussing* the world situation ceased.
> 
> The Internet created an aura of legitimacy for even the most idiotic people on the planet.  Only on the Internet can you argue with people all day long while they claim to be in upper income brackets with a degree from Harvard only to find out they're 14, having trouble in school and their only contact with the outdoor world is whizzing people off on the Internet.
> 
> See this censorship as an opportunity.  Stormfront and white racialists are booted off the Internet.  Who were they recruiting?  What were their accomplishments?  Now, I'm finding out that the ADL is going to get to police You Tube.  For years, the whites have done nothing except allow extremists with no real experience B.S. them on the Internet.
> 
> They fought the battle against the liberals tearing down the Confederate monuments and lost.  Adding insult to injury, here in Georgia the liberals just put up a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr in the state Capitol.  This whole Internet hoopla is doing nothing except causing the right to be dominated by inept idiots whose strategies are destroying the Republic.
> 
> Think of this as an opportunity... an opportunity to get out and meet people; a chance to read books; the excuse you need to actually go out and meet your elected representatives and tell them how you feel.  You can be much more effective WITHOUT the Internet.
> 
> Let the left build their own Hell on earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
Click to expand...


What are you babbling about?  What do those words mean?


----------



## reconmark

Are there still butt hurt racists still crying because that violent, caustic site got it's eviction notice???


----------



## Coyote

Humorme said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about?  What do those words mean?
Click to expand...


For illumination, look at your own post.


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _"facts_" are you relying on?
Click to expand...



What MLK accomplished and how he accomplished it.


----------



## Humorme

Unkotare said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _"facts_" are you relying on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What MLK accomplished and how he accomplished it.
Click to expand...



MLK destroyed America.  That's quite an accomplishment.


----------



## Humorme

Coyote said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about?  What do those words mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For illumination, look at your own post.
Click to expand...


Esoteric language does not compute.


----------



## Humorme

reconmark said:


> Are there still butt hurt racists still crying because that violent, caustic site got it's eviction notice???



They probably are butt hurt.  But it will prove to be a blessing in disguise if they take sound counsel and divorce themselves from the Internet.


----------



## Unkotare

Humorme said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _"facts_" are you relying on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What MLK accomplished and how he accomplished it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MLK destroyed America.  .....
Click to expand...



Hmmmm.....America is still here


----------



## xotoxi

Humorme said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the baker who refuses to compromise his *unalienable* Rights to satisfy the majority and "_public policy_" is well within their Rights to exercise civil disobedience.
Click to expand...


A baker cannot refuse service if he wants to continue to sell to the public.


----------



## Humorme

xotoxi said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the baker who refuses to compromise his *unalienable* Rights to satisfy the majority and "_public policy_" is well within their Rights to exercise civil disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baker cannot refuse service if he wants to continue to sell to the public.
Click to expand...


No kidding.  None of us here knew that.

The real issue is that a private business should have full control over their business.  If I stay up late at night working over-time, nights and weekends, I should be entitled to the fruits of my labors.

Who I do business with and who I hire *ought* to be my business.  IF our government were being operated in accordance with the United States Constitution (as originally written and intended), that is the way it *would be*.  

Only an idiot with an IQ less than their shoe size can understand the way things ARE in this country at this time.  But, just because the government has the* POWER* to declare tyranny legal, they lack the *AUTHORITY*.  What we have today are many different laws, justifying many different infringements,and ultimately, denying to many of us the equal protection of the laws.


----------



## Humorme

Unkotare said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your personal opposition to Civil Rights has no bearing on the historical facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What _"facts_" are you relying on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What MLK accomplished and how he accomplished it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> MLK destroyed America.  .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmmm.....America is still here
Click to expand...



Unfortunately not the America our forefathers intended.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that crap is irrelevant.  It used to be that businesses had a sign that read:
> 
> This business reserves the right to deny service to anyone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks to public accommodations laws, those signs no longer exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep.  Now you can impose yourself on anyone, then deny people you don't like the equal protection of the laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The laws are applied equally. All businesses serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet web hosts force customers into adhesion contracts for the sole purpose of limiting the customer's rights.
Click to expand...

You're insane. 

Here, in reality, a dimension from which you're clearly divorced, such businesses restrict customers in such a fashion to limit their own legal liability, not their customers' rights. Rights, by the way, which don't exist to begin with.

Every business has the right to mold their own practices according to their own needs within the confines of laws and regulations. They certainly have the right to protect their own business against liabilities potentially imposed by the public they serve. Once they're open to the public, what they can't do is deny certain classes of folks the same service they provide to everyone else. That's discrimination and banned by law. You may not like that law but tough shit, no one cares what you like or don't like. What matters is that the law prevails.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> A statue of MLK is "adding insult to injury"?
> 
> 
> ???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you babbling about?  What do those words mean?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You can't understand what she was saying?

How sad. 

Since you're a low-IQ player here with "special" needs, the Liberal in me feels compelled to educate you....

It means that minorities have the same unalienable rights as the majority and those rights cannot be denied by the majority. And that we live in a great country where the government, which is run by 'we the people,' ensures that everyone's rights are protected.

Capiche?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Humorme said:


> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.



MLK was also a remarkably stupid man. His GRE scores were abysmal.   Like most blacks, he could barely read and got his PHD in the BS field of theology.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.



So  why can't bakers refuse service to fag customers?


----------



## Tommy Tainant

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLK was also a remarkably stupid man. His GRE scores were abysmal.   Like most blacks, he could barely read and got his PHD in the BS field of theology.
Click to expand...

Did you learn that on the much missed stormfront site ?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

xotoxi said:


> A baker cannot refuse service if he wants to continue to sell to the public.



And yet webhosters are allowed to refuse service to customers they dislike.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> The laws are applied equally. All businesses serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers.



So why are companies allowed to refuse customers who are white nationalists.??


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are terms of use here just as there are for customers of Network Solutions. Network Solutions has every right to drop customers at their whim when a customer violates their terms, just as the owner(s) of this site can, and do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So  why can't bakers refuse service to fag customers?
Click to expand...

For the exact same reason a black baker has to bake a cake for you, should you request to purchase one.


----------



## Faun

Tommy Tainant said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLK was also a remarkably stupid man. His GRE scores were abysmal.   Like most blacks, he could barely read and got his PHD in the BS field of theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you learn that on the much missed stormfront site ?
Click to expand...

Cut that loser some slack, he's still burning over some of his favorite websites getting thrown off the Internet.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> xotoxi said:
> 
> 
> 
> A baker cannot refuse service if he wants to continue to sell to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet webhosters are allowed to refuse service to customers they dislike.
Click to expand...

No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws are applied equally. All businesses serving the public cannot discriminate against serving customers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why are companies allowed to refuse customers who are white nationalists.??
Click to expand...

This has been beyond thoroughly explained. That you're too slow to still not understand is on you.


----------



## Humorme

Tommy Tainant said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MLK was also a remarkably stupid man. His GRE scores were abysmal.   Like most blacks, he could barely read and got his PHD in the BS field of theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you learn that on the much missed stormfront site ?
Click to expand...


Probably less than you since I never visit it.


----------



## Humorme

xotoxi said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard me right.  King was associated with communists and he pretended to be a preacher while hiring prostitutes to spend the night with him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And advancing Civil Rights in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The so - called civil rights were simply an imposition by the government to impose on* unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sometimes that is what is needed when the unalienable rights of minorities are imposed on by the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the baker who refuses to compromise his *unalienable* Rights to satisfy the majority and "_public policy_" is well within their Rights to exercise civil disobedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A baker cannot refuse service if he wants to continue to sell to the public.
Click to expand...


If any businessman feels that he need not service every person that darkens his door, he should be free to do so.  *THAT* is the very essence of free enterprise.  If the public feels the business owner is in the wrong, they can all boycott him and the business will adapt or go under.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.



Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots. 

Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK


----------



## flacaltenn

*Mod Note:

Need to get this thread BACK to the topic of the OP.  Other diversions already discussed in other threads. 
This is Zone3. Don't engage in prolonged personal exchanges. Respect the SPECIFIC topic of the thread. *


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Humorme said:


> If any businessman feels that he need not service every person that darkens his door, he should be free to do so.  *THAT* is the very essence of free enterprise.  If the public feels the business owner is in the wrong, they can all boycott him and the business will adapt or go under.



That's how i see it too.  Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If webhosters want to refuse service to white nationalists, that is fine, but then... businesses must also be allowed to refuse service to faggots or blacks or whites or catholics or anyone!!!

Liberals are such hypocrites.


----------



## TomParks

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If any businessman feels that he need not service every person that darkens his door, he should be free to do so.  *THAT* is the very essence of free enterprise.  If the public feels the business owner is in the wrong, they can all boycott him and the business will adapt or go under.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's how i see it too.  Businesses should be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose. If webhosters want to refuse service to white nationalists, that is fine, but then... businesses must also be allowed to refuse service to faggots or blacks or whites or catholics or anyone!!!
> 
> Liberals are such hypocrites.
Click to expand...


I agree 100%


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
Click to expand...

Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
Click to expand...


You have lost the argument and exposed yourself as a white-hating racist hypocrite.  Sorry to ruin your day.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have lost the argument and exposed yourself as a white-hating racist hypocrite.  Sorry to ruin your day.
Click to expand...

How does your dementia ruin my day? 

Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays. America wins.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays. America wins.



SF will be back and stronger than ever.  Everyone can see the hypocrisy of you libs advocating that businesses can refuse service to white nationalists  but cannot refuse service to child-molesting faggots.!!  THINK, you miserable white-hating racist pile of pig puke.!!!


----------



## mdk

How many boxes of tissues have you whiners used over Stormfront and The Daily Stormer?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

mdk said:


> How many boxes of tissues have you whiners used over Stormfront and The Daily Stormer?



HAHAHA.  More attempted deflection from the white-hating racists.  You are losing on this issue, hate-king.


----------



## mdk

ShootSpeeders said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many boxes of tissues have you whiners used over Stormfront and The Daily Stormer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  More attempted deflection from the white-hating racists.  You are losing on this issue, hate-king.
Click to expand...


Hardly. Network Solutions, LLC Is free to do, or not do, business with whomever they see fit. Don't like it? Tough shit.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

mdk said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  More attempted deflection from the white-hating racists.  You are losing on this issue, hate-king.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly. Network Solutions, LLC Is free to do, or not do, business with whomever they see fit. Don't like it? Tough shit.
Click to expand...


Then so is every other business.


----------



## Toro

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why



You are the main argument.


----------



## EverCurious

We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].


----------



## Hutch Starskey

*White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD*

The company that hosted them is no longer doing so. That is neither the "internet" nor the first ammendment. You can hold out hope that some other, less ethical web hosting firm will offer them space. Not likely though.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
Click to expand...




Humorme said:


> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation. It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed



Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.


----------



## SobieskiSavedEurope

As anti-Communism I am, I don't have a problem with Communist sites existing.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

ShootSpeeders said:


> I wonder how many of these SF-haters have ever been to the site.  People there don't hate blacks.  Their views are the same as lincoln's.  Blacks are mentally inferior and it would be best if they lived with their own kind in africa.  All his adult life lincoln encouraged blacks to go back to africa.



Some,"very fine people" there at SF.


----------



## Jarlaxle

hjmick said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh my, wherever will you get your talking points?
Click to expand...

The usual place: he will squat and bear down.


----------



## Jarlaxle

Vastator said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never visited Stormfront website because it's not something I want to view. But I am totaly against its removal.  What a dumbass thing to do in a country where we celebrate Free Speech.  I guess we should shutdown websites that promote Black Lives Matter if we are going to be consistant about banning hate sites.  I suspect the Left would be against that.
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing about Stormfront is this.... I'd never heard of it until I started posting here. And i learned of its existence from this boards liberals... Lol. I wonder how many of that sites members were turned onto it by bumbling misguided SJWs...?
Click to expand...

First I heard of it was from google...I was looking for stuff about Billy Joel.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Hutch Starskey said:


> Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.



Absurdity of their ideas. ???   HAHAHA.  Even you know they are correct.  Everyone does.  But since you don't like what they say, you censor them.


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation. It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.
Click to expand...


I don't think it is the absurdity of their ideas as much as it is their strategies.  The left has been able to sell a pig in a poke to the masses simply by using strategies that are more subtle and indirect.

I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.


----------



## impuretrash

Humorme said:


> avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.



You mean keep on employing the same lame weak tactics that got us into this mess in the first place? White identity movements will never be accepted into the mainstream if we're constantly censoring ourselves to avoid being called racist.


----------



## Synthaholic

ShootSpeeders said:


> *White-hating racists get Stormfront booted off the internet ! FIRST AMENMENT IS DEAD*


Why can't racists spell?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Humorme said:


> I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.



Thanks for proving you're a liberal trying to talk conservatives into not fighting back.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

ShootSpeeders said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I went to a posh white boarding school.  I can attest to the fact that the black kid in my high school class performed as well as almost everyone else, finishing with a GPA well over 4.0.  .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stupid illogical jackass!!! Individual cases prove nothing. Like saying one man is 7 feet tall so all men are,.  No one disputes that there are SOME smart blacks. But on average they are mentally inferior to all other races and the evidence is overwhelming..
Click to expand...




ShootSpeeders said:


> But on average they are mentally inferior to all other races and the evidence is overwhelming..



Except in your case, of course.
Your inferiority knows no bounds.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absurdity of their ideas. ???   HAHAHA.  Even you know they are correct.  Everyone does.  But since you don't like what they say, you censor them.
Click to expand...

You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.


----------



## VictoriasExoticGirl

Death to Stormfront! The name did sound pretty cool, though.


----------



## idb

I thought the 'First Amenment' applied to the gummint...not private business.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
Click to expand...




Humorme said:


> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.



Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
Click to expand...


That's great. Was it in a state where it was legal to do so?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
Click to expand...


You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you?  Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?


----------



## MisterBeale

Harry Dresden said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
Click to expand...

You sure it isn't one person with three socks?

It seems to me, his posts, Tank's, and McRacist's post seem awfully damn similar.


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you?  Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?
Click to expand...


I find it valid as it has never been defeated.  You act like people are below you when I've stipulated to the legal differences between the two acts.  You obviously aren't reading the posts, just cherry picking and trying to flame me... to YOUR detriment.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation. It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is the absurdity of their ideas as much as it is their strategies.  The left has been able to sell a pig in a poke to the masses simply by using strategies that are more subtle and indirect.
> 
> I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.
Click to expand...


They're Nazi pariahs, dope. Their ideas have been defeated repeatedly. It's a failed ideology. Free people will never let them gain any authority.


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's great. Was it in a state where it was legal to do so?
Click to expand...


Constitutionally or statutorily?


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The test to find out if the white people in this country are as intelligent as they think they are is if they can extrapolate from this exactly where they stand and what it will take to fight back.
> 
> After several years of being on the Internet, I am glad that groups right of center are being booted off.  Here is why:
> 
> I used to belong to a group 2800 strong.  The moment people started getting on the Internet, professional disinformation artists started attacking those on the right.  Most organizations became a mere shell of themselves and the few that get mainstream cred are Internet giants and nothing more.
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation.  It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed.  Look at the statues and monuments deal.  They're coming down, aren't they?  The whites lost.  And, they cannot win because the Internet is their worst enemy.  The Internet is a daily popularity contest about the personalities, not the issues.  You cannot organize, educate your supporters and plan strategies under the watchful eye of the Internet.
> 
> In order to succeed, an underdog organization needs COMSEC and OPSEC  (communications security and operational security.)  The Internet offers neither.  Education must also include face to face encounters... things the Internet generation has been taught to avoid.
> 
> Finally, the whites are being programmed, Pavlovian style, by social media / Internet.  Let me give you a quick example:
> 
> On most discussion boards, the left is encouraged to attack the right with impunity.  The left is rarely held to the same standard that the right is, preventing whites from defending themselves.  The message is a universal one on the Internet:  They believe you do not have a Right to defend yourself so they are programming you to accept their premise.
> 
> That is why you see people all day long arguing about who got banned off what board.  There is *NO* freedom of expression on discussion boards.  Most social media has their pecking order and their own agenda.
> 
> So, forget the dark web.  Forget the Internet.  Use the blackout to have face to face meetings with people in your neighborhood.  Shake their hand.  Sit around the kitchen table and discuss what you believe in and don't believe in... plan strategies in private.  You will be amazed at how much more effective that will be.
> 
> This stuff here is entertainment and you don't need to have a daily referendum trying to measure whether or not the bottom line is changing... it's only moving left as the Internet is closely monitored and controlled.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Internet has allowed the left to control both sides of the equation. It has allowed the patriot community to be destroyed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their destruction is only the result of the public display of the absolute absurdity of their ideas and the ineptitude of those who hold those ideas. IOW, they've been rejected and shown to be the losers they are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is the absurdity of their ideas as much as it is their strategies.  The left has been able to sell a pig in a poke to the masses simply by using strategies that are more subtle and indirect.
> 
> I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're Nazi pariahs, dope. Their ideas have been defeated repeatedly. It's a failed ideology. Free people will never let them gain any authority.
Click to expand...


Not all white people that care about their culture, destiny, history and so forth are nazis... DUH.


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
Click to expand...


The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Humorme said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you?  Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it valid as it has never been defeated.  You act like people are below you when I've stipulated to the legal differences between the two acts.  You obviously aren't reading the posts, just cherry picking and trying to flame me... to YOUR detriment.
Click to expand...


Your detriment has been shown repeatedly in the poorly thought out and sophomoric arguments you've presented. Often convoluted and lacking in experience.


----------



## Humorme

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think in the future those who want to advance the cause of white people would be well advised to avoid strategies that put them at risk of being convicted of criminal acts and, more importantly, avoid the toxic and self destructive strategy of blunt and confrontational verbiage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving you're a liberal trying to talk conservatives into not fighting back.
Click to expand...


That *IS* a dumbass post.  Never assume.

If I were a liberal, I'd stand up and proclaim it.  If I were a conservative, I'd admit it.  However, I have my own ideas and they don't fit well with the assumed platforms of "_liberals and conservatives_."

This much I will promise you: I'm a hell of a lot more effective at what I do compared to you.  AND, *NOBODY* ever spent a night in jail or got convicted of a crime for taking my advice.


----------



## Humorme

Hutch Starskey said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> Not funny at all. Stormfront was dropped because they violated the terms of service according to their web host. What terms of service did the gay couple violate to warrant not having a cake baked for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The baker's terms of service is that he didn't do cakes for gay couples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do understand the difference between a person's sexual preference and ideology, don't you?  Being gay is not discriminatory. Refusing service because a patron is gay is in fact discrimination. Your argument has been defeated repeatedly. Why do you still find it to be valid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find it valid as it has never been defeated.  You act like people are below you when I've stipulated to the legal differences between the two acts.  You obviously aren't reading the posts, just cherry picking and trying to flame me... to YOUR detriment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your detriment has been shown repeatedly in the poorly thought out and sophomoric arguments you've presented. Often convoluted and lacking in experience.
Click to expand...


The more you post, the dumber you sound.  I'll match resumes' with you any damn day of the week.  Lacking in experience?  You wish.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.



Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".

Answer that, hater.


----------



## OffensivelyOpenMinded

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
Click to expand...

Because butt pirates are special.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...



I'm sure others have tried once again to school you in the reasons why this is not a firt amendment issue but beyond that --

THAT'S REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY GOOD NEWS!!!

Thanks for sharing this. Seriously. You made my day with this news.

Oh yeah, and go fuk yourself.


----------



## Baron

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.



The problem is whites are to gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.


----------



## EverCurious

Again be informed as to what you are talking about.  IT IS NOT THEIR HOST, THEIR DOMAIN NAME WAS TAKEN. ~sigh~ maybe it'll get through to you hard headed ones if I caps?  This is not a simple case of oh the host cut them off - this is a case of until March 2017 doing this was fucking illegal because the US regulated DNS (domain name system) as a utility (and thus the entire DNS system fell under 1st amendment protection for the entire world.)  We just hosed the internet, possibly one of the worst decisions for free speech the US has ever made... 


Related - Those who follow my postings might recall my discussion of starting up an internet 2.0.  An example - Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums


----------



## EverCurious

Perhaps a trainer course would help you folks understand how terrible this can become?

So lets go back to the late 80s, before the internet.  Back then we just had BBS's (Bulletin Board Systems), the precursor to the internet or WWW (World Wide Web).  Basically you logged into someones computer (a beefy computer called a server) and you could do a lot of the stuff the modern internet can do - forums, games, chatting, and email with everyone on that particular server. BBS's are kind of like the private networks you might use at work, or if you have your computers connected to each other at home.  It was cool no doubt, however, it was private, secular, and localized.

The internet came about as those individual servers connected to each other, and more and more and more until the entire world was connected (via the DNS)  This revolution opened the doors to global communication, global business, and the massive inter-connectivity and knowledge sharing we have today. I'm a total geek so I might be biased, but I think the evolution of the Internet is one of the top achievements of mankind simply because of what it's allowed us to do. I remember the days before and the days after, it was like the entire planet suddenly shrunk to the size of my computer - for a person like me who craves knowledge it was a dream come true, instantly I had access to not just the hard copies at the local library, not just a local server of fellow Anchorage residents, or occasionally a school hosted server for the state of Alaska, or if I paid the long distance charges maybe a major portal in some lower 48 city, but the entire fucking world opened up. I was astounded, amazed, and frankly lost for many, many months exploring the far corners and talking to people I would /never/ have known existed; learning their issues, their fears, their goals. For me, I simultaneously realized both how similar, and how different, we all are. Rambling...

Why is this bad?  Well, the DNS connects us together, it is the spine of the internet. DNS management is now in the hands of a global conglomerate and it's no longer protected by the US's dedication to freedom of ideas, beliefs, speech, etc. Sounds fine and dandy to you hmm? That's just because the other nations haven't yet realized what they can now do. The internet is officially for sale. PC police just fired the first shot, but the EU and US ain't going to win the war, guaranteed, we don't have the numbers...  Wait until China raises their voice against "hostile speech" and let me know how you like China's version of the web. Wait until India starts dictating what should be allowed to be said on the web. It's only a matter of time before the registry folks (Network Solutions, Tucows, and a couple others) fall into the hands of the highest bidder - and then we'll all be reading whatever they want us to read, and our mouths taped because they don't like it when the US puts tariffs on their exports so they "censor" (aka delete) anyone who talks about it. You thought Russia interfered with our elections? HAHAHA just wait...


----------



## Humorme

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
Click to expand...


The left cannot and will not answer you honestly.  All they see is that two different laws can be applied, but the intent and the the result are the same.

Whether you pass one law to supposedly apply to "_discrimination_" *OR* you pass a law forcing an individual into an adhesion contract, the outcome is the same: they both exist to enforce *public policy*.

Did YOU get to vote on public policy?  I didn't.  Is it in the Constitution?  While the left rages over the offenses of public policy, they strain at the meaning of the Preamble to the Constitution.


----------



## Harry Dresden

MisterBeale said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> out of 25,000 posters on this board you are one of the top 3 dumbasses....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure it isn't one person with three socks?
> 
> It seems to me, his posts, Tank's, and McRacist's post seem awfully damn similar.
Click to expand...

yea they do seem similar....


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Baron said:


> The problem is whites are too  gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.



Whites are the biggest  cowards in history.  We are told that the brazen racism of affirmative action is actually all about FIGHTING RACISM, and most whites accept that!!!!


----------



## Humorme

Baron said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is whites are to gullible and do not fight for their rights. Non-whites perform the white genocide and punish whites for withstanding it.
Click to expand...


Bitching about the problem is not fighting for your Rights

Posting daily on a discussion board is not fighting for your Rights

Marching in the streets is not fighting for your Rights

Making an ass out of yourself is not fighting for your Rights.

What kind of perception do you really think the average person in mainstream gets when your average "white rights advocate" is a snaggled toothed redneck with matted hair, multiple tattoos, a two day growth of whiskers with a cigarette in his mouth and wearing nazi garb yelling something like let's go out an kill us a bunch of (expletive deleted)???

Does shouting a lot of bad words - like the seven words that used to be banned on tv help you recruit?  Is that fighting for your Rights?

Let me tell you a little secret about this war that most white racists don't understand.  They reject it, but in a few years many end up on the left simply because they don't understand this:

You can never advance yourself on the back of another man.  An old Tarzan flick once had tribal chiefs testing Tarzan.  One of their questions was:  If you encountered an enemy after a thousand mile journey, what ONE thing would you make sure of?  Tarzan answered:  "I'd make sure the enemy traveled the thousand miles."

Doesn't it strike you as odd that in *every* encounter over the years, the left has won?  I won't take you all through history via Memory Lane, but look at the fight over the Confederate flag.  The whites fought that war the same, identical way they fought the battle over statues, monuments, and memorials.  Both times they *lost*.  And, it wasn't the first time.  Adding insult to injury, they not only lose the battle they were fighting, but the left gets additional considerations... like here in Georgia where they are not only taking down Confederate statues, but they put a statue of Martin Luther King, Jr. AND a *Republican* Senator from Georgia wants a Resolution condemning white supremacy (sic), the KKK, nazis, white nationalists, etc.

Antifa, BLM, the SPLC, ADL, NAACP, SCLC, etc. are all partying in the streets. 

How many times do the white activists have to get their asses kicked before they start thinking, well gee - we need a new strategy???


----------



## Synthaholic

ShootSpeeders said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't play chess. Ever play one in a game of Umfofo or Bunga Bunga?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think.  Blacks sing and dance and play sports.  They put on shows for white ppl.
Click to expand...

Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
Click to expand...

There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
Click to expand...

Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.


----------



## WinterBorn

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
Click to expand...


But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.


----------



## Faun

WinterBorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
Click to expand...

Selective abominations.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
Click to expand...


I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
Click to expand...



You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.

 "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."

(See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)

If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:

https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
Click to expand...


Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"

Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
Click to expand...

Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
Click to expand...

There was nothing to stop the homos from buying a cake already baked. The problem is none of them had pro homo images or messages on them and it is definitely wrong to force the baker to put something on his cake he doesn't want to.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
Click to expand...


You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.

NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.

I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> You're out of your mind. Hutch Starskey was not in a position to censor Stormfront. Only Stormfront was in a position to censor themselves by violating the terms of service they agreed to with Network Solutions, LLC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
Click to expand...


You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.

If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)

Just for edification:

"(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation


"_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB

"_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version

"_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible

I Corinthians 7 :15

If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.  

Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
Click to expand...

I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't bakers say the same. "We have a policy against  serving faggots  so please leave".
> 
> Answer that, hater.
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
Click to expand...

Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Synthaholic said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think.  Blacks sing and dance and play sports.  They put on shows for white ppl.
> 
> 
> 
> Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".
Click to expand...


Tyson is a giant fraud.  Another affirmative action baby. He is a very mediocre physicist that the lying press has built up just because he's part black.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.



.  That should be up to the company.  Let them decide who they will serve.  That is freedom.


----------



## Political Junky

Author draws parallels between Donald Trump and rise of 1930s fascism, in rare public appearance at Royal Festival Hall

John le Carré on Trump: ‘Something seriously bad is happening’


----------



## Unkotare

ShootSpeeders said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know blacks don't play chess. Just like they avoid physics and engineering and anything that requires them to think.  Blacks sing and dance and play sports.  They put on shows for white ppl.
> 
> 
> 
> Neil deGrasse Tyson says "hi". He also says "fuck you".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tyson is a giant fraud.  Another affirmative action baby. He is a very mediocre physicist that the lying press has built up just because he's part black.
Click to expand...





You claim to be a more qualified physicist?


----------



## pillars

This thread...


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already answered. For the same reason a black baker can't refuse to bake you a cake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
Click to expand...


You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?

I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
Click to expand...


There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons. 

The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.

"_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22

Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.

Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.

In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):

_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_

_The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._

_An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._

_Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._

_A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._

_An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._

_Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._

_*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_

_— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
_
I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.

The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
Click to expand...


OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
Click to expand...



And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"

What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the same bakers that refused to bake a cake for the gay couple has baked plenty for peoples 2nd or 3rd marriage.  And, according to the Bible, that is adultery.   And adultery made the Big 10 list.    But that is apparently ok, as long as they are not gay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
Click to expand...

This isn't about freedom of religion since the Bible doesn't teach us it's against G-d's laws to bake a cake for homosexuals.

What this is about is some bigot who's using their religion as a tool to justify their discrimination. Courts have ruled in other non-related cases that religion cannot be used as an excuse to violate the law. See Coptics v. DEA, as an example.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
Click to expand...


Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.

And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.


----------



## koshergrl

Zander said:


> I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.
> 
> This is a huge mistake.


It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech. 

People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing in the Bible that states a baker can't bake a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
Click to expand...

A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.

As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.


----------



## Faun

koshergrl said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.
> 
> This is a huge mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.
> 
> People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.
Click to expand...

^^^ yet another rightard who doesn't comprehend that free speech is only a protection from government censorship.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously don't read the Bible.  If you are not the at fault party in a divorce action, the law against adultery does not apply.
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace_."
> 
> (See I Corinthians 7:  14 thru 16)
> 
> If you're going to argue Bible laws, you too need to read the course:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
Click to expand...

If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Luke 16:18 “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery"
> 
> Matthew 19:9  "And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
> 
> Mark 10:12  "And if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
> 
> Seems pretty cut & dried to me.   But I guess that wouldn't suit some people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
Click to expand...


Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?   

And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.

Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.

But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
Click to expand...

if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
Click to expand...

So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
Click to expand...


Promoting it to who?   People attending a reception for a gay wedding?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
Click to expand...


You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
Click to expand...


Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive.  Gun owners didn't cry about it.  They simply bought AR 15s.  Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
Click to expand...


Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?

Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?
> 
> Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.
Click to expand...



It works in the other direction for you.  There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites.  History is cyclical.  Remember that.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive.  Gun owners didn't cry about it.  They simply bought AR 15s.  Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.
Click to expand...


The ONLY convoluted logic is yours.   Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms.  Neither do I.

But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.

If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
Click to expand...


No shit Sherlock.  How many times are you going to repeat that before you actually read the freaking post I made that responds to it?  You have an answer.  Too bad you can't read it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?
> 
> Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It works in the other direction for you.  There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites.  History is cyclical.  Remember that.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws.   And I am an older white male.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive.  Gun owners didn't cry about it.  They simply bought AR 15s.  Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ONLY convoluted logic is yours.   Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms.  Neither do I.
> 
> But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?
Click to expand...


Your posts get more and more desperate.  Can you stay on point?

You don't have ANY logic to convolute.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?
> 
> Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It works in the other direction for you.  There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites.  History is cyclical.  Remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws.   And I am an older white male.
Click to expand...



Well good for you.  I don't care for tyranny.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that you are very well aware of God's laws.  So you won't try to argue out of ignorance, this link is just for you:
> 
> https://sedm.org/LibertyU/BibleLawCourse.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
Click to expand...



Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:

NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic is convoluted, but Bill Ruger would not sell high capacity magazines to the general public when he was alive.  Gun owners didn't cry about it.  They simply bought AR 15s.  Now, Ruger (the company) had to adapt and offer high capacity magazines - without being forced by government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ONLY convoluted logic is yours.   Neither Bill Ruger nor the AR15 manufacturers believe they are responsible for the actions of the people who bought their firearms.  Neither do I.
> 
> But somehow that reasoning flies out the window when it is a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> If you believe baking and selling a cake makes your responsible for gay marriages, then why not make Ruger & Colt responsible for what people do with their weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts get more and more desperate.  Can you stay on point?
> 
> You don't have ANY logic to convolute.
Click to expand...


Nice denial.   But yes, I do have logic on my side.

If the business is responsible for gay marriage, just by selling a cake, why are gun manufacturers not responsible for what is done with their product?   Because it doesn't involve "icky gay sex"?


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?
> 
> Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It works in the other direction for you.  There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites.  History is cyclical.  Remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws.   And I am an older white male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well good for you.  I don't care for tyranny.
Click to expand...


I don't either.   But outlawing discrimination simply marginalizes the hate mongers.  It does not oppress the population.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You omitted the part I quoted.  We wonder why... NOT.
> 
> If you are on the receiving end of that equation, you are not under bondage (i.e. the law)
> 
> Just for edification:
> 
> "(_But if the husband or wife who isn't a believer insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is no longer bound to the other, for God has called you to live in peace_.)" New Living Translation
> 
> 
> "_Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace_."  NASB
> 
> "_But if the unbelieving partner leaves, let him go. In such cases the brother or sister is not under obligation. God has called you to live in peace_:"  International Standard Version
> 
> "_But if the unbeliever wants a divorce, let it take place. In these circumstances the brother or sister is not bound. God has called you in peace_"  NET Bible
> 
> I Corinthians 7 :15
> 
> If you are the victim of a divorce at no fault to yourself, you may get remarried.  The person who leaves when the issue is NOT adultery is living in sin if they remarry.
> 
> Besides, even if you don't believe that, tough... your Right to believe what you want is yours to believe or disbelieve.  Freedom of conscience needs no validation in a de jure courtroom and certainly not from mere mortals.
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, thanks for agreeing with me that there's nothing in the Bible prohibiting anyone from baking a cake for a homosexual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
Click to expand...


No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great, show the form the baker had customers fill out to determine if their divorce was not adulterous....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
Click to expand...


Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you could get segregated lunch counters back too.  If the business owner wanted it?
> 
> Or maybe you could get laws about discrimination taken off the books?    Let us know how that works out for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It works in the other direction for you.  There is always some law on the books favoring non-whites over whites.  History is cyclical.  Remember that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with antidiscrimination laws.   And I am an older white male.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well good for you.  I don't care for tyranny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't either.   But outlawing discrimination simply marginalizes the hate mongers.  It does not oppress the population.
Click to expand...


That is really silly.  You don't know what motivates a person.  When you are sexually attracted to someone, will you take anything 18 to 80, big, little, man, woman, or beast?


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
Click to expand...


If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.  

Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
Click to expand...


No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.

The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need some remedial reading classes.  I never said such a thing.  I gave you a link that you need to study.  You are absolutely delusional - a legend in your own mind.
> 
> NO rational person could agree with you when you are 100 percent wrong.
> 
> I wouldn't bake you a cake regardless of what even the United States Supreme Court said.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
Click to expand...


What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your point?  A private business posts a sign and it says "_We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone_"
> 
> What *constitutional right* are you being deprived of if they refuse to serve you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
Click to expand...

A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.
Click to expand...


Good luck.  Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience.  i have participated in it.   This particular case is bullshit.   They can still worship and believe as they choose.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.
Click to expand...


You're wrong and you know it.  Good try though.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


A civil war over having to sell a cake to a gay couple?   LMAO!    Yeah, that is brilliant.    Good luck with that too.  I just hope you are not operating under the misguided perception that the population will back you or that you and your ilk are the only ones with guns.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our nation has laws beyond the US Constitution.   Those laws cannot be unconstitutional, but they do exist.
> 
> And some of those laws involve outlawing discrimination in businesses open to the public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...


I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD.   I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet.   But that ain't happening.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> 
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience.  i have participated in it.   This particular case is bullshit.   They can still worship and believe as they choose.
Click to expand...



I have participated in civil disobedience as well.  It may not come to that.  The baker disagrees with you; I disagree with you.  And now that is where we are.  He believes it violates his First Amendment Rights and I agree.  I wouldn't do it either and I'd burn my bakery to the ground before I'd let the government dictate to me.

And, with the business not generating taxes, your welfare check might suffer - if enough people agree with the sentiment.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't need to study shit. I already know there's nothing in the Bible instructing anyone to not bake a cake for homosexuals. And you just proved you can't  find anything in your link either to support the baker's  illegal prejudiced protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.
Click to expand...

And the baker may or may not prevail, that remains to be seen. So far, he's failed at every attempt and now faces one last try.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD.   I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet.   But that ain't happening.
Click to expand...


And I'm not going to change the way I do business either.  Are we done yet?  Or do you think I still owe you something?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is so much the Bible says regarding homosexuality that we would have to hijack this thread for the Bible lessons.
> 
> The Bible is replete with commands to avoid ANY improprieties.
> 
> "_Abstain from *all appearance *of evil_."  I Thessalonians 5 :22
> 
> Christians are compelled NOT to engage in the symbolism of evil.  It's that simple.  Maybe that baker didn't even believe in the Bible.  If doing something violates the dictates of one's conscience, you cannot be compelled to do it under our Constitution.
> 
> Furthermore, the private sector should *NOT* be compelled to do anything they don't want to do with respect to running their business.  I realize that the government has the *power* to enforce unconstitutional laws.   And you FAIL to realize that the government *lacks the authority*, under our Constitution, to force people to do that which violates the dictates of their conscience.
> 
> In the most recent example of a baker refusing to go against his moral principles, the United States Supreme Court opined (regarding such laws):
> 
> _"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:_
> 
> _The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted._
> 
> _Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . ._
> 
> _A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one._
> 
> _An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law._
> 
> _Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby._
> 
> _*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*."_
> 
> _— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)
> _
> I get it that you don't want to acknowledge that America was founded upon the concept of Liberty as an *unalienable* Right.  That does not make you right.  It simply means that you think might makes right and everything the government does ought to be obeyed as if it is the Word of almighty God.  We simply disagree and a careful reading of the Declaration of Independence will show you that the founders tired of the tyranny of King George and left us a blueprint for dealing with tyrannical rulers in the future.
> 
> The government may have the *power* to declare secular humanism a religion by infringing on the religious beliefs via *public policy*.  We are all aware of that, sir.  You're not schooling anyone on this board.  Rather, you need an education in proper constitutional interpretation.  When anyone steps on my liberty, I will fight back as I have *no* moral, legal, OR constitutional obligation to let anyone screw me out of what I worked to earn and that which I hold near and dear to my heart.
> 
> 
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the baker may or may not prevail, that remains to be seen. So far, he's failed at every attempt and now faces one last try.
Click to expand...


That is not the end of the road.  There are a dozen more steps he can take from civil disobedience to passive resistance to changing his store to a club... to a host of options I won't list.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A private business which provides services to the public cannot discriminate against certain groups of people they don't like. If they could, businesses could deny public services to blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.
> 
> As far as homosexuality being evil, nothing in the New Testament states that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the Old Testament does list homosexuality as a sin.  But, you don't get the point:
> 
> NOBODY has to justify their religion to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they don't.   But they do have to follow the laws where their business is concerned.  Don't like it?  Get the laws changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Hell do you think the baker is doing?  He's taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> WTF?  Haven't you ever heard of civil disobedience, passive resistance, and ultimately outright rebellion?  Sometimes it takes that to get laws changed.  It's being done.  Trolling me won't stop it.  And it is legitimate political warfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck.  Yes, I have heard of civil disobedience.  i have participated in it.   This particular case is bullshit.   They can still worship and believe as they choose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I have participated in civil disobedience as well.  It may not come to that.  The baker disagrees with you; I disagree with you.  And now that is where we are.  He believes it violates his First Amendment Rights and I agree.  I wouldn't do it either and I'd burn my bakery to the ground before I'd let the government dictate to me.
> 
> And, with the business not generating taxes, your welfare check might suffer - if enough people agree with the sentiment.
Click to expand...


My welfare check?   LMAO!!   Nice try at a pitiful insult.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD.   I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet.   But that ain't happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm not going to change the way I do business either.  Are we done yet?  Or do you think I still owe you something?
Click to expand...


WTF?    I have not even hinted that you owe me anything.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> 
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and you know it.  Good try though.
Click to expand...

You're projecting nonsense now. What I said is what the law protects and what I support.


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.
> 
> This is a huge mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.
> 
> People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ yet another rightard who doesn't comprehend that free speech is only a protection from government censorship.
Click to expand...


As I've pointed out a million times, google is immensely powerful. You can't do business in today's internet based economy without it. Them being given free reign to not only control the flow of information but impose economic and social sanctions on Americans for expressing opinions is extremely dangerous. It's like the phone companies cutting off your line because they overheard a politically incorrect conversation you had.


----------



## impuretrash

Lefties let this crap go on unchecked because for now, the opinions being censored are the ones they personally don't want to hear. Or at least, that's what the mainstream media tells you. Good luck finding out for yourself what these individuals and groups actually stand for since they've been deprived of the ability to speak for themselves.


----------



## Faun

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.
> 
> This is a huge mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.
> 
> People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ yet another rightard who doesn't comprehend that free speech is only a protection from government censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've pointed out a million times, google is immensely powerful. You can't do business in today's internet based economy without it. Them being given free reign to not only control the flow of information but impose economic and social sanctions on Americans for expressing opinions is extremely dangerous. It's like the phone companies cutting off your line because they overheard a politically incorrect conversation you had.
Click to expand...

Network Solutions, LLC dumped Stormfront and they did so because Stormfront violated their terms of service. Nazi's and skinheads and other assorted alt-right wing nuts have every right to start their own webhosting businesses and then even those hate groups can be back online.


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> Network Solutions, LLC dumped Stormfront and they did so because Stormfront violated their terms of service. Nazi's and skinheads and other assorted alt-right wing nuts have every right to start their own webhosting businesses and then even those hate groups can be back online.



First off the alt-right isn't a neo-nazi movement. It's a pro-white identity movement. Secondly my post was in reference to the broader issue of internet suppression of freedom of speech and expression. You ignored everything I posted and repeated the same argument that's been posted a million times. I'm not talking about Stormfront's host. I'm talking about google.


----------



## mdk

Network Solutions should simply claim that hosting Stromfront violates their deeply held religious beliefs.


----------



## koshergrl

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zander said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find Stormfront and Neo-Nazi's abhorrent. But I will defend their right to free speech.
> 
> This is a huge mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a mistake. It's globalism/communism. it's absolutely 100 percent intentional. They mean to end free speech.
> 
> People are so stupid I think they deserve what's coming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ yet another rightard who doesn't comprehend that free speech is only a protection from government censorship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've pointed out a million times, google is immensely powerful. You can't do business in today's internet based economy without it. Them being given free reign to not only control the flow of information but impose economic and social sanctions on Americans for expressing opinions is extremely dangerous. It's like the phone companies cutting off your line because they overheard a politically incorrect conversation you had.
Click to expand...

Hopefully they'll be reined in. It's a monopoly issue, we dealt with the same shit with AT&T decades ago.


----------



## impuretrash

koshergrl said:


> Hopefully they'll be reined in. It's a monopoly issue, we dealt with the same shit with AT&T decades ago.



That's what I've been hoping for but it seems there's nobody in a position of authority with the balls to confront the issue. Too afraid of being labeled a nazi sympathizer or whatever to stick up for freedom of speech. The silence is deafening and it only emboldens the extremists on the left to ramp up their intimidation tactics.


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You simply don't get the part about FREEDOM OF RELIGION, do you?
> 
> I'm sure, however, if public policy were changed to force YOU to do something you didn't want to do, you'd become less of a smart ass and more of a constitutionalist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
Click to expand...

Yes.
We are either a free country or we are not.
It's called freedom of association.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

impuretrash said:


> That's what I've been hoping for but it seems there's nobody in a position of authority with the balls to confront the issue. Too afraid of being labeled a nazi sympathizer or whatever to stick up for freedom of speech. The silence is deafening and it only emboldens the extremists on the left to ramp up their intimidation tactics.



It's not about balls, you fool  It's about bribes.  All our congressmen and judges are paid huge bribes to help destroy anti-govt activists like stormfront.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> Network Solutions, LLC dumped Stormfront and they did so because Stormfront violated their terms of service. Nazi's and skinheads and other assorted alt-right wing nuts have every right to start their own webhosting businesses and then even those hate groups can be back online.



And child-molesting faggots have the right to go to a bakery  that approves of people like them.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.



So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, legally speaking.  Then we have *unalienable* Rights - that are ABOVE the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civil war over having to sell a cake to a gay couple?   LMAO!    Yeah, that is brilliant.    Good luck with that too.  I just hope you are not operating under the misguided perception that the population will back you or that you and your ilk are the only ones with guns.
Click to expand...


Did it dawn on you that the gay couple to be started the war?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that's exactly what I mean AND if a guy walked into a business wearing a KKK t shirt, you would not serve him... of course you'd have some law built around public policy to defend you, but if you don't want to do business with someone don't do business with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A black baker has to bake a cake for KKK grand wizard for the same reasons a Christian has to bake a cake for a gay couple. And I don't support laws for making exceptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're wrong and you know it.  Good try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're projecting nonsense now. What I said is what the law protects and what I support.
Click to expand...


You don't have a damn clue as to what you're talking about.  If you can't address the points I've made, we are done talking.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD.   I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet.   But that ain't happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm not going to change the way I do business either.  Are we done yet?  Or do you think I still owe you something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?    I have not even hinted that you owe me anything.
Click to expand...


You follow me around like a dog in heat with the same old, worn out objections to the First Amendment and it isn't changing my mind or the bottom line.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!   They forced a baker to bake a cake!   How dare they?
> 
> 
> 
> If all they wanted was a cake they could've bought the damn cake.
> They wanted two men on the cake. That's different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would two lesbians want 2 men on their cake?
> 
> And no, it is not different.   The only difference would be sticking 2 plastic figures on top of the cake.   It does not make them "involved" in the wedding.
> 
> Its funny.  So many of the hardcore rightwingers swear that gun manufacturers are not involved or responsible for the murders committed with guns.  Car manufacturers are not involved or responsible for DUIs or drunk driving deaths.    Alcohol manufacturers are not responsible for what drunks do.
> 
> But if you bake a cake for a gay couple you are single-handedly creating gay marriage.  You may as well be performing the ceremony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> if you put two of the same sex on a cake you are promoting gay marriage. If your against that you shouldn't be forced to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if you're against blacks, you contend a baker should have the right to discriminate against blacks if they want a wedding topper with a black bride and groom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes.
> We are either a free country or we are not.
> It's called freedom of association.
Click to expand...


For a person or a business?

And, if you are looking at a strict interpretation of the US Constitution, freedom of association is not mentioned.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
Click to expand...


Did I say anything like that?

Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you do.   But what specific right has been violated?   The bakers are still free to practice their religion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cannot run your business in accordance with your beliefs,  then your First Amendment guarantees have been violated.
> 
> Damn.  How many times are we going to cover this?  What seems to be your major malfunction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A civil war over having to sell a cake to a gay couple?   LMAO!    Yeah, that is brilliant.    Good luck with that too.  I just hope you are not operating under the misguided perception that the population will back you or that you and your ilk are the only ones with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did it dawn on you that the gay couple to be started the war?
Click to expand...


Nope.  Not for a second did that cross my mind.  Because they didn't.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter that there is a law on the books.  BFD.  Do you understand that?   BFD.  We also have a Constitution and *unalienable* Rights.  It may take the courts or extraordinary action, but does society want a civil war over the *liberties* of those who are not in power?  It's as simple as that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think anti-discrimination laws are a BFD.   I know you WISH all the gays would go back in the closet.   But that ain't happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I'm not going to change the way I do business either.  Are we done yet?  Or do you think I still owe you something?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?    I have not even hinted that you owe me anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You follow me around like a dog in heat with the same old, worn out objections to the First Amendment and it isn't changing my mind or the bottom line.
Click to expand...


I am not following you around.  We are both posting on the same thread.   Stop pretending otherwise.

Also, I am not objecting to the 1st Amendment.  I will fight for someone's right to worship as they please.   This was not about that.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
Click to expand...

If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?


----------



## Humorme

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


The left will just want other laws enforced that culminate in the same kinds of discrimination they claim to abhor.  

If it benefits the left it is legal; if it benefits someone on the right it is illegal.  Either both the baker and the web host company should be able to tell customers no OR they should both be required to say yes.

The fact that webhosts expect people to sign an *adhesion contract* should tell you that they are not being honest with you.  In a normal world, adhesion contracts are unenforceable, but we no longer live under the Constitution, but only by the power of mob rule.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
Click to expand...


It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left will just want other laws enforced that culminate in the same kinds of discrimination they claim to abhor.
> 
> If it benefits the left it is legal; if it benefits someone on the right it is illegal.  Either both the baker and the web host company should be able to tell customers no OR they should both be required to say yes.
> 
> The fact that webhosts expect people to sign an *adhesion contract* should tell you that they are not being honest with you.  In a normal world, adhesion contracts are unenforceable, but we no longer live under the Constitution, but only by the power of mob rule.
Click to expand...


If there is a contract for the service, that stands up as the law.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
Click to expand...

So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
Click to expand...

Then the web site can't do it either.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No malfunction at all.  They have a bakery and sell cakes.   Sell the fucking cake and be done with it.
> 
> The laws on the books ban discrimination.    Sad to think you believe that is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
Click to expand...



According to the article at: Waning Storm: Stormfront.org Loses Its Domain

"*The AUP prohibits “utilizing the Services in a manner deemed, in Company’s sole discretion, to display bigotry, racism, discrimination, or hatred in any manner whatsoever.*” Since its creation, Stormfront has been consistently recognized as a site for racial hatred and was even the subject of a documentary on the subject entitled Hate.com. The Stormfront website was use along with dailystormer.org to organize and encourage participation in the violent and fatal “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville , Virginia last weekend. A representative sample of posts on the site refer to interracial coupled by slurs, share racist caricatures, or otherwise dehumanize minorities by referring to them as “creatures” or “ethnics."


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
Click to expand...


Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.

And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
Click to expand...


Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree webhosters should be forced to carry stormfront?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to the article at: Waning Storm: Stormfront.org Loses Its Domain
> 
> "*The AUP prohibits “utilizing the Services in a manner deemed, in Company’s sole discretion, to display bigotry, racism, discrimination, or hatred in any manner whatsoever.*” Since its creation, Stormfront has been consistently recognized as a site for racial hatred and was even the subject of a documentary on the subject entitled Hate.com. The Stormfront website was use along with dailystormer.org to organize and encourage participation in the violent and fatal “Unite the Right” rally held in Charlottesville , Virginia last weekend. A representative sample of posts on the site refer to interracial coupled by slurs, share racist caricatures, or otherwise dehumanize minorities by referring to them as “creatures” or “ethnics."
Click to expand...


OMG.  Are you still arguing this?

Yes the web host had a contract.  Yes, Stormfront signed it.  HOWEVER, it is what you call an *adhesion contract*:

"_An adhesion contract (also called a "standard form contract" or a "boilerplate contract")  is a contract drafted by one party (usually a business with stronger bargaining power) and signed by another party (usually one with weaker bargaining power, usually a consumer in need of goods or services)_*. The second party typically does not have the power to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract*."

Adhesion Contract (Contract of Adhesion)

Adhesion contracts can become an *unconscionable contract*:

"_An agreement that contains clauses and language so inherently one-sided that concepts of fundamental fairness are violated_."

Adhesion and Unconscionable Contracts – One-Sided Terms And Conditions

So, a web host can kick you off the Internet and destroy your work because you signed a contract that included limiting your freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and your ability to interface with your clientele.  But, a baker cannot "_discriminate_" in that manner by having terms and conditions on who he will and will not accept as a customer.

The baker cannot put up a sign saying that he will not make certain cakes - Hell, the baker cannot even have customers sign an agreement wherein it's spelled out what cakes the baker will and will not make.  That's "_discrimination_."  But, it's "_legal_" to be forced into an adhesion contract and required to forfeit the same rights the wannabe gay couple were claiming?

Who are liberals trying to convince, the general public or themselves?


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
Click to expand...


StormCunt violated the Acceptable Use Policy.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> StormCunt violated the Acceptable Use Policy.
Click to expand...


Are you really that dense?  You're shitting me, aren't you?


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
Click to expand...

So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.


----------



## Lakhota

Fuck Stormfront!  Fuck Infowars!


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
Click to expand...


If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.


----------



## Slyhunter

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
Click to expand...

Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
Click to expand...


If they have a website and it violates their AUP, go right ahead.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
Click to expand...


You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.

So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
Click to expand...


Feel free to ignore me.   That doesn't bother me at all.

I have seen nothing that counters what I said in the post you quoted.


----------



## Ringel05

Slyhunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
Click to expand...

Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say anything like that?
> 
> Of course, there is also talk of StormCunt slandering the webhosting company.
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
Click to expand...

They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....



This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.
Click to expand...

So?  What does that have to do with what I said?  Are you or are you not currently posting on the internet?  A simple yes or no will suffice..........


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
Click to expand...

You've not successfully countered it. Complaining Network Solutions' terms of service was an unconscionable contract is nothing but your opinion and does not actually establish it to be such a worthless contract. Their 'acceptable user policy' is designed to protect their liability, a standard business practice. Stormfront violated those terms and was legally justifiably terminated.

The baker had no such agreement with the gay guy looking for a wedding cake. There is no similar standard business practice designed to reduce liability. Unlike with Network Solutions, there was no justification to legally deny service.

And again, the two situations are not comparable. Stormfront violated a contract with their webhost. The homosexual did not violate any contract with the baker. You're failing miserably because you're comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with what I said?  Are you or are you not currently posting on the internet?  A simple yes or no will suffice..........
Click to expand...


A hundred or so people are on this forum.


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with what I said?  Are you or are you not currently posting on the internet?  A simple yes or no will suffice..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hundred or so people are on this forum.
Click to expand...

Again, not what I asked nor is it germaine to the the question.  I don't think I can dumb down the question any further so obviously can't get it down to a level you would be able to comprehend so I'll just have to repeat it again; Are or are you not currently posting on the internet?


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with what I said?  Are you or are you not currently posting on the internet?  A simple yes or no will suffice..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hundred or so people are on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, not what I asked nor is it germaine to the the question.  I don't think I can dumb down the question any further so obviously can't get it down to a level you would be able to comprehend so I'll just have to repeat it again; Are or are you not currently posting on the internet?
Click to expand...


I'm posting on USMB


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This forum is hardly representative of the internet as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?  What does that have to do with what I said?  Are you or are you not currently posting on the internet?  A simple yes or no will suffice..........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A hundred or so people are on this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, not what I asked nor is it germaine to the the question.  I don't think I can dumb down the question any further so obviously can't get it down to a level you would be able to comprehend so I'll just have to repeat it again; Are or are you not currently posting on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm posting on USMB
Click to expand...

And the USMB is found.......... where?


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> And the USMB is found.......... where?


US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the USMB is found.......... where?
> 
> 
> 
> US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...

You're doing everything you can to not say "the internet".......  Talk about pathetic......


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> You're doing everything you can to not say "the internet".......  Talk about pathetic......


----------



## Slyhunter

Ringel05 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post. Why wouldn't I be able to post on the internet?


----------



## Ringel05

Slyhunter said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> 
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your post. Why wouldn't I be able to post on the internet?
Click to expand...

Just because but don't worry about it, an idiot responded and is still responding.  I have to let him dig his hole even deeper, it's funny.........


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing everything you can to not say "the internet".......  Talk about pathetic......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 148310
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, which second grade class are you currently in?


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to ignore me.   That doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> I have seen nothing that counters what I said in the post you quoted.
Click to expand...


You obviously have a reading deficiency.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then the web site can't do it either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've not successfully countered it. Complaining Network Solutions' terms of service was an unconscionable contract is nothing but your opinion and does not actually establish it to be such a worthless contract. Their 'acceptable user policy' is designed to protect their liability, a standard business practice. Stormfront violated those terms and was legally justifiably terminated.
> 
> The baker had no such agreement with the gay guy looking for a wedding cake. There is no similar standard business practice designed to reduce liability. Unlike with Network Solutions, there was no justification to legally deny service.
> 
> And again, the two situations are not comparable. Stormfront violated a contract with their webhost. The homosexual did not violate any contract with the baker. You're failing miserably because you're comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


You are delusional.  The case HAS been proven here and the analogies stand.


----------



## Slyhunter

Ringel05 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your post. Why wouldn't I be able to post on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because but don't worry about it, an idiot responded and is still responding.  I have to let him dig his hole even deeper, it's funny.........
Click to expand...

Something tells me you're the only one laughing.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
Click to expand...


Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.  

The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.

The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.  

It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.


----------



## Ringel05

Slyhunter said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> 
> 
> Can we discriminate against BLM members for being a hate group? Kick them off the internet too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems to me you're posting on the internet........ or is this an alternate universe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't understand your post. Why wouldn't I be able to post on the internet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because but don't worry about it, an idiot responded and is still responding.  I have to let him dig his hole even deeper, it's funny.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Something tells me you're the only one laughing.
Click to expand...

So.


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing everything you can to not say "the internet".......  Talk about pathetic......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 148310
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, which second grade class are you currently in?
Click to expand...


I forget what we were arguing about.


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're doing everything you can to not say "the internet".......  Talk about pathetic......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 148310
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry, which second grade class are you currently in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I forget what we were arguing about.
Click to expand...

We weren't arguing, you were furiously diggin' to China and I was laughing.........


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> We weren't arguing, you were furiously diggin' to China and I was laughing.........



What's funny is that you think I care enough about what you think to be bothered by it.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> 
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to ignore me.   That doesn't bother me at all.
> 
> I have seen nothing that counters what I said in the post you quoted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have a reading deficiency.
Click to expand...


Not at all.


----------



## IsaacNewton

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts. 

Bitch.


----------



## impuretrash

IsaacNewton said:


> So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts.
> 
> Bitch.



I've never actually visited Stormfront so I don't feel like I've been deprived of anything. But I've been around long enough to know to be skeptical when an individual or group is labeled 'white supremacist'. I also know that Stormfront isn't the only thing online to be censored or repressed in the wake of the Charlottesville hysteria. 

Every single facebook political discussion group I was a member of has been deleted since I was banned almost two weeks ago. (I'm now on the second week of my ban where I can view facebook but not comment on anything). Youtube videos are being repressed, many of which don't even mention any of the no-no words such as jews or hitler. Longtime youtube content creators are having their entire back catalog of videos demonitized which discourages them from making any new ones. Paul Joseph Watson of infowars for example. But not the freakish "queer kid's stuff" channel that encourages little kids to become trannies, oh no.


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't arguing, you were furiously diggin' to China and I was laughing.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's funny is that you think I care enough about what you think to be bothered by it.
Click to expand...

Apparently you do..........


----------



## Slyhunter

impuretrash said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never actually visited Stormfront so I don't feel like I've been deprived of anything. But I've been around long enough to know to be skeptical when an individual or group is labeled 'white supremacist'. I also know that Stormfront isn't the only thing online to be censored or repressed in the wake of the Charlottesville hysteria.
> 
> Every single facebook political discussion group I was a member of has been deleted since I was banned almost two weeks ago. (I'm now on the second week of my ban where I can view facebook but not comment on anything). Youtube videos are being repressed, many of which don't even mention any of the no-no words such as jews or hitler. Longtime youtube content creators are having their entire back catalog of videos demonitized which discourages them from making any new ones. Paul Joseph Watson of infowars for example. But not the freakish "queer kid's stuff" channel that encourages little kids to become trannies, oh no.
Click to expand...

Put Liberals in control, they'll control what you think. At least out loud and in public.


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> Apparently you do..........



NEIN


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you do..........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NEIN
> View attachment 148376
Click to expand...

Are you this short bus funny in real life?  I would suspect so.


----------



## impuretrash

Ringel05 said:


> Are you this short bus funny in real life?  I would suspect so.



If you want a serious discussion, reply to the previous post I made in this thread. Otherwise...


----------



## Ringel05

impuretrash said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you this short bus funny in real life?  I would suspect so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you want a serious discussion, reply to the previous post I made in this thread. Otherwise...
> 
> View attachment 148384
Click to expand...

Serious discussion?  You?


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not true.   Different businesses have different rules.   For example, if you don't pay your rent they can't throw you out until you are 90 days late.  Other rental businesses do not have to wait 90 days.
> 
> And StormCunt had a contract that specifically lists the Acceptable Use Policy.    They violated that.
> 
> 
> 
> So that baker just needs an Acceptable use Policy listing homo's as not being welcomed there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they sign a contract, adding in the AUP might help.   Or it might not.   There is a difference between hate mongering and pushing for violence and being gay.   It is illegal for a private business, open to the public, to discriminate because someone is gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely need some new material.  You keep making the same old point over and over.  It's been successfully countered and you've ignored the counterpoints.  If this were a formal debate you would have already lost many times over.
> 
> So, unless you have a response to the counterpoints, I'm going to begin ignoring your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've not successfully countered it. Complaining Network Solutions' terms of service was an unconscionable contract is nothing but your opinion and does not actually establish it to be such a worthless contract. Their 'acceptable user policy' is designed to protect their liability, a standard business practice. Stormfront violated those terms and was legally justifiably terminated.
> 
> The baker had no such agreement with the gay guy looking for a wedding cake. There is no similar standard business practice designed to reduce liability. Unlike with Network Solutions, there was no justification to legally deny service.
> 
> And again, the two situations are not comparable. Stormfront violated a contract with their webhost. The homosexual did not violate any contract with the baker. You're failing miserably because you're comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  The case HAS been proven here and the analogies stand.
Click to expand...

LOL

It's not proven merely because you said it.


----------



## Slyhunter

Freedom of Association.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on the terms of the contract for the webhosting.  And no, that is not a dodge.
> 
> 
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
Click to expand...

My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_

Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.

To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never actually visited Stormfront so I don't feel like I've been deprived of anything. But I've been around long enough to know to be skeptical when an individual or group is labeled 'white supremacist'. I also know that Stormfront isn't the only thing online to be censored or repressed in the wake of the Charlottesville hysteria.
> 
> Every single facebook political discussion group I was a member of has been deleted since I was banned almost two weeks ago. (I'm now on the second week of my ban where I can view facebook but not comment on anything). Youtube videos are being repressed, many of which don't even mention any of the no-no words such as jews or hitler. Longtime youtube content creators are having their entire back catalog of videos demonitized which discourages them from making any new ones. Paul Joseph Watson of infowars for example. But not the freakish "queer kid's stuff" channel that encourages little kids to become trannies, oh no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put Liberals in control, they'll control what you think. At least out loud and in public.
Click to expand...

So now Facebook is Liberal? Network Solutions is Liberal? Google is Liberal?

Or do you just call everything and everyone you don't like, _"Liberal?"_


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never actually visited Stormfront so I don't feel like I've been deprived of anything. But I've been around long enough to know to be skeptical when an individual or group is labeled 'white supremacist'. I also know that Stormfront isn't the only thing online to be censored or repressed in the wake of the Charlottesville hysteria.
> 
> Every single facebook political discussion group I was a member of has been deleted since I was banned almost two weeks ago. (I'm now on the second week of my ban where I can view facebook but not comment on anything). Youtube videos are being repressed, many of which don't even mention any of the no-no words such as jews or hitler. Longtime youtube content creators are having their entire back catalog of videos demonitized which discourages them from making any new ones. Paul Joseph Watson of infowars for example. But not the freakish "queer kid's stuff" channel that encourages little kids to become trannies, oh no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put Liberals in control, they'll control what you think. At least out loud and in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now Facebook is Liberal? Network Solutions is Liberal? Google is Liberal?
> 
> Or do you just call everything and everyone you don't like, _"Liberal?"_
Click to expand...

I don't know about Network Solutions but both Google and Facebook are definitely Liberal.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the storm has fizzled out and is now just a breeze blowing down a dirty ally where all the rats and cockroaches scurry about among the discarded condoms and cigarette butts.
> 
> Bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never actually visited Stormfront so I don't feel like I've been deprived of anything. But I've been around long enough to know to be skeptical when an individual or group is labeled 'white supremacist'. I also know that Stormfront isn't the only thing online to be censored or repressed in the wake of the Charlottesville hysteria.
> 
> Every single facebook political discussion group I was a member of has been deleted since I was banned almost two weeks ago. (I'm now on the second week of my ban where I can view facebook but not comment on anything). Youtube videos are being repressed, many of which don't even mention any of the no-no words such as jews or hitler. Longtime youtube content creators are having their entire back catalog of videos demonitized which discourages them from making any new ones. Paul Joseph Watson of infowars for example. But not the freakish "queer kid's stuff" channel that encourages little kids to become trannies, oh no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Put Liberals in control, they'll control what you think. At least out loud and in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now Facebook is Liberal? Network Solutions is Liberal? Google is Liberal?
> 
> Or do you just call everything and everyone you don't like, _"Liberal?"_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know about Network Solutions but both Google and Facebook are definitely Liberal.
Click to expand...

And you think this ... because ... ?


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> And you think this ... because ... ?



it's called reality you smug fuck.


----------



## Faun

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
Click to expand...

LOL

As if your delusions are real.


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> As if your delusions are real.



What's delusional is even questioning whether or not google and facebook are biased against conservative opinion. Almost everything is left leaning these days, it's the default. Stray too far and you'll be labeled a nazi, and that's bad for business. I feel like I have to explain basic facts about the internet because you're old and out of touch.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So all the baker needs to do is create a contract for buying his cakes and he doesn't have to serve homo cakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
Click to expand...


Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable

Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.

No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
Click to expand...


You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.  

What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.

It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
Click to expand...


No one denied them the right to believe.

No one was denied any rights.

No one was forced to give up any rights.

If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
Click to expand...


I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
Click to expand...


I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.  

The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
Click to expand...


Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
Click to expand...


Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?
Click to expand...


So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible".   Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding.   The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
Click to expand...



WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...


It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible".   Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding.   The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.
Click to expand...


You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible.  You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people.  IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.

The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want.  It's not that big of a deal.  If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience.  And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.

Now, do you understand?


----------



## Humorme

Wry Catcher said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
Click to expand...


Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
Click to expand...


YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible".   Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding.   The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible.  You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people.  IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.
> 
> The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want.  It's not that big of a deal.  If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience.  And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.
> 
> Now, do you understand?
Click to expand...


Oh I got it long ago.  You hate gay people.   No biggie.

Funny, you demand that no one be able to judge what people find morally reprehensible.  And you demand that the world accept your view that the bakers were right.  I find their actions morally reprehensible.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
Click to expand...


Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.


----------



## WinterBorn

You will have to argue with yourself for a while.  I'm headed to TN to see my grown children and my grandson.   Gonna be a great day!!


----------



## impuretrash

WinterBorn said:


> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.



Muh white supreeeeeemacy. It's called self preservation, dickhead. Check out what happens to these mainstream news headlines when you replace the word white with jewish


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
Click to expand...



I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.

Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible".   Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding.   The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible.  You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people.  IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.
> 
> The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want.  It's not that big of a deal.  If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience.  And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.
> 
> Now, do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I got it long ago.  You hate gay people.   No biggie.
> 
> Funny, you demand that no one be able to judge what people find morally reprehensible.  And you demand that the world accept your view that the bakers were right.  I find their actions morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...


Absolute lunacy.  I don't allow people to smoke in my home, but my mother was a lifelong smoker - just never in my home.  I sure as Hell didn't "_hate_" her.  So, you fail yet again.  I don't have any personal issue with gays.


----------



## Moonglow

If you guys are so into self preservation embalming works..


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
Click to expand...


I don't need a court to tell me right from wrong.  If they acknowledge my Rights, that's fine.  If it takes resistance, so be it.  But, if I were the baker, I'd be asking the government and the gay couple how far they wanted to take this.  

Do the gays want to jack up everybody's taxes to keep someone else from obeying the dictates of their conscience?  Do they want to put others out of work just because they don't want to go a mile down the road to another baker?


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].


How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.


----------



## Camp

Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
Click to expand...

The business isnt owned by the church you retard. When you open a business its in the public domain.


----------



## Asclepias

Camp said:


> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.


Obviously some Black guy has victimized them by boning their mom, wife, sister, cousin etc.


----------



## Camp

Asclepias said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously some Black guy has victimized them by boning their mom, wife, sister, cousin etc.
Click to expand...

"victomized"?


----------



## Asclepias

Camp said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously some Black guy has victimized them by boning their mom, wife, sister, cousin etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "victomized"?
Click to expand...

I had a white friend once that was extremely booty tickled when a blonde I used to bone ran up and gave me one of those sexy I miss you hugs. its weird what a Black man boning a white woman does to the insecurity level of white men.  Needless to say the white guy became my ex-friend after he explained to me that it just wasnt right.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Vastator said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A move that the enemies of free speech will likely end up regretting...
Click to expand...


Consider the exceptions to Free Speech in US Supreme Court Decisions summarized here:

United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia


----------



## Faun

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's delusional is even questioning whether or not google and facebook are biased against conservative opinion. Almost everything is left leaning these days, it's the default. Stray too far and you'll be labeled a nazi, and that's bad for business. I feel like I have to explain basic facts about the internet because you're old and out of touch.
Click to expand...

Citing yourself doesn't prove anything other than your delusions persist.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know.  I am not sure you can discriminate via a contract.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
Click to expand...

No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.



Humorme said:


> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable


That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.



Humorme said:


> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.


Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
Click to expand...

That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
Click to expand...

Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.

Try citing some case law instead of yourself.


----------



## Faun

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
Click to expand...

And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Moonglow said:


> If you guys are so into self preservation embalming works..



Fortunately I read your post after I finished my ice tea, laughing out loud with a mouthful of tea makes a big mess on my screen.


----------



## RicO'Shea

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.



You're one sick motherfucker. I'm white and I want to kick your inbred fucking ass. Die bitch.


----------



## RicO'Shea

ShootSpeeders said:


> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.



This site is totally fucked up - you mods can kiss my ass. Fuck you all. American my ass.


----------



## Slyhunter

RicO'Shea said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one sick motherfucker. I'm white and I want to kick your inbred fucking ass. Die bitch.
Click to expand...

Can't dispute his points so you revert to name calling and threats.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
Click to expand...



And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
Click to expand...


You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
Click to expand...


That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.

It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what in the Hell do you call what the web host did to Stormfront?  They clearly discriminated against them.
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
Click to expand...


YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.  

Who's on first?


----------



## Humorme

Asclepias said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The business isnt owned by the church you retard. When you open a business its in the public domain.
Click to expand...


It is a *PRIVATE* business.  Let me give you an example:

A private business can tell you not to enter the premises with a firearm.  It doesn't matter that the Second Amendment guarantees you the Right to keep and bear Arms; it don't matter if you have a carry permit.  The business is *PRIVATE PROPERTY*.  

The laws your side keeps referencing are predicated upon public policy, designed to force people to think a certain way, even if it means denying them their Rights.


----------



## Humorme

Camp said:


> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.



Nut jobs???  You talk trash like that in public?  If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.


----------



## Camp

Humorme said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nut jobs???  You talk trash like that in public?  If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.
Click to expand...

No, they wouldn't.


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
Click to expand...


The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:

TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.

Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)

So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.


_More in depth:

The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.

The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
_
_It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].) 

If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.] 

Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)

For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use. 

Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._


----------



## Asclepias

Slyhunter said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one sick motherfucker. I'm white and I want to kick your inbred fucking ass. Die bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't dispute his points so you revert to name calling and threats.
Click to expand...

Disputing that retards points is like arguing with a senile monkey. No wonder everyone laughs at you.


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A privately owned website provider has decided they don't want to be associated with the trash that populated stormfront.   The members of that group still have freedom of speech.  But the 1st amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is something I love about that argument.  It cannot stand scrutiny.
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Where, may I ask are the baker's rights?
> 
> When it's convenient, some people argue that whites have no rights.  But, when the other side of the coin is presented, whites are somehow locked out on the SAME grounds the whites used when they tried to protect themselves.  Funny how that works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the First Amendment does not guarantee access to someone else's property, tell me how a gay couple has the right to force a private business to make a cake for a gay wedding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tell me WITF  cake has anything to do with the 1st amd. You just conflated and convoluted a simple point into nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The First Amendment protects against there being a state religion.  Forcing someone in the *private sector* to violate their religious conscience violates the so - called "_separation of church and state_" the left babbles on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The business isnt owned by the church you retard. When you open a business its in the public domain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a *PRIVATE* business.  Let me give you an example:
> 
> A private business can tell you not to enter the premises with a firearm.  It doesn't matter that the Second Amendment guarantees you the Right to keep and bear Arms; it don't matter if you have a carry permit.  The business is *PRIVATE PROPERTY*.
> 
> The laws your side keeps referencing are predicated upon public policy, designed to force people to think a certain way, even if it means denying them their Rights.
Click to expand...

No stupid. Its a publicly accessible business. It has nothing to do with someones religion since its in the public domain. If you want to discriminate you either open a private club or you abide by the PA laws set forth. You retards need to go back to school. Aren't you embarrassed that youre the only one that doesnt realize you have no clue what you are talking about?


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
Click to expand...

Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.

That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.

How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
Click to expand...


So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one denied them the right to believe.
> 
> No one was denied any rights.
> 
> No one was forced to give up any rights.
> 
> If you choose to defend discrimination, that is your choice.   But the laws against discrimination do not violate the US Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Totally nucking futs!  If you believe that doing a certain action is wrong, then it's wrong.  Forcing people to do that which they find morally reprehensible is wrong.  What in the Hell is so hard about understanding that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the bakers find baking a cake "morally reprehensible".   Because no one even invited them to the actual wedding.   The two lesbians marrying did not make them gay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't have the fucking right to judge what others find morally reprehensible.  You don't have any God given Right to impose your standards on other people.  IF laws are constructed to force you to do that which you find objectionable, you should be able to abstain.
> 
> The gay people can go to virtually any place that bakes cakes and buy what they want.  It's not that big of a deal.  If it were me, I'd burn that damn bakery to the ground before I'd violate the dictates of my conscience.  And, if that were done, maybe I could go on welfare, my employees on unemployment and the government could raise YOUR taxes to make up the difference.
> 
> Now, do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I got it long ago.  You hate gay people.   No biggie.
> 
> Funny, you demand that no one be able to judge what people find morally reprehensible.  And you demand that the world accept your view that the bakers were right.  I find their actions morally reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Absolute lunacy.  I don't allow people to smoke in my home, but my mother was a lifelong smoker - just never in my home.  I sure as Hell didn't "_hate_" her.  So, you fail yet again.  I don't have any personal issue with gays.
Click to expand...


No, of course you don't have any problems with gays.  You would just burn your business to the ground (costing you tens of thousands of dollars of dollars and the actual business) before you would sell them a wedding cake.    Why would anyone think you have a problem with gays.

And the analogy of your Mom smoking is not even close to what I said.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't need a court to tell me right from wrong.  If they acknowledge my Rights, that's fine.  If it takes resistance, so be it.  But, if I were the baker, I'd be asking the government and the gay couple how far they wanted to take this.
> 
> Do the gays want to jack up everybody's taxes to keep someone else from obeying the dictates of their conscience?  Do they want to put others out of work just because they don't want to go a mile down the road to another baker?
Click to expand...


This is nonsense.  I get that some Christians cherry-pick the scriptures to justify a dislike of gays.   But the two lesbians in question have been gay all their lives.  Gay marriage did not r homosexuality.  They simply want to marry.    Conscience?   There are laws against discrimination.  If they don't want to obey them, they will pay a fine.


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nut jobs???  You talk trash like that in public?  If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.
Click to expand...


Says the guy who claims he would burn a business to the ground rather than sell a cake to a gay couple.   Now THAT would get you put away.


----------



## WinterBorn

Slyhunter said:


> RicO'Shea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> You idiots who think blacks are mentally equal to whites need to explain why
> 
> 1. Blacks come in last in all standardized tests. Asians do fine on all the tests so it's not due to cultural bias in the tests..
> 
> 2. Africa is by far the poorest and most backward continent on the planet. All of black africa is now controlled by blacks and has been for decades so it's not due to racism.
> 
> 3. No black has ever won a Science Nobel Prize unless you count one in 1979 for the semi-science of economics. They have won many nobels in non-brain fields like Peace and also in Literature so it is not due to racism.
> 
> 4. Out of 1552 chess grandmasters in the world, only THREE are black.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one sick motherfucker. I'm white and I want to kick your inbred fucking ass. Die bitch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can't dispute his points so you revert to name calling and threats.
Click to expand...


Unless his points show that all blacks are inferior to all whites, his point is moot.   (not to mention the other factors involved)

And I personally know a dozen or more blacks that are smarter and more accomplished than most whites.  And the whites I have met who believe the white nationalist bullshit?  They aren't even close.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Slyhunter said:


> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?



Liberals say the two cases are entirely different since child molesting faggots are good people but white nationalists trying to end the racism of affirmative action  are bad people.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> Unless his points show that all blacks are inferior to all whites, his point is moot.   (not to mention the other factors involved)



HAHAHA.  You're so dumb you don't even know what an average is. No one is saying all blacks are inferior to all whites. But the average black is definitely inferior to the average white. Of course intelligence is spread out over a wide range so naturally there will some smart blacks and some dumb whites just like there are some women taller than some men.  THINK, you miserable white-hater.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals say the two cases are entirely different since child molesting faggots are good people but white nationalists trying to end the racism of affirmative action  are bad people.
Click to expand...


No.  Rational people see the difference between a long standing anti-discrimination law and the basic clause in a legal contract.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless his points show that all blacks are inferior to all whites, his point is moot.   (not to mention the other factors involved)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  You're so dumb you don't even know what an average is. No one is saying all blacks are inferior to all whites. But the average black is definitely inferior to the average white. Of course intelligence is spread out over a wide range so naturally there will some smart blacks and some dumb whites just like there are some women taller than some men.  THINK, you miserable white-hater.
Click to expand...


I think all the time.  That is why I understand that it is the individual, not the entire race, that counts.  Your post above says as much.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
Click to expand...


You object to BLM but fail to explain why.  

My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully.  No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life.  I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.


----------



## WinterBorn

Wry Catcher said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You object to BLM but fail to explain why.
> 
> My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully.  No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life.  I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.
Click to expand...


I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
Click to expand...

Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...

I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you think this ... because ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
Click to expand...

And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.

What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't discriminate against Stormfront. Stormfront violated Network Solutions' term of service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
Click to expand...

And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.

Network Solutions did not discriminate.


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).




Censorship and state oppression is not a liberal ideal. Stop perverting words, call yourself something else.


----------



## Faun

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Censorship and state oppression is not a liberal ideal. Stop perverting words, call yourself something else.
Click to expand...

Grow a brain. Network Solutions is not a state.


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
Click to expand...


You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.

A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.

To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."

In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.

----

See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums

"A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.

Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.

But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.

“There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”

----

See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How

On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:

104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):

104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org

---

The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.


----------



## EverCurious

Additional reading (wouldn't let me add it to the above heh)

Physical bits (cables, routers, servers, etc.) - How Internet Infrastructure Works

And the non-physical "software" bits - (encompassing DNS stuff) - How Domain Name Servers Work


See also, the dark web/under web/deep web (TOR is a prime example of "software" accessing "internet 2.0" using existing "pathways") - How the Deep Web Works


----------



## Crixus

ShootSpeeders said:


> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stormfront, internet’s longest-running white supremacist site, goes offline
> 
> aug 26 2017  Stormfront, one of the internet’s oldest and most popular white supremacist sites, has been booted off its web address of more than two decades amid a crackdown against hate sites.
> 
> The address Stormfront.org went dark on Friday, and publicly available information current lists its domain status as “under hold,” a category reserved for websites under legal dispute or slated for deletion, the USA Today network first reported.
> 
> The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a D.C.-based nonprofit group, said it was behind the effort and had successfully booted the website from its domain of 22 years by raising its concerns with Stormfront’s registrar, Network Solutions LLC, and its parent company, Web.com.
> 
> “Their website is a vehicle used to promote racially-motivated violence and hate,” Kristen Clarke, the committee’s executive director, said in a statement. “Following our efforts, Network Solutions has pulled the site. We are working across the country to combat the spread of hate crimes.”
Click to expand...



Mm
Think of it like the cake guys. If the owner of the server don't want them on here it then fine. If anyone wants stormfront then they can now have them.


----------



## Wry Catcher

WinterBorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You object to BLM but fail to explain why.
> 
> My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully.  No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life.  I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.
Click to expand...


Mea culpa,  I misunderstood the comment, "Sounds like approval of BLM"; I agree with your message, the movement is not inherently evil, it is the few - as in most protests - who give legitimate outrage a bad name.


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
Click to expand...

Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Additional reading (wouldn't let me add it to the above heh)
> 
> Physical bits (cables, routers, servers, etc.) - How Internet Infrastructure Works
> 
> And the non-physical "software" bits - (encompassing DNS stuff) - How Domain Name Servers Work
> 
> 
> See also, the dark web/under web/deep web (TOR is a prime example of "software" accessing "internet 2.0" using existing "pathways") - How the Deep Web Works


I dont need to read all of that. I work with it daily. I do think someone needs to explain it to you so you dont make a further fool of yourself. Let me know if you want me to explain it to you in detail. Unless you own the entire infrastructure you cant have an internet without someone giving you permission/access.  You have no way of reaching anyone outside the network you may own.  Hell. All someone would have to do is get on a router and create an access-list that dumps all traffic for stormfront in the bit bucket.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your atrocious reading skills negate any and *all* arguments you've made.  It's already been stipulated to everything you've said.
> 
> The bottom line is, you've not responded to the points I made in my rebuttal.  You can pretend, until Hell freezes over that no rebuttal was made... but it has been made.  You can't respond to it because you got the shit kicked out of your weak and prejudicial argument.
> 
> The *only* weak ass argument on this thread is to admit you don't know if it's legal to discriminate against anyone via a contract.  NOTHING has been addressed regarding violating a person's Rights via an *adhesion contract*.  Go ahead an ignore the point.  You don't understand the law and are too lazy to research it.
> 
> It's all good.  You threw in the towel and you're the only one (other than one other troll) too dumb to realize it.
> 
> 
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
Click to expand...


You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> impuretrash said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's called reality you smug fuck.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
Click to expand...


You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.
Click to expand...


You may as well keep your word.  I've proven your position to be wrong.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that the situations and laws are different when talking StormCunt and the bakery is not trolling.   It is factual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
Click to expand...


Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.

"_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.

What you advocate is treason, sir.


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You object to BLM but fail to explain why.
> 
> My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully.  No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life.  I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.
Click to expand...


You sound like a member.


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
Click to expand...

I think he was referring to you with this part....

*"A nation can survive its fools ..."*


----------



## Humorme

WinterBorn said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why do we allow websites that openly advocate for affirmative action, the govt mandated persecution of white men and the biggest hate crime in america.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
Click to expand...


The people being screwed with over the color of their skin today is the white people.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.



So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".


----------



## Humorme

Asclepias said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
Click to expand...


I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You object to BLM but fail to explain why.
> 
> My guess is you lump together the few who assassinated police officers, with the many who protest peacefully.  No rational person who observed the killing of unarmed black men by police officers, believe the officers acted our of fear for their life.  I observed the videos and having written use of force policy, saw violation of the use of lethal force.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not said anything about how I feel about the BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a member.
Click to expand...

That would be a semi good thing if he was a member.


----------



## Asclepias

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
Click to expand...

Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.


----------



## Humorme

Camp said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nut jobs???  You talk trash like that in public?  If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wouldn't.
Click to expand...



I've dealt with people like you all my life.  You realize that you're wrong.  That is why you're on the Internet, under a board name, and not talking that trash in public venues where you would be held accountable for such outrageous statements.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Humorme said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a disaster, those (^*%#@#&&^$#';s have invaded the USMB with their hate and filth and their evil ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah scumbag white people... we should kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. (Sarcasm intended)  Idiocy, plain idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are they bashing white people?  Or are they speaking out against the violent evil that is the white nationalist movement?   Those are two very different things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You support the repeal of Marbury v. Madison and the Common Law?  You're even dumber than ...
> 
> 
> I think a lot of white activists exist because they were the victims of some social injustice being done in the name of multiculturalism.  Since society does not allow responsible white activists to exist, you have people like Stormfront.  Then, without them, the whites have virtually no representation.
> 
> Someone should step forward and take the media heat and push forward for the preservation, protection and advancement of white people, but not at the expense of the rights of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if the activists have been the victims of social injustice being done because of their skin color, it is ok?  Sounds like approval of BLM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people being screwed with over the color of their skin today is the white people.
Click to expand...


They is?



ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
Click to expand...


Do you support the repeal of Marbury V. Madison?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Asclepias said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.
Click to expand...


Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> My reading skills are just fine. Network Solutions did not discriminate. Your tenacious whining doesn't change that. Pointing out their terms of service amounts to an adhesion contract is meaningless since such contracts are commonplace. You then extend your position of an adhesion contract to cross the crazy bridge to it being an "unconscionable contract" without offering a stitch of evidence other than to point out _"adhesion contracts *can become* an unconscionable contract."_
> 
> Hysterically, you then spike the ball as though you just scored when there was actually no gain on the play.
> 
> To score, you have to first *prove* the contract was unconscionable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?
Click to expand...

_
*Definition of discriminate*
*discriminated*


*discriminating*
_


_

*transitive verb*

1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors

2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
_
Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.


----------



## Asclepias

ShootSpeeders said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!
Click to expand...


Really you ignorant monkey. Go read Article 3 section 2 of the constitution.  Basically Congress gets to make laws but the Judicial branch decides if they are legal.

"*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.........."


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> As if your delusions are real.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Says you.

Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that you went from arguing an actual point to accusations of trolling or questioning what they get out of posting (especially since you are doing the same thing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may as well keep your word.  I've proven your position to be wrong.
Click to expand...

_<smh>_

Saying an adhesion contract *CAN* be an unconscionable contract, without proving it *IS* an unconscionable contract doesn't prove anything other than you're an imbecile who's desperate to win an argument he's losing.


----------



## Asclepias

Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.





Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.


----------



## Wry Catcher

The anti government / libertarian ideology is foolish.  Security and Freedom / 
Lliberty are matters best left to The People and their representatives - and should be decided within the wisdom of these words:

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes...".​Too much Freedom and Liberty create chaos, too much security restricts Freedom and Liberty.  
​
​


----------



## Asclepias

Oh well. I guess even Cloudfare hates Stormyfronts.

http://gizmodo.com/cloudflare-ceo-on-terminating-service-to-neo-nazi-site-1797915295

*"Today, Cloudflare reversed its long-held policy to remain content-neutral and booted The Daily Stormer out from behind its DDoS protection service.


“This was my decision. This is not Cloudflare’s general policy now, going forward,” Cloudflare CEO Matthew Prince told Gizmodo. “I think we have to have a conversation over what part of the infrastructure stack is right to police content.”

“The Daily Stormer site was bragging on their bulletin boards about how Cloudflare was one of them and that is the opposite of everything we believe. That was the tipping point for me.”   *


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF???  All of this has been covered umpteen times.  You've cited your mickey mouse laws.  I moved beyond that.  I don't have to obey unconstitutional acts.  And I won't.  Don't like it?  Sin Loi Victor Charlie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
Click to expand...

You're fucking deranged. 

All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch. Like most things I've seen you post, you have it completely ass backwards.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
Click to expand...

That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.


----------



## Asclepias

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
Click to expand...

Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
Click to expand...

If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the job of the Judicial branch you ignorant monkey. It was provided as a check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!
Click to expand...

Article III, Section 2

*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases*, *in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States*, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


----------



## Faun

Asclepias said:


> Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.
> 
> View attachment 148637
> 
> Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.
> 
> View attachment 148638


Cloudfare *was* their webhost.


----------



## Faun

Asclepias said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
Click to expand...

Because racism is abject ignorance.


----------



## Asclepias

Faun said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like the IP address EverCourious gave for stormyfront responds to pings. I hope someone launches a DDOS attack on it.
> 
> View attachment 148637
> 
> Looks like they are now being hosted by some scum bucket company called Cloudfare.
> 
> View attachment 148638
> 
> 
> 
> Cloudfare *was* their webhost.
Click to expand...

Just figured that out.  I should have known EverCurious was giving out wrong information yet again.  I thought they found a new website hosting service.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

So where do people go to praise Hitler after all of this ?


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are welcome to claim that they are unconstitutional.   There has been no ruling to that effect.
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch. Like most things I've seen you post, you have it completely ass backwards.
Click to expand...


Obviously you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.  Making stuff up and accusing me of things I didn't say aren't helping your cause.


----------



## Humorme

Asclepias said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
Click to expand...


The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely responding to a continuation of troll posts.  Nothing more and certainly nothing less.
> 
> The points have been made - asked and answered.  Ignoring what I've posted doesn't bolster any claims by those on your side.  If your argument fails, it fails.  And it failed.  Those pushing your side's talking points have NO case.  There is nothing more to be said.
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may as well keep your word.  I've proven your position to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _<smh>_
> 
> Saying an adhesion contract *CAN* be an unconscionable contract, without proving it *IS* an unconscionable contract doesn't prove anything other than you're an imbecile who's desperate to win an argument he's losing.
Click to expand...


And if you think that a contract that requires one to forfeit their rights is NOT unconscionable, then you are a damn fool.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should give it up.  The posters here are kicking your ass back into the stone age.
> 
> What are you really getting out of this?  The only rational explanation is that you are on the right and need to make talking points, so you push posters here as far as you can with easily dismissed drivel.  We end up providing you with talking points you can use elsewhere.
> 
> It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen.
> 
> 
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.
Click to expand...


And history is still cyclical.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people their Right to believe something as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Denying people some right they have under law as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing someone to give up any Right under the Constitution as a prerequisite to doing business with them is unconscionable.
> 
> No matter how you spin your argument, you lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> *Definition of discriminate*
> *discriminated*
> 
> 
> *discriminating*
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *transitive verb*
> 
> 1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
> 
> 2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
> _
> Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.
Click to expand...


The TOS is what is discriminatory.


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
Click to expand...

I see. So its a conspiracy that only the retarded whites are left to represent the white racists point of view?  Well at least you admit the OP is a retard.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.
Click to expand...


And so are you.  I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.


----------



## Humorme

Asclepias said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. So its a conspiracy that only the retarded whites are left to represent the white racists point of view?  Well at least you admit the OP is a retard.
Click to expand...


I never met the OP.  Bear in mind, he is busting my chops for even participating here.  He thinks I'm advocating not fighting back.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And in fact, the baker has lost at every turn in our judicial system. They're down to their final chance as the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen to review their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, if a person fails there \, they can employ passive resistance, civil disobedience; they can lobby to get the law changed.  He might leave that state and go somewhere more suitable to his way of thinking.  There are at least a dozen options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch. Like most things I've seen you post, you have it completely ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.  Making stuff up and accusing me of things I didn't say aren't helping your cause.
Click to expand...



You really did say, _"courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts."_

That is batshit crazy. All laws are constitutional unless ruled otherwise by the Judicial branch. All laws confirmed to be constitutional are constitutional -- meaning the courts actually uphold constitional laws, not unconstitutional ones.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
Click to expand...

Locked out from where? They're free to post here as long as they abide by the rules.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating your baseless opinion that Network Solutions' terms of service is an unconscionable contract is what fails. Your opinion is worthless and you've yet to offer anything whatsoever substantiate to demonstrate your point; which lies prostrate on the floor.
> 
> Try citing some case law instead of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You repeating the same shit over and over won't make it acceptable if a free society within our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll keep repeating it until someone proves I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may as well keep your word.  I've proven your position to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _<smh>_
> 
> Saying an adhesion contract *CAN* be an unconscionable contract, without proving it *IS* an unconscionable contract doesn't prove anything other than you're an imbecile who's desperate to win an argument he's losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you think that a contract that requires one to forfeit their rights is NOT unconscionable, then you are a damn fool.
Click to expand...

And you're an idiot who _thinks_ a company has to expose itself to liability and has zero recourse to protect itself by limiting the use of their product or services.

You're truly insane.


----------



## Asclepias

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Locked out from where? They're free to post here as long as they abide by the rules.
Click to expand...

Its a "spiracy". They only let stupid racists in like himself and speedy.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you think I'm a) rightwing; b) getting my ass kicked; or c) should give up, reveals just how deluded you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And history is still cyclical.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, I'm the one celebrating a bigoted baker getting royally bitch-slapped AND dancing with a business who kicked Stormfront.com to the curb.

You're the one hoping and praying for history to change course to reverse that.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying them their right to believe what they want. They don't have a right to inflict risk upon a company in violation of their terms of service.
> 
> That's nothing but your opinion. Proves nothing. Even worse, you're trying to deny Network Solutions their right to protect their own company from the liabilities they face from a customer using their service to promote violence.
> 
> Keep telling yourself that, Spunky. Meanwhile, you have failed miserably to prove that Network Solutions' terms of service amounts to an unconscionable contract and Stormfront remains down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> *Definition of discriminate*
> *discriminated*
> 
> 
> *discriminating*
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *transitive verb*
> 
> 1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
> 
> 2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
> _
> Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOS is what is discriminatory.
Click to expand...

Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil disobedience does not render a law unconstitutional. It merely protests a constitutional law. All laws are constitutional by default and remain so until ruled unconstitutional by our Judicial branch. The public accommodation laws that prevented the baker from discriminating against a gay couple are constitutional. The baker has so far lost in every court and has only one court remaining.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are you.  I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.
Click to expand...

You're demented. No one cares about your interpretation of the Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Courts only have the power to uphold unconstitutional acts.
> 
> "_A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague_."
> Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Orator – 106-43 B.C.
> 
> What you advocate is treason, sir.
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are you.  I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're demented. No one cares about your interpretation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


Nor do I care about YOUR interpretation of the Constitution or the laws of this country.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't be following me around like a dog in heat replying to me six times a day on average.  You must care.  Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to have a bromance with me when we're not going to agree.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOU are the one who has spent this entire thread with the *philosophical *argument that private businesses cannot discriminate.  OMG.  Here we go again.
> 
> 
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> *Definition of discriminate*
> *discriminated*
> 
> 
> *discriminating*
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *transitive verb*
> 
> 1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
> 
> 2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
> _
> Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOS is what is discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.
Click to expand...


Racism isn't a crime.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That statement is an indictment exposing your ignorance.  I'm not deluded into believing anything.  If you're prodding me for an opinion about, I'd say you're a glutton for punishment.  You continue to prattle on with the same point over and over and it has been responded to.
> 
> It seems to make you mad as Hell that the rest of the world don't walk, lockstep with your beliefs.  Reality check:  You're not God and you don't understand the difference between *power *and *authority*.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And history is still cyclical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm the one celebrating a bigoted baker getting royally bitch-slapped AND dancing with a business who kicked Stormfront.com to the curb.
> 
> You're the one hoping and praying for history to change course to reverse that.
Click to expand...


You are delusional.  Be glad that I'm not a social do gooder.


----------



## Humorme

Asclepias said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> 
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Locked out from where? They're free to post here as long as they abide by the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a "spiracy". They only let stupid racists in like himself and speedy.
Click to expand...


Let's presuppose that what you said were true.  You just admitted the stupidity of your own side since you would not be able to debate a real racist.  No need for me to be here.  You seem to be your own worst critic and enemy.


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Locked out from where? They're free to post here as long as they abide by the rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its a "spiracy". They only let stupid racists in like himself and speedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's presuppose that what you said were true.  You just admitted the stupidity of your own side since you would not be able to debate a real racist.  No need for me to be here.  You seem to be your own worst critic and enemy.
Click to expand...

You dont debate stupid people. You mock them just like I mock you.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are you.  I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're demented. No one cares about your interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor do I care about YOUR interpretation of the Constitution or the laws of this country.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't be following me around like a dog in heat replying to me six times a day on average.  You must care.  Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to have a bromance with me when we're not going to agree.
Click to expand...

LOL

Your delusions are noted, but responding to the nonsense you post in this thread hardly constitutes "following you around" of trying to have a "bromance."


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I stand by that, even if you are too stupid to comprehend that.
> 
> Network Solutions did not discriminate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're being an idiot.  What, exactly, do you think the word discriminate means?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> *Definition of discriminate*
> *discriminated*
> 
> 
> *discriminating*
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *transitive verb*
> 
> 1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
> 
> 2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
> _
> Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The TOS is what is discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

Threatening peoples' lives is.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you're the one whining like a little bitch because Stormfront was taken down and the baker lost in court to a homosexual.
> 
> What do I have to be mad as hell at? Stormfront is gone (win for Liberals) and bakers who make wedding cakes can't hide behind their religion to discriminate against those they don't like (another win for Liberals).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who don't like it because you've been proven wrong over and over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Says you.
> 
> Reality says the baker has still lost at every turn in our Judicial system and Stormfront.com is still dead.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And history is still cyclical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, I'm the one celebrating a bigoted baker getting royally bitch-slapped AND dancing with a business who kicked Stormfront.com to the curb.
> 
> You're the one hoping and praying for history to change course to reverse that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are delusional.  Be glad that I'm not a social do gooder.
Click to expand...

Oh? What does a social do gooder do?


----------



## WinterBorn

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think he was referring to you with this part....
> 
> *"A nation can survive its fools ..."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certain he was talking about people like you - the ones who advocate treason just because some judge dressed in a robe like a lady declared something "_legal_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't like our legal system, too bad. You're always welcome to try another country which is more in tune with your craziness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so are you.  I support the Constitution as originally written and intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're demented. No one cares about your interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor do I care about YOUR interpretation of the Constitution or the laws of this country.  If you didn't care, you wouldn't be following me around like a dog in heat replying to me six times a day on average.  You must care.  Otherwise you wouldn't be trying to have a bromance with me when we're not going to agree.
Click to expand...


You keep accusing people of following you around.    Get a grip.   We are continuing a discussion.   Maybe on other sites people post once and quit.  Not here.   
And why isn't it you following us around?


----------



## Asclepias

Humorme said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you support letting judges repeal laws even though the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states.".
> 
> 
> 
> That same Constitution also empowers a Judicial branch with judicial power over the laws of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that can oppose your from a purely academic point of view are locked out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see. So its a conspiracy that only the retarded whites are left to represent the white racists point of view?  Well at least you admit the OP is a retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never met the OP.  Bear in mind, he is busting my chops for even participating here.  He thinks I'm advocating not fighting back.
Click to expand...

Thats because you both are retarded.


----------



## Slyhunter

Humorme said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are the nut jobs at those white supremacy or nationalist groups so paranoid and insecure? They all seem to be obsessed with fear about when their daughters, sisters, moms and girl friends will stick a black dick into one or both of their orifices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nut jobs???  You talk trash like that in public?  If you did in this neighborhood, the nice men in white suits would help you into the van.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they wouldn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've dealt with people like you all my life.  You realize that you're wrong.  That is why you're on the Internet, under a board name, and not talking that trash in public venues where you would be held accountable for such outrageous statements.
Click to expand...

I argued politics on Friday. Instead of countering my arguments they send me im's telling me they're going to kill me. They report me to Facebook and try to get me banned. And they use my Facebook history to call my employer and try to get me fired.

I'll argue anonymously on this forum without shame.


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
Click to expand...


Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
Click to expand...

i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.  Lets have an old fashioned telephone analogy to help explain simplistically:
> 
> TLDR version - access to the internet is a tiered system, kind of like a phone book. The top tier (run by ICANN and IANA) are like a "global" phone book, individual countries can have a version, cities have a version (those are your domain name registrars or second highest tier), even a single building could have a small phone book (that would be a host or first tier, individual offices would be like the bottom tier) - because regardless of what is printed in the phone book at hand, they're all still connected together and able to call other office buildings, cities, states, and countries. All are connected together and thus able to connect to each other (save IT security software) - to example, if you turned on your remote desktop services and gave me your computers IP number, I could log into your computer and use it as though I were sitting at your desk. IT folks use that function to remotely repair computer issues these days, but that inter-connectivity is the real foundation of networks, which the internet is basically just a global network, that creates the internet we have today.
> 
> Ultimately IANA and ICANN are essentially massive global phone books [at the top tier] which manage [gateways] where your "phone call" ends up, they use words [domain names] instead of numbers [IP addresses] to make life easier for users. (Usmessageboard.com instead of their IP address [lowest tier], which is actually routed to godaddy's "local phone book" registry [next tier], that they have submitted to [IANA & ICANN] the "global phone book" [top tier].)
> 
> So basically, to make an internet 2.0 you create a new IANA/ICANN - it uses the same "unownable" network interconnectivity as internet 1.0, only the global phone book changes (the gateways basically.) The tech and "infrastructure" of "internet 2.0" exists and is in use all over the world right now. Global banks and big businesses have global private networks that run on  the internet at the lower two tiers and require special software to gain access to their seperate internet network, (just one of many - Aryaka Builds a Global Private Network for SD-WAN ), but as it's all software driven rather than "hard wired," internet 2.0 creation at the top tier is practically as simple as installing a software that accesses internet 2.0's new top tier registry and parsing gateways to internet 2.0, in fact you could theoretically parse for both internet 1.0 and internet 2.0 simultaneously.
> 
> 
> _More in depth:
> 
> The Host is one of the only physical parts of the internet, it is a computer or server that physically exists - in my analogy it is akin to an office building.
> 
> The IP is another quasi physical part, which is the actual string of numbers of that computer/server, except that probably 90% of the sites we visit are virtual [or VPN "Virtual Private Network"] so they're not individual computers, but rather a specific location on the hosts computer/server - in my analogy we can say that the VPN's are individual offices within the office building.
> _
> _It gets a bit tricky here; DNS is a bit of a misnomer, you'll hear it called "Domain Name System," "Domain Name Server," "Domain Name Software," and the like but the term is actually a bit of an appropriated catch all phrase for all the various software's that make up the internet as we know it (its part of the "pathways" as you put it) but it's an all-encompassing term more akin to saying "Accounting" which includes different bits like accounts receivable, accounts payable, etc. etc. (DNS is actually just a software program that gives any computer/server plugged into the internet the ability to bring guests onto their computer/server [aka become a host location].)
> 
> If we dig deeper into the encompassing term DNS we find things like; NS ("Name Server" or sometimes "Name Space") which is a kind of miniature domain name registration database for each individual hosts computer/server network - this would be like a directory screen within the office building lobby that tells you who is in each individual office. (*Note there are many registers out there; USMB uses GoDaddy, I use Tucows, Stormfront used Network Solutions, for example.)_
> ​_In the grander, and yet more simplistic, scope of my telephone analogy, the DNS is both the telephone line's and the telephone book, and the NS is akin to individual pages in a phone book. Each "page" being an individual server/computer [registered server] and all of them connected to each other through the phone network [aka the internet.]  When you type in a domain name [UsMessageBoard.com for example] it basically looks up that "business name" in the "phone book" and automatically inputs the "phone number" [IP address] from the phone book [Internet DNS.]
> 
> Just as a city can create an individual phone book for "local" businesses, yet still be able to call other cities and countries, and anyone with the hardware & software can plug into the phone network. The internet is much the same, a new computer/server (using DNS software) can create and register a new NS and send their "phone number list" to the "global phone book" (previously managed by government monitored/restricted IANA [traditionaly Europe] and ICANN [traditionally America] but now free market.)
> 
> For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
Click to expand...


I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.

Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):

hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."

Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."

IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"

DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:

a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.

*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"

Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"

^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.

See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Asclepias said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really you ignorant monkey. Go read Article 3 section 2 of the constitution.  Basically Congress gets to make laws but the Judicial branch decides if they are legal.
> 
> "*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.........."
Click to expand...


HAHAHA.  As the board has explained to you in the past, repealing laws is NOT a judicial power.  It's a legislative power.  THINK, white-hater.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really you ignorant monkey. Go read Article 3 section 2 of the constitution.  Basically Congress gets to make laws but the Judicial branch decides if they are legal.
> 
> "*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.........."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  As the board has explained to you in the past, repealing laws is NOT a judicial power.  It's a legislative power.  THINK, white-hater.
Click to expand...

And has been explained to you 100 times ... courts don't repeal laws -- they nullify them.

I understand you're too ignorant to grasp the distinction, so have a black person explain it to ya.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch.



Really?  Where does the constitution give judges the power to repeal laws/?.  Everyone but you knows the constitution says "all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress of the united states".

If you want to repeal a law, go to congress.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Asclepias said:


> Why are white racists usually represented by low intellect individuals like shooterspeeds?



HAHAHA.  More namecalling.

BTW,    you are the racist since you support affirmative action.   YOU are the one who wants jobs handed out based on color.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Humorme said:


> Racism isn't a crime.



But child molesting - something all faggots do - is a crime and yet liberals support them!!!


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  As the board has explained to you in the past, repealing laws is NOT a judicial power.  It's a legislative power.  THINK, white-hater.
> 
> 
> 
> And has been explained to you 100 times ... courts don't repeal laws -- they nullify them.
> I understand you're too ignorant to grasp the distinction, so have a black person explain it to ya.
Click to expand...


There is no distinction, you fool.  Nullifying and repealing a a law are the same.  You silly libs think giving something a different name changes it!!


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> All laws are constitutional unless deemed unconstitutional by our judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution give judges the power to repeal laws/?.  Everyone but you knows the constitution says "all legislative powers shall be vested in a congress of the united states".
> 
> If you want to repeal a law, go to congress.
Click to expand...

As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, the Judicial branch doesn't repeal laws.

When are you going to learn?


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  As the board has explained to you in the past, repealing laws is NOT a judicial power.  It's a legislative power.  THINK, white-hater.
> 
> 
> 
> And has been explained to you 100 times ... courts don't repeal laws -- they nullify them.
> I understand you're too ignorant to grasp the distinction, so have a black person explain it to ya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no distinction, you fool.  Nullifying and repealing a a law are the same.  You silly libs think giving something a different name changes it!!
Click to expand...

Of course there's a distinction. It exists even though you lack the ability to comprehend it.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But child molesting - something all faggots do - is a crime and yet liberals support them!!!
Click to expand...

Seawytch is gay. Are you saying she molests children??


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But child molesting - something all faggots do - is a crime and yet liberals support them!!!
Click to expand...


Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.



Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no distinction, you fool.  Nullifying and repealing a a law are the same.  You silly libs think giving something a different name changes it!!
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there's a distinction. It exists even though you lack the ability to comprehend it.
Click to expand...


Yes - they're spelled differently.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
Click to expand...

So "all" now equals "95%?" In what backwards universe?

And which gays who post here are child molesters?


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no distinction, you fool.  Nullifying and repealing a a law are the same.  You silly libs think giving something a different name changes it!!
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there's a distinction. It exists even though you lack the ability to comprehend it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes - they're spelled differently.
Click to expand...

LOL

Too funny that you _think_ that is the only distinction.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
Click to expand...

If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "all" now equals "95%?" In what backwards universe?
> 
> And which gays who post here are child molesters?
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask them? Do you think one would tell you if they had a criminal record? Think, you miserable self hating doofus.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
Click to expand...

It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "all" now equals "95%?" In what backwards universe?
> 
> And which gays who post here are child molesters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you ask them? Do you think one would tell you if they had a criminal record? Think, you miserable self hating doofus.
Click to expand...

Why would I ask them that when I don't believe it's true? The racist I asked does believe it, but he's afraid to stand up for his convictions.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Definition of discriminate*
> *discriminated*
> 
> 
> *discriminating*
> _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> *transitive verb*
> 
> 1a :  to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features ofDepth perception may be defined as the ability to appreciate or discriminate the third dimension … — H. G. Armstrongb :  distinguish, differentiate discriminate hundreds of colors
> 
> 2:  to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences :  to recognize or identify as separate and distinct discriminate right from wrong; especially :  to distinguish from another like object discriminate the individual voices in the choir
> _
> Network Solutions did not discriminate against Stormfront. They justifiably terminated services to a customer who violated their terms of service. Had Stormfront not violated their terms of service and Network Solutions terminated their service, then you would have a point. Since that is not the case, the only point is your pointy head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TOS is what is discriminatory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threatening peoples' lives is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
Click to expand...

Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront

WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
Click to expand...





ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
Click to expand...


You inconsequential twit.    I understand the English language.   "All" does not mean 95%.   If you mean 95% then SAY 95%.   Take your own advice and THINK.  
Next, your figure of 95% is as inaccurate as your use of the word "all".  Show me one reputable study that shows anything anywhere CLOSE to 95%, you ignorant troll.


----------



## WinterBorn

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "all" now equals "95%?" In what backwards universe?
> 
> And which gays who post here are child molesters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you ask them? Do you think one would tell you if they had a criminal record? Think, you miserable self hating doofus.
Click to expand...


Are you agreeing with the "All/95%" figure for gay men molesting children?


----------



## ThirdTerm

The website could come back online under a different name, while the old domain name seized by the domain host cannot be used anymore by the site owner. The new name under consideration may be coldfront.org or something related to the weather.


----------



## Lastamender

WinterBorn said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute bullshit!      Anyone who claims all homosexuals are child molesters is either a liar or an idiot.    I'll let you choose which fits you best.   I'd lean towards you being a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you autistic?  Don't you understand figures of speech?.  When i said "all" i meant like 95% and that is true.  The priest scandal proved that.   In fact that is why the press won't talk about the priest scandal anymore.  THINK, you miserable hater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So "all" now equals "95%?" In what backwards universe?
> 
> And which gays who post here are child molesters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you ask them? Do you think one would tell you if they had a criminal record? Think, you miserable self hating doofus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you agreeing with the "All/95%" figure for gay men molesting children?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The TOS is what is discriminatory.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threatening peoples' lives is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
Click to expand...

Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.


Faun said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
Click to expand...


And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, there's nothing discriminatory about a business shielding itself from the liabilities of a customer using their service to violate the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threatening peoples' lives is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, webhosts are not allowed to do that. They are allowed to deny service to customers who violate their rules. Just like this forum can deny service to anyone who violates their rules.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
Click to expand...

A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism isn't a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Threatening peoples' lives is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well - that baker had a rule against serving faggots.
> 
> Admit it - you have lost..  If businesses are allowed to refuse service to white nationalists then anything goes and businesses must be allowed to refuse service to anyone. THINK
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
Click to expand...


Is that it? I don't think so.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Threatening peoples' lives is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What have I lost? Stormfront is still down and bakers still have to bake cakes for gays.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that it? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> It's the government's role to secure our rights.



HAHA.  What does that even mean, you wooly-brained dunce.


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> [It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.



HAHAHA.  So now violating a company's terms of service is violating the law??


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHA.  What does that even mean, you wooly-brained dunce.
Click to expand...

I could explain it to ya, but the explanation is above your pay grade.


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  So now violating a company's terms of service is violating the law??
Click to expand...

Imbecile...

That's not at all what I said.


----------



## impuretrash

Faun said:


> I could explain it to ya, but the explanation is above your pay grade.


----------



## Faun

impuretrash said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could explain it to ya, but the explanation is above your pay grade.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 148957
Click to expand...


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whose life was threatened and where can I look up the charges?
> 
> 
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it is the governments decision on who you should serve it is too late for you already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that it? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.
Click to expand...


I am talking about the government making personal decisions on who you associate or do business with. Try to keep up. Stormfront being taken off the internet makes the internet look bad not Stormfront.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anders Breivik, for one. Here's a group who tracked such activities on cites like Stormfront
> 
> WHITE HOMICIDE WORLDWIDE
> 
> 
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the government's role to secure our rights. How sad for you that you do not know even that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that it? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking about the government making personal decisions on who you associate or do business with. Try to keep up. Stormfront being taken off the internet makes the internet look bad not Stormfront.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot, who cares what you're talking about if you're trying to divert the thread?

This thread is not about the government. It's about a private business terminating services to a customer because the customer violated their terms of service.


----------



## Lastamender

Faun said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brevick was inspired by terrorists of all stripes, including Islamists.
> And if one of our rights is not associating with people we do not want to, I believe. The government has no right to tell you one thing about that.
> 
> 
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that it? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking about the government making personal decisions on who you associate or do business with. Try to keep up. Stormfront being taken off the internet makes the internet look bad not Stormfront.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot, who cares what you're talking about if you're trying to divert the thread?
> 
> This thread is not about the government. It's about a private business terminating services to a customer because the customer violated their terms of service.
Click to expand...

Sorry I did not know you are that important that you can't back up(or need to) what you say. My mistake. Carry on.


----------



## Faun

Lastamender said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> A private business has the right to protect themselves from liabilities imposed upon them by a customer using their services to violate the law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that it? I don't think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's exactly that. Network Solutions even cited stormfront's said violations of their terms of use policies. No business is forced to support a custom using their services to violate the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am talking about the government making personal decisions on who you associate or do business with. Try to keep up. Stormfront being taken off the internet makes the internet look bad not Stormfront.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're an idiot, who cares what you're talking about if you're trying to divert the thread?
> 
> This thread is not about the government. It's about a private business terminating services to a customer because the customer violated their terms of service.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I did not know you are that important that you can't back up(or need to) what you say. My mistake. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Can you not be an idiot? This thread is not about the government. It's about a contract between a business and a customer of theirs. I've backed up what I said. Network Solutions stated the reason they dropped stormfront.com. I posted their position. I posted Network Solutions' _Acceptable Use Policy_ to demonstrate where stormfront.com violated that agreement. So who knows what you think I didn't back up?


----------



## ShootSpeeders

Faun said:


> [
> Can you not be an idiot? This thread is not about the government. It's about a contract between a business and a customer of theirs. I've backed up what I said. Network Solutions stated the reason they dropped stormfront.com. I posted their position. I posted Network Solutions' _Acceptable Use Policy_ to demonstrate where stormfront.com violated that agreement. So who knows what you think I didn't back up?



Yes.  Network solutions has a policy saying no service for white nationalists and bakers have a policy of no service for queers.   Why is one ok but the other isn't.?


----------



## RicO'Shea

ShootSpeeders said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can force a bakery to bake a faggot cake then you should also force a webhosting site to host a white supremacist web site. Or are you a hypocrite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're one fucked up bitch.
> 
> Liberals say the two cases are entirely different since child molesting faggots are good people but white nationalists trying to end the racism of affirmative action  are bad people.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can you not be an idiot? This thread is not about the government. It's about a contract between a business and a customer of theirs. I've backed up what I said. Network Solutions stated the reason they dropped stormfront.com. I posted their position. I posted Network Solutions' _Acceptable Use Policy_ to demonstrate where stormfront.com violated that agreement. So who knows what you think I didn't back up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Network solutions has a policy saying no service for white nationalists and bakers have a policy of no service for queers.   Why is one ok but the other isn't.?
Click to expand...

Don't be so fucking stupid. Network Solutions does not have a policy of saying no to white nationalists.


----------



## Asclepias

ShootSpeeders said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Where does the constitution say that.?  It appears to everyone else that the constitution explicitly  says judges CANNOT repeal laws.!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really you ignorant monkey. Go read Article 3 section 2 of the constitution.  Basically Congress gets to make laws but the Judicial branch decides if they are legal.
> 
> "*The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution*, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.........."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HAHAHA.  As the board has explained to you in the past, repealing laws is NOT a judicial power.  It's a legislative power.  THINK, white-hater.
Click to expand...

Repeal, Declare unconstitutional and trash the law is the same thing. If you want to get wrapped up in technicalities because of your limited brain power then go ahead.


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your brain must be addled. The pathways are physical. Dont embarrass yourself. I do this for a living. Do you really believe that the ip packets that are transmitted around the world dont travel on a physical medium?  What are you going do? Have everyone on your internet use bluetooth? You do realize that has a limitation of only 40ft right? Youre going to need an awful lot or repeaters.
> 
> That little cable that connects to your modem? Its physical. You own it. Same thing with the cabling from that little connection in the wall to the outside of your home. However after that pathway changes depending on your access. Same with the ownership.  The internet is made up of physical connections. It wouldnt even exist without the physical aspects because there would be nothing to send the electrical impulse on.
> 
> How DS1 and DS3 Bandwidth Are Related
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
Click to expand...

OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.

Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.

"*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"

Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.

http : // 74.125.199.103


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say you do this for a living, then you play stupid?  Funny.
> 
> A massive web of thousands of ISPs (usually cable or telephone, but there's satellite now too) own the "cable" from your house connects to, and it's the ISP that connects their privately owned data cables into the other ISPs privately owned data cables; and creates the infrastructure of the internet at large, however, the "internet" is /not/ those cables. The internet is a network of public networks. It's usage and access is more akin to software outside each individual host computer/server who chooses to run "cable" and plug into the internet so folks can "call" them (via the same ISPs typically.)  No new cable is needed to run an internet 2.0.
> 
> To fit that concept into my analogy - The ISP is like the landlord of the office building and I'm an individual business in said office building; I "rent" space [bandwidth] from the ISP [on their cables.]  If I want to create a private global network with another "office building" anywhere in the world I would not have to lay new cables; it would use the existing cables. The only part that changes is the non-physical shit, the "software" side of it.  If I were to connect to your personal computer that creates a new "network," if more people connect to me or to you, and more people connect to those people etc, you have an "internet."
> 
> In fact, just to hammer home your foolishness on the subject; Stormfront did exactly what I've laid out, they de facto created an internet 2.0 and accessed their forum server using the existing internet 'cables' but completely bypassing the Network Solutions registrar [top tier or "global phone book" of my analogy] by changing some "software" on their computer.
> 
> ----
> 
> See: Stormfront members bypass domain seizure to access banned neo-Nazi forums
> 
> "A handful of longtime Stormfront users – registered members of what watchdogs have labeled one of the internet’s most infamous hate sites – have circumvented the practically unprecedented domain seizure and are continuing to post on its forums, registrar be damned.
> 
> Network Solutions, Stormfront’s domain registrar, booted the website from its address last Friday, Aug. 25, effectively displacing it from its URL of 22 years, Stormfront.org, and locking out its owner and administrator, 64-year-old Florida resident and former Ku Klux Klan leader Don Black.
> 
> But through formats like radio broadcasts and other white nationalists forums, Stormfront users taken to sharing instructions enabling fellow members to still access their online stomping grounds by slightly modifying a file on their computers.
> 
> “There is a way to get there because our servers are still up,” Mr. Black told listeners during Friday’s broadcast of Stormfront Radio, adding: “It involves putting one line in your ‘host’ file.”
> 
> ----
> 
> See also: Yes, Virginia, You Can Still Access Stormfront: Here’s How
> 
> On Windows, Mac, or Linux computers, all you need to do is edit your hosts file. Just add this line, standing all alone by itself, to the existing hosts file with Notepad or a similar text editor:
> 
> 104.20.30.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> As an alternative, you can also use this (but don’t use both at the same time):
> 
> 104.20.32.134 stormfront.org www.stormfront.org
> 
> ---
> 
> The above is exactly what the registrar's like Network Solutions, Tucows, Godaddy, etc. do, they host and manage a huge text file that redirects domain names to their respective IP addresses (or in my analogy the business name to their phone number)  Internet 2.0 would simply require someone to host a similar text file and let people access [query] it.
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
Click to expand...



Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.

As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...

Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.

So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.



EverCurious said:


> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].





Asclepias said:


> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.





EverCurious said:


> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.


Clip relevant portion [...]


EverCurious said:


> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._



To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its obvious you dont realize that even the satellite companies have a network that connects by physical means to the internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post except the end because its so obvious you dont know what you are talking about. Its funny you listed how to edit a Linux/Unix host file. The IP that its pointing at is a physical piece of hardware eventually.only reachable by physical means. That little work around you listed doesnt circumvent the internet. Its used only for local resolution. It tells that computer in order to reach the URL of stormfront that it needs to point to that new IP. it cant control what routers will do with the traffic on the internet. If the organizations that own those means cuts them off they cant do anything. You cant even exist on the internet without the permission of IANA who ultimately gives out public IP addresses even though its now delegated to ARIN. Where do you think stormfront gets its IP address from? You dont just get to make up your IP address. Its assigned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.
> 
> As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...
> 
> Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.
> 
> So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clip relevant portion [...]
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.
Click to expand...


I didnt say you were right. I said you didnt know what you were talking about.  How did people access your public network server?

I think youre confused. I can have a million DNS servers in my home. If I dont have an internet connection no one in the world can connect to me except me. In your theoretical world how do other computers link to my DNS servers without crossing public domain boundaries?  In your brainfart you still havent explained that feat.


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have at you and continue to think you're smart when you're in the wrong
> 
> 
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.
> 
> As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...
> 
> Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.
> 
> So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clip relevant portion [...]
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say you were right. I said you didnt know what you were talking about.  How did people access your public network server?
> 
> I think youre confused. I can have a million DNS servers in my home. If I dont have an internet connection no one in the world can connect to me except me. In your theoretical world how do other computers link to my DNS servers without crossing public domain boundaries?  In your brainfart you still havent explained that feat.
Click to expand...


Yes it did dear, you're apparently too stupid to read it. For the third time:



EverCurious said:


> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> i think I'll trust my 20 plus years in the Network engineering and VoIP Collaboration field over your obvious lack of knowledge on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.
> 
> As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...
> 
> Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.
> 
> So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clip relevant portion [...]
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say you were right. I said you didnt know what you were talking about.  How did people access your public network server?
> 
> I think youre confused. I can have a million DNS servers in my home. If I dont have an internet connection no one in the world can connect to me except me. In your theoretical world how do other computers link to my DNS servers without crossing public domain boundaries?  In your brainfart you still havent explained that feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did dear, you're apparently too stupid to read it. For the third time:
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I already pointed out that was pipe dream. Only someone illiterate or someone that had no clue what they were talking about would suggest such an asinine thing. You do realize that "wireless" has a limited range (not to mention the bandwidth issues) and it still has to go through a physical infrastructure to be passed on right?  Your internet 2.0 would be a gigantic bottle neck using wireless as its primary medium even if you used a physical backbone.  Now lets the address the real obvious flaw. Who is transmitting the wireless signals?

I also noted you still havent explained how people connected to your server without going through a physical medium.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Can you not be an idiot? This thread is not about the government. It's about a contract between a business and a customer of theirs. I've backed up what I said. Network Solutions stated the reason they dropped stormfront.com. I posted their position. I posted Network Solutions' _Acceptable Use Policy_ to demonstrate where stormfront.com violated that agreement. So who knows what you think I didn't back up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Network solutions has a policy saying no service for white nationalists and bakers have a policy of no service for queers.   Why is one ok but the other isn't.?
Click to expand...


Remember, you are the one who keeps saying "THINK!".     When will you start?

StormCunt was on Network Solutions since 1995.  There was no policy against white nationalists.   There have been over 100 murders attributed to Storm users.

There is also an excellent description of the low lifes that inhabited that site.   Psychologists call them "wound collectors".

from: Another neo-Nazi site, Stormfront, is shut down

"“A typical murderer drawn to the racist forum Stormfront.org is a frustrated, unemployed, white adult male living with his mother or an estranged spouse or girlfriend,” wrote the SPL in 2014. “She is the sole provider in the household. Forensic psychologists call him a ‘wound collector.’ *Instead of building his resume, seeking employment or further education, he projects his grievances on society and searches the Internet for an excuse or an explanation unrelated to his behavior or the choices he has made in life*.”"  (boldface is mine)


----------



## MrShangles

Faun said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
Click to expand...


Does 5 dead cops meet your standards


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## ShootSpeeders

WinterBorn said:


> There have been over 100 murders attributed to Storm users.



Attributed??  HAHAHA .   WTF does that mean.?  I attribute 100 murders  to BLM.


----------



## WinterBorn

ShootSpeeders said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been over 100 murders attributed to Storm users.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Attributed??  HAHAHA .   WTF does that mean.?  I attribute 100 murders  to BLM.
Click to expand...


You also attributed pedophilia to every single gay man.   Of course, then, when you were called on that lie, you tried to go with "I only meant 95%.

Obviously there has never been any policy against white "nationalists" on Network Solutions.   But there is existing laws forbidding discrimination.


----------



## WinterBorn

MrShangles said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does 5 dead cops meet your standards
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


If the murders of those officers was planned on a BLM website, then shut it down.   Otherwise, there is no comparison.


----------



## Faun

MrShangles said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> 
> At last you have posted something we can all celebrate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does 5 dead cops meet your standards
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Show the website where BLM threatened to kill cops...


----------



## Asclepias

Faun said:


> MrShangles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShootSpeeders said:
> 
> 
> 
> We???  Only free speech haters like you celebrate this.
> 
> 
> 
> Moron... free speech is a protection from the government trying to silence you. Whereas webhosting is a private business and racism is not a protected class.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you would be in favor of shutting down BLM websites?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If a webhost chose to do so because a BLM website was threatening to physically assault and kill others, absolutely. Again, it's a private business. Even worse, webhosts could be held liable for hosting sites that promote violence against others if such violence is then carried out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does 5 dead cops meet your standards
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the website where BLM threatened to kill cops...
Click to expand...


----------



## EverCurious

Asclepias said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a few years on ya pup. I built my first public network server before the internet really even existed. You're wrapped up in your little world of cables and routers at the bottom "private" tier (aka network engineering and creating private LANS), and not listening to what I'm telling you about the non-physical side being what actually directs the flow of traffic on the internet itself.  Look around the internet and you'll save yourself the embarrassment. I mean seriously, you just used video phone calls as a "knowledge reference" for how the internet works son... Please. The network engineer part is slightly more impressive sounding at least. Either way, your job experience has little to nothing to do with the resolution of domain names on the internet; and if you actually have such experience under your belt you damn well know it. Still, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I do so enjoy geeking out with a fellow computer nerd, even if the nerd in question is attempting to bullshit a crowd.
> 
> Perhaps missed the day(s) where they taught about the function of the hosts file and it's automated replacement [for the internet] by the DNS system in the 80s. Here's a quick refresher course (relevance emphasis added):
> 
> hosts (file) - Wikipedia - "The computer file hosts is an operating system file that _*maps hostnames to IP addresses*_. It is a plain text file. Originally a file named HOSTS.TXT was manually maintained and made available via file sharing by Stanford Research Institute for the ARPANET membership, containing the hostnames and address of hosts as contributed for inclusion by member organizations.* The Domain Name System, first described in 1983 and implemented in 1984, automated the publication process and provided instantaneous and dynamic hostname resolution in the rapidly growing network.* In modern operating systems, the hosts file remains an alternative name resolution mechanism, configurable often as part of facilities such as the Name Service Switch as either the primary method or as a fallback method."
> 
> Hostname - Wikipedia - "In computer networking,* a hostname (archaically nodename) is a label that is assigned to a device connected to a computer network and that is used to identify the device in various forms of electronic communication, such as the World Wide Web. *Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may be structured."
> 
> IP address - Wikipedia - "*An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. An IP address serves two principal functions: host or network interface identification and location addressing.*"
> 
> DNS Name Resolution - "*DNS name resolution is nothing but resolving host names, such as www.nixcraft.com, to their corresponding IP addresses*. *DNS works as the “phone book” for the Internet by translating hostname into IP address or vise versa.* Most DNS server stores following information:
> 
> a) *Hostname* and their *IP address*
> b) List of *mail server and their IP address* for given domain name
> c) *Anti spam configuration* and much more.
> 
> *Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Domain Name System (DNS) - "*The DNS enables domain names to stay constant* while the underlying network topology and IP addresses change. This provides stability at the application level while *enabling network applications to find and communicate with each other using the Internet protocol no matter how the underlying physical network changes.*"
> 
> ^^ And it is that last bit right there that you get fucked up on. The physical network has no impact on the routing to websites - that is the realm of DNS. It is also why Stormfront users can still access their server, despite their domain name being jacked - because the site /still/ exits on the physical web and still has an IP address that ANYONE can access simply by changing their hosts file to resolve "stormfront.com" to the relevant IP address of the site; DNS registrar Network Solutions is completely /unneeded/ in the process - they can be bypassed simply and easily. Which is exactly how one would start an internet 2.0, create new DNS registrar - just as one would do with HOSTS file and boom! new IP address to domain name resolution.
> 
> See also how this would be implemented on the "client" side - How to Bypass OpenDNS Internet Security
> 
> 
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.
> 
> As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...
> 
> Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.
> 
> So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clip relevant portion [...]
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say you were right. I said you didnt know what you were talking about.  How did people access your public network server?
> 
> I think youre confused. I can have a million DNS servers in my home. If I dont have an internet connection no one in the world can connect to me except me. In your theoretical world how do other computers link to my DNS servers without crossing public domain boundaries?  In your brainfart you still havent explained that feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did dear, you're apparently too stupid to read it. For the third time:
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already pointed out that was pipe dream. Only someone illiterate or someone that had no clue what they were talking about would suggest such an asinine thing. You do realize that "wireless" has a limited range (not to mention the bandwidth issues) and it still has to go through a physical infrastructure to be passed on right?  Your internet 2.0 would be a gigantic bottle neck using wireless as its primary medium even if you used a physical backbone.  Now lets the address the real obvious flaw. Who is transmitting the wireless signals?
> 
> I also noted you still havent explained how people connected to your server without going through a physical medium.
Click to expand...


So we're back to you playing stupid and ignoring the reality that the physical medium already exists again, despite me pointing out it three times; check...

I'm done with ya Asclepias, this is exactly what you always do and why I'd stopped replying to you. You play stupid games to try to get "dat white girl/guy" to jump through hoops because it gives you some kind of ego trip.  It's pathetic and I don't have the patience for it. ~SMH~  I suppose I'm a fool for giving you another shot because I thought you were a computer geek like me. Lesson learned, won't happen again.  Congratulations on earning one of my very limited "ignore" slots troll boy. ~ciao~


----------



## Asclepias

EverCurious said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK so now youre claiming you invented the internet before it was invented yet your posting something as mundane as what a host file does and what the DNS protocol does.
> 
> Hate to break it to you but the below statement is false. If DNS didnt exist you could still have an internet. You posted the definition of DNS but you dont seem to understand it.
> 
> "*Without DNS name resolution, nothing will work on the Internet. Nobody likes to remember IP address, so DNS is foundation of many Internet services such as web, proxy, email and so on.*"
> 
> Let me explain it laymans terms.  When you type www.google.com, all DNS does is translate that to an IP address.  You dont need DNS. All you have to do is type this in your browser.
> 
> http : // 74.125.199.103
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm no, I never claimed to "invent the internet" dumbass I said I had a "public network server" - which you should know all about if you had any formal training in your claimed fields.  Go look up BBS's, and their predecessors "mainframes," and get back to me when you're educated.
> 
> As for your note on the without DNS internet wouldn't work quote, that's actually not my statement it's cyberciti.biz as denoted by the link to them - but you're right to call it out - just as I did, and have been for days.  DNS just controls the redirection of domain names (www.blahblahblah.com) to computer/server locations (their individual IPs) on the internet.  That's exactly what /you/ have been arguing /AGAINST/ this entire time.  Christ...
> 
> Moving on though, thank you for finally admitting I was right so we can tell the posters who might be still reading this the truth about "pathways" on the internet being little more than DNS text entries on a database server.
> 
> So from the top when you apparently had a brain fart and exposed yourself as either an idiot, a liar, a troll, or most likely all three.
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can create an internet 2.0 using a different DNS system. Call it THE free speech zone. It'd be low population for a while, but you know how lefties work, they must always have a cause so eventually there will be nothing allowed to be spoken about on internet 1.0 and the honest folk would start seeking refuge from the fascists [upgrading to 2.0].
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you do that since you dont own any pathways?  You would need to connect via some medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> The pathway's are not physical so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say. Each computer/server (and these days, TV's, phones, security systems, etc.) on the planet technically has it's own unique accessible IP that could theoretically be accessed from anywhere in the world (were it not for IT security systems to prevent it.)  However folks tend to not like recalling a string of numbers to find a certain site (computer/server) like say Bing anyway. The current "internet" system was created to help give meaning to the long string of numbers that addresses each computer/server.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clip relevant portion [...]
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To reiterate - Internet 2.0 could be created rather easily making new DNS servers to query - no new "cables" or "physical" thing really needs to be laid/installed to do it. A server for the new DNS database, but anyone can hook one of those up to the internet, maybe a browser that sends the clients to the new DNS server (instead of internet 1.0s) but that'd just be a convenience thing so folks didn't have to mess with their computer configuration files.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didnt say you were right. I said you didnt know what you were talking about.  How did people access your public network server?
> 
> I think youre confused. I can have a million DNS servers in my home. If I dont have an internet connection no one in the world can connect to me except me. In your theoretical world how do other computers link to my DNS servers without crossing public domain boundaries?  In your brainfart you still havent explained that feat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it did dear, you're apparently too stupid to read it. For the third time:
> 
> 
> 
> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> 
> _For an entirely new internet 2.0 one just needs to create a new database equivalent to IANA [Europe] & ICANN [America] (which is essentially akin to making a new "global" phone book.) No new cables need to be run to do it, it's just a change of whom the specific number sets get routed through. The "pathway" is not a physical thing that one company, or even a few companies, can own because it consists of millions, perhaps trillions, of individual computers/servers connected together through thousands or millions of networks - which these days can even connect through the air (wireless) so there's not really anything to have ownership of, even considering any physical cabling that may or may not be in use.
> 
> Could also create a 2.0 through ISPs [internet service providers] they are the only real "owners" of any tangible physical connectivity to the internet network but anyone can start an ISP and any customers can pay them for access - the ISPs are akin to the old school operator who plugs their individual network of "phones" [their internet user customers] into the global telephone system at large [the internet.]  Thus, instructing (or creating) an ISP to connect up to a different "internet network top tier registry" (internet 2.0's global phone book) is as nearly easy as printing out a new phone book (create a new top tier registry database) because the phone numbers (IP addresses) all exist and are accessible regardless of where the operator (ISP) plugs into the telephone system (internet)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already pointed out that was pipe dream. Only someone illiterate or someone that had no clue what they were talking about would suggest such an asinine thing. You do realize that "wireless" has a limited range (not to mention the bandwidth issues) and it still has to go through a physical infrastructure to be passed on right?  Your internet 2.0 would be a gigantic bottle neck using wireless as its primary medium even if you used a physical backbone.  Now lets the address the real obvious flaw. Who is transmitting the wireless signals?
> 
> I also noted you still havent explained how people connected to your server without going through a physical medium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're back to you playing stupid and ignoring the reality that the physical medium already exists again, despite me pointing out it three times; check...
> 
> I'm done with ya Asclepias, this is exactly what you always do and why I'd stopped replying to you. You play stupid games to try to get "dat white girl/guy" to jump through hoops because it gives you some kind of ego trip.  It's pathetic and I don't have the patience for it. ~SMH~  I suppose I'm a fool for giving you another shot because I thought you were a computer geek like me. Lesson learned, won't happen again.  Congratulations on earning one of my very limited "ignore" slots troll boy. ~ciao~
Click to expand...


Your words not mine.....

"*The pathway's are not physical* so no one "owns" them nor needs to install them per say."

"...*ignoring the reality that the physical medium already exists...* "

If the pathways are not physical how do they already exist?

I know you want to make this about race but its really about knowledge. You cant say the pathways are not physical and then turn around and say they already exist. Why dont you just admit you didnt know what you were talking about?  I've never really been a computer geek. I'm a network geek.


----------

