HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party

[Conservative65]

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

 

[Conservative65]

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

 

[Pogo]

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You tell them to "speak African" huh?

Arrogant asshole.

 

[Faun]

Who determined that? Our government. Who's our government?It's us -- we the people. As a society we determined the playing field was so drastically tilted in favor of whites following hundreds of years of suppression of blacks, that whites could no longer continue their inbred discrimination.

Wrong. WE are not the government.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

- H. L. Mencken -
​

Your belief that majority rule justifies everything is also obvious horseshit. A lynch mob is the essence of majority rule. Yet, I doubt even a liberals have advanced to the point of condoning that.

When anyone says "society decided" this or that, what they mean is that some mob decided it - no better in character or wisdom than a lynch mob. There is no pool of illimitable wisdom to be found in a mob, or "society" as you choose to call it. Clearly, the mob is not infallible, so your claim that society (a mob) made the decision isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

Dayam, you're ignorant. I trump your satirist with the Declaration of Independence.... "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

... and the U.S. Constitution ... "We the People of the United States...."

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

 

[Conservative65]

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You tell them to "speak African" huh?

Arrogant asshole.

They claim to be African. It's a common sense request. If I demanded to be called an E. European, it wouldn't bother me if someone expected me to speak the E. European language where my family came from. Apparently it bothers blacks.

 

[Faun]

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Not exactly. Problem is what many Liberals claim as rights simply aren't rights at all.

The problem with your use of the Declaration is that Liberals confuse pursuit of happiness as being the same as a guarantee.

The concept of how the government should function comes form the Constitution and it is anything but your version of Liberal. It may be Liberal but the powers granted to the federal government are of a traditional Liberal mindset, a.k.a Libertarian, not bleeding heart Liberal.

Governments do get their ability to government from the people who elect them. Problem is the people electing Liberals of today want those officials to secure things that aren't rights. Something isn't a right simply because someone wants it but can't have it. People have the right to vote. People have the right to not incriminate themselves in a court of law. People have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Marriage isn't a right. Welfare and food stamps aren't a right. Abortion isn't a right. Turds like you on the Supreme Court may seem to think so but the founding fathers would disagree.

Unfortunately, you're projecting your conservative biases onto me. I am not saying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are guarantees. I am saying a function of the government, as clearly established by our founding fathers, was to ensure everyone has access to those inalienable rights. That doesn't mean they will achieve it nor does it say it's the government's job to ensure they achieve it. But the government is tasked to ensure they at least have access.

That's why it was imperative in the 60's to pass affirmative action. Without that, blacks would have continued to be denied access to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They would not have had, nor could not have, the same level of education and job experience as many whites at the time. They did not have the same opportunities at the time. Had companies been allowed, many (especially ones run by racists) would have used lack of experience as the reason for not hiring blacks, whom they didn't actually want to hire. Blacks would still be fighting for opportunities to grant them access to pursue happiness.

Oh, and marriage is absolutely a right. It falls in line with the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is also a right. It's the woman's right to choose the destiny of her own body.

 

[Faun]

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You lost to yourself earlier. After disparaging me for using the BLS for unemployment data, you ultimately confessed you do too.

According to your logic, you're a typical ass kissing Liberal.

 

[Conservative65]

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Not exactly. Problem is what many Liberals claim as rights simply aren't rights at all.

The problem with your use of the Declaration is that Liberals confuse pursuit of happiness as being the same as a guarantee.

The concept of how the government should function comes form the Constitution and it is anything but your version of Liberal. It may be Liberal but the powers granted to the federal government are of a traditional Liberal mindset, a.k.a Libertarian, not bleeding heart Liberal.

Governments do get their ability to government from the people who elect them. Problem is the people electing Liberals of today want those officials to secure things that aren't rights. Something isn't a right simply because someone wants it but can't have it. People have the right to vote. People have the right to not incriminate themselves in a court of law. People have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Marriage isn't a right. Welfare and food stamps aren't a right. Abortion isn't a right. Turds like you on the Supreme Court may seem to think so but the founding fathers would disagree.

Unfortunately, you're projecting your conservative biases onto me. I am not saying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are guarantees. I am saying a function of the government, as clearly established by our founding fathers, was to ensure everyone has access to those inalienable rights. That doesn't mean they will achieve it nor does it say it's the government's job to ensure they achieve it. But the government is tasked to ensure they at least have access.

That's why it was imperative in the 60's to pass affirmative action. Without that, blacks would have continued to be denied access to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They would not have had, nor could not have, the same level of education and job experience as many whites at the time. They did not have the same opportunities at the time. Had companies been allowed, many (especially ones run by racists) would have used lack of experience as the reason for not hiring blacks, whom they didn't actually want to hire. Blacks would still be fighting for opportunities to grant them access to pursue happiness.

Oh, and marriage is absolutely a right. It falls in line with the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is also a right. It's the woman's right to choose the destiny of her own body.

The problem is when someone isn't happy, Liberals make the claim they didn't have the opportunity to pursue it. When they aren't, Liberals want to sue the government to appease them especially certain groups.

Why is it wrong to use lack of experience to not hire anyone. It only seems to be a problem when blacks aren't hired. That's when claims of racism are thrown around as an excuse. White people are told to shut up and move along.

By claiming marriage is a right, you make it a guarantee of happiness. Not one single homo has ever been denied the ability to marry. Don't confuse limiting the extent of a right with denying it. Much like freedom of speech, there are things that people can't say as a limit to that free speech but it doesn't mean their right to free speech is being denied.

If abortion is a right and the sole choice of a woman, why do so many who make the choice to have kids they can't afford instead of abortion get to demand someone else pay for the choice you say is theirs alone. I'll give them a the choice as long as I get one on the same level to say no to feeding their damn kids when they can't. Since it's my money, shouldn't the choice to say no be one I have as that would deny me the pursuit of happiness if I didn't?

 

[Faun]

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

Then let's see you explain it. Let's say they remain here because they like it better here. How does that translate into slavery was worth it? Why would they go to a country they've never been to, which they believe is not as good as the U.S., if they believed slavery wasn't worth it?

 

[Conservative65]

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You lost to yourself earlier. After disparaging me for using the BLS for unemployment data, you ultimately confessed you do too.

According to your logic, you're a typical ass kissing Liberal.

Can't be one of your lowlife kind since I'm not a Liberal.

 

[Conservative65]

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

Then let's see you explain it. Let's say they remain here because they like it better here. How does that translate into slavery was worth it? Why would they go to a country they've never been to, which they believe is not as good as the U.S., if they believed slavery wasn't worth it?

I've already explained it. You simply don't get it.

If slavery hadn't existed, they'd still be living like their ancestors or in tribal warfare like those still there.

 

[Faun]

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Not exactly. Problem is what many Liberals claim as rights simply aren't rights at all.

The problem with your use of the Declaration is that Liberals confuse pursuit of happiness as being the same as a guarantee.

The concept of how the government should function comes form the Constitution and it is anything but your version of Liberal. It may be Liberal but the powers granted to the federal government are of a traditional Liberal mindset, a.k.a Libertarian, not bleeding heart Liberal.

Governments do get their ability to government from the people who elect them. Problem is the people electing Liberals of today want those officials to secure things that aren't rights. Something isn't a right simply because someone wants it but can't have it. People have the right to vote. People have the right to not incriminate themselves in a court of law. People have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Marriage isn't a right. Welfare and food stamps aren't a right. Abortion isn't a right. Turds like you on the Supreme Court may seem to think so but the founding fathers would disagree.

Unfortunately, you're projecting your conservative biases onto me. I am not saying that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are guarantees. I am saying a function of the government, as clearly established by our founding fathers, was to ensure everyone has access to those inalienable rights. That doesn't mean they will achieve it nor does it say it's the government's job to ensure they achieve it. But the government is tasked to ensure they at least have access.

That's why it was imperative in the 60's to pass affirmative action. Without that, blacks would have continued to be denied access to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. They would not have had, nor could not have, the same level of education and job experience as many whites at the time. They did not have the same opportunities at the time. Had companies been allowed, many (especially ones run by racists) would have used lack of experience as the reason for not hiring blacks, whom they didn't actually want to hire. Blacks would still be fighting for opportunities to grant them access to pursue happiness.

Oh, and marriage is absolutely a right. It falls in line with the pursuit of happiness. Abortion is also a right. It's the woman's right to choose the destiny of her own body.

The problem is when someone isn't happy, Liberals make the claim they didn't have the opportunity to pursue it. When they aren't, Liberals want to sue the government to appease them especially certain groups.

Why is it wrong to use lack of experience to not hire anyone. It only seems to be a problem when blacks aren't hired. That's when claims of racism are thrown around as an excuse. White people are told to shut up and move along.

It was wrong to use lack of experience as an excuse not to hire blacks in the 60's because they were denied access to the same jobs and education as whites. It was not reasonable to suppress them for hundreds of years and then expect them to have the same level of qualifications overnight in 1964 because they finally won their civil rights.

Because racism was so interweaved in the fabric of our society, companies had to be forced to ensure blacks could get jobs and entry into schools even though they were less qualified. A separate argument could be made of how long that should last, but it was an absolute necessity at the time and a core function of our government to ensure blacks had the same access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as anyone else.

By claiming marriage is a right, you make it a guarantee of happiness. Not one single homo has ever been denied the ability to marry. Don't confuse limiting the extent of a right with denying it. Much like freedom of speech, there are things that people can't say as a limit to that free speech but it doesn't mean their right to free speech is being denied.

Again, you're projecting your conservative bias upon me. Not only is it not a guarantee of happiness, I stated it's not. But it can [edit: lead to happiness] which is what makes it a pursuit of happiness. You're the one who's project a right is a guarantee to happiness, not me.

And what makes it a pursuit of happiness is the opportunity to be bonded with the person you love for life. Gays are denied that. You point out they have the ability now to get married, but in reality, they don't have the ability (though they are getting it one state at a time) to marry the person they love. They are being denied the right to pursue happiness by the very government that was created to protect that right.

If abortion is a right and the sole choice of a woman, why do so many who make the choice to have kids they can't afford instead of abortion get to demand someone else pay for the choice you say is theirs alone. I'll give them a the choice as long as I get one on the same level to say no to feeding their damn kids when they can't. Since it's my money, shouldn't the choice to say no be one I have as that would deny me the pursuit of happiness if I didn't?

Now you are conflating their right to abortion with how it's paid for. Two separate discussions. Who pays for it does not diminish their rights.

 

[Faun]

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You lost to yourself earlier. After disparaging me for using the BLS for unemployment data, you ultimately confessed you do too.

According to your logic, you're a typical ass kissing Liberal.

Can't be one of your lowlife kind since I'm not a Liberal.

I'm going by your own definition. When I posted a link to the BLS to prove your numbers were bullshit (which you've since admitted), you claimed I must be an ass kissing Liberal. Well we've since learned you use the same source as I do. Even when you tried to feign reliance upon other sources, we learned it was still based upon the same source I cited which inspired you to call someone an ass kissing Liberal.

Realize it or not, you called yourself and ass kissing Liberal. Who cares if you think of yourself as one or not. That's your description.

 

[Faun]

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

Then let's see you explain it. Let's say they remain here because they like it better here. How does that translate into slavery was worth it? Why would they go to a country they've never been to, which they believe is not as good as the U.S., if they believed slavery wasn't worth it?

I've already explained it. You simply don't get it.

If slavery hadn't existed, they'd still be living like their ancestors or in tribal warfare like those still there.

No, you failed to establish the connection. You still fail. You basically just said they believe slavery was worth it because you say they do. If they believe slavery was not worth it, why would they move to a country they've never been to which they believe is not as good as the U.S.

 

[theHawk]

Wow, the liberals support forcing blacks to cater to the KKK, literally.

Looks like those long repressed racist Dem KKK types are finally coming out of the woodworks.

Well if you're in support of a black owner from doing business with white clients ... if that were to be allowed, what would prevent white business owners from doing business with blacks? Why not just return to the era where blacks had to use their own water fountains?

It's not a case of blacks refusing to do business with whites you jackass, it is a case of blacks refusing service to a group of people based on their immoral actions and beliefs.

If a business is dumb enough to refuse service based solely on race, what do you think would happen in this day and age? They would be hounded on social media and protested and boycotted.

We don't need Nazi faggots monitoring every business in the country.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong. WE are not the government.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

- H. L. Mencken -
​

Your belief that majority rule justifies everything is also obvious horseshit. A lynch mob is the essence of majority rule. Yet, I doubt even a liberals have advanced to the point of condoning that.

When anyone says "society decided" this or that, what they mean is that some mob decided it - no better in character or wisdom than a lynch mob. There is no pool of illimitable wisdom to be found in a mob, or "society" as you choose to call it. Clearly, the mob is not infallible, so your claim that society (a mob) made the decision isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

Dayam, you're ignorant. I trump your satirist with the Declaration of Independence.... "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

... and the U.S. Constitution ... "We the People of the United States...."

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

The sentence reads, "Governments are instituted among Men." Exactly how fucking insane are you to thinkin Jefferson spoke of government separated from "men?"

I just told you that, moron. How stupid do I have to be not to agree with your wrong opinion? I take that to be a rhetorical question. Your opinion is obviously wrong. It ignores the meaning of "among."

 

[dblack]

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

You just skewered yourself because forcing a business to serve you obviously isn't an unalienable right. It's highly alienable.

Moron, it's protecting the inalienable rights of the consumers.

Wtf? How?

 

[paperview]

The story isn't real.

The OP is a retard.

Stop with your stinking lies. That's all you libbies ever have is lies. This story is not on TV and never will be but it's all over the internet.

Holy shit.

You actually still believe the story in your OP is true?

Man, I knew you were a racist idiot before, but I didn't think you were dumber than a 5th grader.

Looks like: you are.

 

[Conservative65]

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.

Actually they do. Interesting how that claim comes about when you've been proven as a retard.

Then let's see you explain it. Let's say they remain here because they like it better here. How does that translate into slavery was worth it? Why would they go to a country they've never been to, which they believe is not as good as the U.S., if they believed slavery wasn't worth it?

I've already explained it. You simply don't get it.

If slavery hadn't existed, they'd still be living like their ancestors or in tribal warfare like those still there.

No, you failed to establish the connection. You still fail. You basically just said they believe slavery was worth it because you say they do. If they believe slavery was not worth it, why would they move to a country they've never been to which they believe is not as good as the U.S.

I said they feel slavery is worth it because it gives them a place they apparently feel is better than where they would have been without slavery. They must like it here. They choose to stay. It offered them something that without they would still be living like 3rd world people.

 

[Conservative65]

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

Asking them to speak a language of their claimed race is diarrhea? If they claim to be half African, how is expecting them to speak it wrong?

Lose to you? That's laughable.

You lost to yourself earlier. After disparaging me for using the BLS for unemployment data, you ultimately confessed you do too.

According to your logic, you're a typical ass kissing Liberal.

Can't be one of your lowlife kind since I'm not a Liberal.

I'm going by your own definition. When I posted a link to the BLS to prove your numbers were bullshit (which you've since admitted), you claimed I must be an ass kissing Liberal. Well we've since learned you use the same source as I do. Even when you tried to feign reliance upon other sources, we learned it was still based upon the same source I cited which inspired you to call someone an ass kissing Liberal.

Realize it or not, you called yourself and ass kissing Liberal. Who cares if you think of yourself as one or not. That's your description.

If you think I am, you must be the award winner for ass kissers. Pucker up. You must like the taste of chocolate ass and whatever Hillary has between her legs tastes like. You smooch them regularly. I don't.