Mindmelted
Well-Known Member
So you are a Leech.
EXPOSED!!! NO COLOREDS, LATINOS, HOMELESS AND OTHER LOW INCOME UNDESIRABLES..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Red1966
Well-Known Member
I think that $300k is just blather. Would she be riding the bus if she had $300k?
Red1966
Well-Known Member
manhand
racerboy71
bud bootlegger
nice tag sky
Red1966
Well-Known Member
Pics or it didn't happen.
Red1966
Well-Known Member
What drug are you on right now?@spandy @bu$hleaguer
today's civics lesson..how apropos for labor day weekend.
this is how it works with the greedy trigger happy, cash mongrels..
1) means of production aka MOP..decides to change the constitution (or attempt) in this case the 14th.
2) the directive comes from the top (board room shit)..they are not legal experts and often times never even consult their legal department.
3) someone who knows the law, catches their asses fair and square.
4) suit is brought forth and either:
a) they settle immediately (often times with non-disclosure stipulation) through an exchange of letters and initial filing of suit.
b) they take on the suit which is very costly.
5) the cash settlement is only a spanking for what they could really receive: backlash from public with significant loss of revenue..
let's just say they DON'T want to settle and fight because they think they're fucking smart..this is what happens:
they get reminded that not everyone lives in the deep south bible belt and thinks as they do.
then (my absolute fave part)
EDIT: this is how we get 'big government', and dear god nooooo..'rules and regs'
..it's because of YOU!
you decide you're are gonna do it your way..YOU!
fail. not when it's public YOU AREN'T. you have noone to blame but yourselves..
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a tough shit situation, I guess you'll be waiting an extra 10 mins for your bus...?
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Well that might not be the best idea. While I disagree with the property owners sentiments, I don't think using force against them is the best way to get them to change their minds.
Also , if they truly own the property aren't they the ones that should decide who they invite onto it and who isn't invited? If somebody you didn't like came into your house uninvited and sat down at your kitchen table and made themselves a snack would you have the right to ask them to leave and to please put that ham sandwich down too?
No but there is a very famous weed attorney on the same floor who in the past I stopped by for the intro.
Is your home open to the public?
Of the worst kind I'm going to Leach the money from your pocket and into those of the poor.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
You are confused.
Your home AND your business location are BOTH private property are they not?
Please save the recitation of how the meaning of private property was changed too, I already know the history. Thanks.
Also, I hope you know by now, IF I were running a business "open to the public" my policy would not include discrimination based on race or sexual preferences.
If you were running a business on your private property, my policy would be not to try to run it for you. I would however not do business with you if your policy was to discriminate based on things I would not discriminate on. That is the extent of any control I rightfully have, to chose what I will do, not what YOU will do.
Your home and your business is not private property domicile is different from business regardless of whether the business is within your domicile i.e. dentist attorney Doctor Who has a home-office. It must remain open to the public it is you who choose to have your business and your domicile as one.
We have something called the 14th amendment perhaps you'd like to review it?
Last edited:
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Can you provide an example where forced redistribution has been successful?
You seem unable to reason that the mechanism which allowed the inequities you dislike to exist in the first place, will be just as bad when you use the same mechanism.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
The nature of what property is, escapes you. You have recited a legal re-definition of what you think property is, based on a rationalization of statutory law.
14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th 14th for those of you that are into patterns.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Ahh yes the 14th amendment, isn't that the one where Indians and women don't count ?
It's really sweet you should see the face mother of pearl diamond encrusted
Why yes that would be according to what's the word I'm looking for starts with MMMMennnnnnnn
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
So, are you still saying you like the 14th amendment or are you now disavowing it?
I could wow you with my knowledge of all the founding fathers and their progenies bullshit too, but I'm not interested in putting myself to sleep.
A bit off topic, but do you think the people that created the Federal Reserve had a sense of humor when they put Andrew Jackson on the $20 ? I bet they are laughing their asses off.