Conservative Political Forum

General Category => Political Discussion and Debate => Topic started by: taxed on June 11, 2019, 08:10:29 PM

Title: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 11, 2019, 08:10:29 PM
A few techniques and approaches when dealing with libtards...

https://conservativehardliner.com/debating-liberals
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 11, 2019, 09:28:22 PM
That triggered girl is everywhere.

I don't argue with Liberals in person. It's not worth the headache. Not going to change each other's minds and they will not have a respectful conversation either.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 11, 2019, 09:29:20 PM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 11, 2019, 09:28:22 PM
That triggered girl is everywhere.

I don't argue with Liberals in person. It's not worth the headache. Not going to change each other's minds and they will not have a respectful conversation either.

It takes practice.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:01:11 AM
QuoteYou: "We need a wall to keep the bad people out."
NPC: "That's racist. You're a racist."
You: "That's not very nice."

You: "We need a wall to keep the bad people out."
NPC (Me):  Bad is to vague and general.  What does bad mean in this context?  Do you mean as those who committed crimes?  What criteria are we going by exactly?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:07:44 AM
You: "Abortion is murder."
NPC: "What about a women who was raped? Should she be able to abort her baby?"
You: "No. That's murder."
NPC: "So, she shouldn't be able to choose what happens with her own body??"
You: "Yes, but not murder her baby."
NPC: "What if she doesn't want it?"
You: "Murdering it is not the answer."
NPC: "Ok, let's agree you're right and abortion is murder.  What is an alternative answer that you have that she should do if she doesn't want to raise the child and can't afford to raise the child?  Would you be willing to make adoption laws easier?  Would you be in support of artificial wombs and promote the science for them?  Maybe we can discuss all of this at Bar Taco while enjoying the tacos.  Maybe we can come up with some kick ass ideas.  "
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:18:37 AM
You: "Is America the best country in the world?"
NPC: "There are other great countries."
You: "But is America the best one?"
NPC: "Best means greatest among all.   But, what makes a country great and what makes a country not so great?  Does economic prosperity alone determine greatness?  What about people having compassion for each other?  Point is, without a set criteria to go by your question is vague and meaningless.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:26:24 AM
This is the issue I have with these debates.  There are no agreed upon definitions and criteria as to what things are and what they mean.  Everything seems to meld into sloganized, abstract and generalized phrases and words that neither side agrees upon.

Like

What is opportunity?

What is bad?

What is capitalism

What is fascism?

so on and so forth

If both sides agreed to a.  agreed upon set of definitions and b.  set aside one's emotions I think things would be better.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: walkstall on June 12, 2019, 05:05:19 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:01:11 AM
You: "We need a wall to keep the bad people out."
NPC (Me):  Bad is to vague and general.  What does bad mean in this context?  Do you mean as those who committed crimes?  What criteria are we going by exactly?

Unlawful border crossing is a crime! (It's the law)

Why do you lock your car door.  Or your doors on your house at night and when your gone? 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 12, 2019, 05:34:35 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:26:24 AM
This is the issue I have with these debates.  There are no agreed upon definitions and criteria as to what things are and what they mean.  Everything seems to meld into sloganized, abstract and generalized phrases and words that neither side agrees upon.

Like

What is opportunity?

What is bad?

What is capitalism

What is fascism?

so on and so forth

If both sides agreed to a.  agreed upon set of definitions and b.  set aside one's emotions I think things would be better.
It's pretty simple really. As Conservatives, we don't want to have to think about our govt, it should simply exist and function as our Founders envisioned, .
When I was born, the Fed was of no consequence, politics was for DC, we'd elect Reps to go there, do their job in keeping govt small and out of our lives.
But leftists have managed to make virtually every topic known to man, political and the Fed was their weapon in creating more intrusive laws.
Hell, we used to ride in the back of pickup trucks, bring our guns to school, boys were boys and girls were an enigma, but we all happily fit in without a single complication or having to check your PC when you spoke.
There was no such nonsense as hate speech, hate crime, you didn't worry about misgendering, though most normal people don't give a fuck what people do in their own homes, and still don't accept it in public regardless of what the media tells us.
Point being, the left has no desires of compromise, so talking to them is a total waste of time, and people are getting really sick of their shit, so much so, people are starting to snap and take reformation into their own hands, which is just what the Marxists want, a complete breakdown of society so they can come in and save the day.
History proves me correct.

Now do you understand how the Marxists have been brainwashing kids as tools, useful idiots?

So if you think you're going to get emotional children to sit down and talk rationally, you are in for a huge shock.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 10:00:36 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 12, 2019, 05:34:35 AM
It's pretty simple really. As Conservatives, we don't want to have to think about our govt, it should simply exist and function as our Founders envisioned, .
When I was born, the Fed was of no consequence, politics was for DC, we'd elect Reps to go there, do their job in keeping govt small and out of our lives.
But leftists have managed to make virtually every topic known to man, political and the Fed was their weapon in creating more intrusive laws.
Hell, we used to ride in the back of pickup trucks, bring our guns to school, boys were boys and girls were an enigma, but we all happily fit in without a single complication or having to check your PC when you spoke.
There was no such nonsense as hate speech, hate crime, you didn't worry about misgendering, though most normal people don't give a fuck what people do in their own homes, and still don't accept it in public regardless of what the media tells us.
Point being, the left has no desires of compromise, so talking to them is a total waste of time, and people are getting really sick of their shit, so much so, people are starting to snap and take reformation into their own hands, which is just what the Marxists want, a complete breakdown of society so they can come in and save the day.
History proves me correct.

Now do you understand how the Marxists have been brainwashing kids as tools, useful idiots?

So if you think you're going to get emotional children to sit down and talk rationally, you are in for a huge shock.

a.  I've ridden in the back of a pick-up when I was a kid when we had to move.   Pretty scary at first but when one gets used to it, it actually was fun. 

b.  I would've loved to talk to Kaitlin Bennet about alternatives to abortion.  Like if a woman doesn't feel like she can deal with raising the kid then place the child up for adoption.  And, maybe eventually develop tech so a woman doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months if she is to emotionally disturbed by it like artificial wombs.  Or, can surrogate mothers be used like transfer the fetus from the original mom to a new mom?  Is that possible?  And, come up with tech that can decrease costs.

c.  As for emotional children I can understand what you're saying.  I've gotten better about having meltdowns but when I get into a meltdown mode it's difficult to budge me at all.   When a person gets extremely upset or emotional they won't listen to anyone or anything.  I know.  Been there!  Done that!   It makes a person rigid in his thinking and gives him tunnel vision.

d.  https://www.facebook.com/Dieseltec/   I don't agree with everything he says.   He made a comment about him not wanting to see two dudes being affectionate at his shop.  All hell broke loose.  The homosexual community started vandalizing his shop.  Truth is, it is his shop.  He is the owner.  He makes the rules and sets the tone.  If I was a homosexual I simply would say ok, it's your shop, and then move on to a different business who would take my money. 

e.  Point to everything is there has to be better ways to handle things then politically or through the gov't.   

f.  Hasn't communism been tried?  Hasn't it failed everywhere it has been tried?  Why keep doing something that fails consistently?  The only places communist like setups work is small villages or communes.

Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 10:04:47 AM
Quote from: walkstall on June 12, 2019, 05:05:19 AM
Unlawful border crossing is a crime! (It's the law)

Why do you lock your car door.  Or your doors on your house at night and when your gone?

I get what you're saying.  Bad as in doing a crime against you.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:48:57 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:01:11 AM
You: "We need a wall to keep the bad people out."
NPC (Me):  Bad is to vague and general.  What does bad mean in this context?  Do you mean as those who committed crimes?  What criteria are we going by exactly?


Me:  "bad" is a MFkr like this:

http://www.hideoutnow.com/2019/04/illegal-immigrant-previously-deported-5.html

Or this:

http://www.kurv.com/illegal-border-crosser-found-with-molotov-cocktail/




Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:18:37 AM
You: "Is America the best country in the world?"
NPC: "There are other great countries."
You: "But is America the best one?"
NPC: "Best means greatest among all.   But, what makes a country great and what makes a country not so great?  Does economic prosperity alone determine greatness?  What about people having compassion for each other?  Point is, without a set criteria to go by your question is vague and meaningless.


Me:  YES America is the greatest country in the world.....I've been in about 30 other countries and beleive me....they suck, any who disagree with me should try living or working in one, preferably some 3rd world socialist hell hole for about a year ad whe they come to the realization how lucky they were to be born an American then they can join the debate with an informed opinion.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:58:25 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 03:07:44 AM
You: "Abortion is murder."
NPC: "What about a women who was raped? Should she be able to abort her baby?"
You: "No. That's murder."
NPC: "So, she shouldn't be able to choose what happens with her own body??"
You: "Yes, but not murder her baby."
NPC: "What if she doesn't want it?"
You: "Murdering it is not the answer."
NPC: "Ok, let's agree you're right and abortion is murder.  What is an alternative answer that you have that she should do if she doesn't want to raise the child and can't afford to raise the child?  Would you be willing to make adoption laws easier?  Would you be in support of artificial wombs and promote the science for them?  Maybe we can discuss all of this at Bar Taco while enjoying the tacos.  Maybe we can come up with some kick ass ideas.  "

Me:   Rape is a crime, ....So is Murder  (Abortion)  why compound one crime with another
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 03:36:48 PM
Anybody who doesn't think America is great should be banned from it. You can't bite the hand that feeds you by using the freedoms of America to shit on it.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:09:52 PM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 03:36:48 PM
Anybody who doesn't think America is great should be banned from it. You can't bite the hand that feeds you by using the freedoms of America to shit on it.

Thing is though if one is not allowed to question the tenets and ideas America is based upon (even if they turn out to be the most sound and most moral way to go) then how are we better then a two bit dictatorship in which one can be punished for even the slightest disagreement?  Under your thinking America is not just a country, an idea or a set of values we go by but becomes a civic religious cult. 

To me, part of what makes a country great is being able to ask questions and challenging its tenets of it without any fear of reprisal.  Any idea, any system should be open to question and challenge and any idea and system that is not open to question and challenge loses greatness points in my eyes even if the ideas turn out to be sound.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:12:17 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:56:25 PM

Me:  YES America is the greatest country in the world.....I've been in about 30 other countries and beleive me....they suck, any who disagree with me should try living or working in one, preferably some 3rd world socialist hell hole for about a year ad whe they come to the realization how lucky they were to be born an American then they can join the debate with an informed opinion.

Which 30 countries and what sucked about them? 

Would you be willing to go into your experiences?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:21:05 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:48:57 PM

Me:  "bad" is a MFkr like this:

http://www.hideoutnow.com/2019/04/illegal-immigrant-previously-deported-5.html

Or this:

http://www.kurv.com/illegal-border-crosser-found-with-molotov-cocktail/

I can understand the first one.  We definitely don't want him in.

On the second one it does look suspicious as though he was going to do something.  But, aren't we supposed to be for the 2nd amendment though?  Shouldn't Molotov cocktails not allowed to be prohibited under the 2nd amendment?    Still, I don't think it's a good idea to let him in either.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:27:49 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 12, 2019, 02:58:25 PM
Me:   Rape is a crime, ....So is Murder  (Abortion)  why compound one crime with another

NPC:  I'm willing to agree that abortion is murder and you're still dodging the question I'm asking.  If the woman does not want the baby and can't handle raising the baby what would be a be a better choice?  Are you for adoption?  Artificial wombs?  Surrogacy?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 09:58:23 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:09:52 PM
Thing is though if one is not allowed to question the tenets and ideas America is based upon (even if they turn out to be the most sound and most moral way to go) then how are we better then a two bit dictatorship in which one can be punished for even the slightest disagreement?  Under your thinking America is not just a country, an idea or a set of values we go by but becomes a civic religious cult. 

To me, part of what makes a country great is being able to ask questions and challenging its tenets of it without any fear of reprisal.  Any idea, any system should be open to question and challenge and any idea and system that is not open to question and challenge loses greatness points in my eyes even if the ideas turn out to be sound.

America is better than any of these other countries. We give citizens Constitutional Freedom Of Speech rights. You don't abuse that right by talking bad about the country that gave you those rights. That's biting the hand that fed you. This is a great nation. We have bad citizens such as these Communists, Socialist, and anti-American Liberals trying to destroy our sovereignty. But we are a great nation.

If any of these Liberals (or you) can't accept that we are a great nation because we have Constitutional Freedoms that other foreign countries don't give their citizens, they don't deserve those Freedoms and should get the hell out. I am done being nice to the people who hate us real Americans.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 11:27:14 PM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 09:58:23 PM
America is better than any of these other countries. We give citizens Constitutional Freedom Of Speech rights. You don't abuse that right by talking bad about the country that gave you those rights. That's biting the hand that fed you. This is a great nation. We have bad citizens such as these Communists, Socialist, and anti-American Liberals trying to destroy our sovereignty. But we are a great nation.

If any of these Liberals (or you) can't accept that we are a great nation because we have Constitutional Freedoms that other foreign countries don't give their citizens, they don't deserve those Freedoms and should get the hell out. I am done being nice to the people who hate us real Americans.


a.  Well, I thought countries couldn't give rights.

b.  Questioning a country's tenets or values is not bad mouthing the country or anyone.

c.  One can mostly agree with a country's tenets and values  yet question as well to make sure one is really right.

d.  c is true b/c one doesn't know everything with absolute certainty.

e.  If one is not allowed to question the values and tenets of a country whether it is by gov't or social standards then is one truthfully free? 

f.  Truth, logic and reason are just as important as our constitutional freedoms.  To not question beyond certain bounds is to stifle one's reason.  To stifle one's reason is to not have the full truth.  To not have the full truth is to believe a possible lie. 

g.  So, if one can't question the standards and values of one's country b/c it is unamerican, liberal, communist, etc then is freedom not denied to seek truth even if the standards and values turn out to be true.  Does America become a civic religion instead of the beacon of light and freedom it was founded on? 

h.  Freedom and Truth must go hand in hand.  To deny the pursuit of truth is to lose and stifle one's freedom.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 11:54:15 PM
Countries can take away rights. America's values include freedoms. You don't question good values. Only a Liberal does that because they lack values. You either agree with good values or you don't. We don't claim to know everything but we know good values. The ones that question it tend to be the ones who want to change or destroy it.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 13, 2019, 12:23:37 AM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 12, 2019, 11:54:15 PM
Countries can take away rights. America's values include freedoms. You don't question good values. Only a Liberal does that because they lack values. You either agree with good values or you don't. We don't claim to know everything but we know good values. The ones that question it tend to be the ones who want to change or destroy it.

I see.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 13, 2019, 03:32:57 AM
These are the things I think make a great society.

1.  Rationality

2.  Science

3.  One that allows and enables the individual to flourish no matter what abilities and disabilities he or she has.

4.  One that allows free flow of information and allows and actively encourages discussion and debate. 

5.  Compassionate as in if you are down others help to bring you up and they don't just fish for you but actually show you how to fish.  And, provide for those who can't WITHOUT forcing others to provide for others.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 13, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:12:17 PM
Which 30 countries and what sucked about them? 

Would you be willing to go into your experiences?

Most of the countries were in Asia, A few In S. America and of course the big cast litter box, the Middle east.

I could go on for pages and pages about what sucked, and still only sratch the surface. Thats why I say one should experiece it first hand before trying to comment on it. And most tourists never have a clue, staying at a five star resort and going on guided tours is not experiece, you might as well stay home& read a travel broshure with all the pretty pictures.

I will give you a few generalities though.   

What sucks is political corruption, everything is bought and paid for by the most richest politicias who gets elected by buying votes or through the favor of the ruling party....Perhaps a King or Premier. And of course where does one find the capitol to finance all this vote buying ad election fraud?  Well through more ad more corruption. And there isn;t a damn thing you can do about it either.  Freedom of the Press? Haha....say the wrong thing ad you can get 1. Fired ad black listed....2.  Jailed.....3. Killed, Many countries are ruled by exteded families or clans who control things by a very powerful consortium of businesses  and finance systems.  Marriages are arranged to keep one clan in power over another. And these clans ad political parties they control are constantly at war with one another rather than strive for the general good, THEY CARE ABOUT STAYING I N POWER.

There is rampant prejudice, ethic, religious and racial discrimiation, class and caste systems, overt ad super secret.  Division and exclusion along political lines,

Here a interesting example and then I'll shut up. remember the Tsuami in 2004/2005?  True story, distributig releif supplies to ethic people who were devestated by the giant tidal wave that flattened their town, when this big shot politician shows up with cameras rolling ad talks about how HE is responsible for getting all these supplies here ad what a great thing HE is doing, then leaves, the news people lose interest and go away and o cue the the local Military commader (probably big shots cousin or something) ad begins "redistributig" supplies to army trucks. This stuff ended up in Mr Big Shots warehouse where he no doubt sold it on the black market.  Legalized theft....not a damn thing anybody can do about and no body cares

Just a side note, you think any of this sounds familiar./...like maybe whats happeing in OUR Country.....pretty soon we may start to suck as we get third worlded
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 13, 2019, 05:49:22 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:21:05 PM
I can understand the first one.  We definitely don't want him in.

On the second one it does look suspicious as though he was going to do something.  But, aren't we supposed to be for the 2nd amendment though?  Shouldn't Molotov cocktails not allowed to be prohibited under the 2nd amendment?    Still, I don't think it's a good idea to let him in either.


Oh come on....A illegal alien sneaks ito our country with Gang Tats all over his body with a FKG BOMB ad you think that should be protected by the 2d amed?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 13, 2019, 08:20:43 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 12, 2019, 09:21:05 PM
I can understand the first one.  We definitely don't want him in.

On the second one it does look suspicious as though he was going to do something.  But, aren't we supposed to be for the 2nd amendment though?  Shouldn't Molotov cocktails not allowed to be prohibited under the 2nd amendment?    Still, I don't think it's a good idea to let him in either.
Weapons of mass destruction are not protected under the 2nd, neither are weapons that can maim multiple people, as in grenades, Molotov cocktails and bombs.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 13, 2019, 09:03:01 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 13, 2019, 08:20:43 PM
Weapons of mass destruction are not protected under the 2nd, neither are weapons that can maim multiple people, as in grenades, Molotov cocktails and bombs.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 13, 2019, 09:05:18 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 13, 2019, 05:49:22 PM

Oh come on....A illegal alien sneaks ito our country with Gang Tats all over his body with a FKG BOMB ad you think that should be protected by the 2d amed?

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

I totally agree with you!
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 13, 2019, 09:59:24 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 13, 2019, 05:47:18 PM
Most of the countries were in Asia, A few In S. America and of course the big cast litter box, the Middle east.

I could go on for pages and pages about what sucked, and still only sratch the surface. Thats why I say one should experiece it first hand before trying to comment on it. And most tourists never have a clue, staying at a five star resort and going on guided tours is not experiece, you might as well stay home& read a travel broshure with all the pretty pictures.

I will give you a few generalities though.   

What sucks is political corruption, everything is bought and paid for by the most richest politicias who gets elected by buying votes or through the favor of the ruling party....Perhaps a King or Premier. And of course where does one find the capitol to finance all this vote buying ad election fraud?  Well through more ad more corruption. And there isn;t a damn thing you can do about it either.  Freedom of the Press? Haha....say the wrong thing ad you can get 1. Fired ad black listed....2.  Jailed.....3. Killed, Many countries are ruled by exteded families or clans who control things by a very powerful consortium of businesses  and finance systems.  Marriages are arranged to keep one clan in power over another. And these clans ad political parties they control are constantly at war with one another rather than strive for the general good, THEY CARE ABOUT STAYING I N POWER.

There is rampant prejudice, ethic, religious and racial discrimiation, class and caste systems, overt ad super secret.  Division and exclusion along political lines,

Here a interesting example and then I'll shut up. remember the Tsuami in 2004/2005?  True story, distributig releif supplies to ethic people who were devestated by the giant tidal wave that flattened their town, when this big shot politician shows up with cameras rolling ad talks about how HE is responsible for getting all these supplies here ad what a great thing HE is doing, then leaves, the news people lose interest and go away and o cue the the local Military commader (probably big shots cousin or something) ad begins "redistributig" supplies to army trucks. This stuff ended up in Mr Big Shots warehouse where he no doubt sold it on the black market.  Legalized theft....not a damn thing anybody can do about and no body cares

Just a side note, you think any of this sounds familiar./...like maybe whats happeing in OUR Country.....pretty soon we may start to suck as we get third worlded

I see.

And, this is what I like seeing.  Instead of using bumper sticker slogans which mean nothing to me you're giving specific and concrete examples.  This puts things into perspective.  I can sort of see why the founders wanted to limit gov't and what it can do.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 14, 2019, 01:11:09 AM
You all do believe in limits on what weapons a person can have then? 

If the 2nd amendment does not protect the rights for a person to have any and all weapons then what exactly does it cover and what does it not cover?  What criteria are we using?  Is the 2nd amendment inalienable and absolute, yes or no?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 14, 2019, 10:05:20 AM
It says nothing in the Second Amendment about how many to own, the number of rounds, or what I will use it for (other than its purpose).
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 14, 2019, 10:57:45 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 14, 2019, 01:11:09 AM
You all do believe in limits on what weapons a person can have then? 

If the 2nd amendment does not protect the rights for a person to have any and all weapons then what exactly does it cover and what does it not cover?  What criteria are we using?  Is the 2nd amendment inalienable and absolute, yes or no?
I Just Told You!!!

"Weapons of mass destruction are not protected under the 2nd, neither are weapons that can maim multiple people, as in grenades, Molotov cocktails and bombs.".
Can you not deduce on your own what that encompases, entails?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 14, 2019, 11:28:33 AM
That was the goal of my books. It's very hard to dehypnotize people and it's very painful for them. I know because I was hypnotized.  You know this is happening when people speak in slogans, generalities and when you ask them to give you an example, they have to think. Like "Sarah Sanders is a liar!" "Can you give me an example of her lie?" "Let me check the internet." 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 14, 2019, 02:05:16 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 14, 2019, 11:28:33 AM
That was the goal of my books. It's very hard to dehypnotize people and it's very painful for them. I know because I was hypnotized.  You know this is happening when people speak in slogans, generalities and when you ask them to give you an example, they have to think. Like "Sarah Sanders is a liar!" "Can you give me an example of her lie?" "Let me check the internet."
Hey Zak, feel free to post an excerpt from your book.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 14, 2019, 03:06:34 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 14, 2019, 01:11:09 AM
You all do believe in limits on what weapons a person can have then? 

If the 2nd amendment does not protect the rights for a person to have any and all weapons then what exactly does it cover and what does it not cover?  What criteria are we using?  Is the 2nd amendment inalienable and absolute, yes or no?

Yes or no is not an accurate aswer. See, It isn't about the "weapon" it is about the person who wields that weapon that is the issue. Lets break it down, almost ANYTHING can be employed as a weapon. That includes gas or another accelerant. Is it LEGAL To posses gas and put it in a container?...of course. I could go to the hardware store or grocery and purchase perfectly legal items ad go home ad make all sorts of bombs, poison gas ad "weapons"  I could also hit a intruder to my home on the head with a chair, stab him with a phillips head screwdriver or push a pencil ito his eye.

What is my INTEnT in possessing a chair, a screwdriver, a pencil or a gallon of gas?  Is it to assault people with....no, of course not, but if needed, I can defend my self with those items, the courts will determie if my actios in defending my home ad my person were legal or not. What is my iet in buying legal materials at a grocery store ad coming home and concocting explosives? 

now lets switch it over to firearms which under the 2d you have a RIGHT to own....unless you PROVE that you used it illegally.  I want a pistol for self defense, or I keep a shotgun for that purpose.....fine, this is for my home defense or  defense of my family...that is my intent, the guns are legally bought, legally owned and I assure you I am amply trained and qualified to handle such weapons.

I dont have molotov cocktails to defend my self or my home? Why? Because I'd burn down my house if I used that.  I dont have a 81 MM Mortar either....again I'd blow up my house if I used it. N o, such "weapons" are IMPRACTICLE for self defense they are no good for anything other than use in a war to breach the enemies walls or fortifications....OR TO BURN SOMETHING TO THE GROUND.

See, conservatives look at the individual and determine the reasonableness the practicality of his actions....NOT THE WEAPON ITSELF BUT THE APPLICATION OF THAT WEAPON

Thats why all this hoo haw over "assault weapons" is so much nonesense.  What is my intent in possessing such weapon?  Self defense?  Hunting target shooting or collecting?  ALL LEGAL, so what if it has a night scope, a barrel shroud or any of the other acoutremets that scares liberals so much.

SO WTF is this scumbag illegal alien doing with a weapon of TERROR designed to burn things down?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 14, 2019, 03:10:40 PM
Solar, thanks for the suggestion. Here it is, an excerpt from my second book about Trump:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07SR5R4RR
The first book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Q6ZSP11
Both books are currently on Amazon's bestseller lists in their categories.

Ban on some ways to think

We are not allowed to think freely anymore. The deep state fake news has two whips to control our logic. One is called a conspiracy theory. If they don't like our conclusion, or the direction in which we are going, or arguments, or even the entire subject, they call it a conspiracy theory. Whatever argument you can come up with, whatever evidence, is dismissed because it's a conspiracy theory.

Then: Where is your proof? – that's the second whip.

And the requirements for standards of proof are increasing as your proof gets stronger and stronger. Here are the levels of the requirements.

The first level, belonging.

You should be one of us, or you are dismissed out of hand: Who are you? What are your credentials? Have you been on CNN or at least on Fox? Have you published in the New York Times? The Washington Post? Have you ever been awarded a Pulitzer Prize?

Second level, details.

Are you aware of x? No? Go study. You want to talk about emigration? Do you know what visa 2a36 is? Are you aware of the legislation H24/URFD? No? Go study.

Third level,  authority.

Not enough authority. Most people, most scientists, most voters disagree with you, so you must be wrong. Look at this poll, look at that poll. Check with Snopes, FactCheck, and PolitiFact.

Fourth level, evidence.

Where's your evidence? Whatever evidence you have is not solid. It's not eyewitness testimony; it's not scientific papers accepted by the community; it's not proved by experiments approved by the government.

The final, fifth level, courts.

It hasn't been proven in courts. It's alleged.  What's your proof? Hillary has never been charged.

And of course, at any level, if your arguments are convincing enough, you are a liar, a racist, and Hitler.

Let me list again these levels of increasing requirements of proof:

1.   belonging
2.   knowledge of details
3.   accepted by authoritative entities
4.   presence of hard evidence
5.   proven in courts.

These are all antidemocratic constraints on thought. You shouldn't be required to wait until some judge or some jury members formulate their opinions before you are allowed to formulate yours.

And not only opinions. The main idea of M-Theory is that to prove something you don't have to break down doors at night and steal computers looking for hard evidence; you can think independently of the crowd; you don't really need the knowledge of all the details to be confident in answering your questions; and you don't have to belong to any supported group to make your point convincingly. Especially because the self-appointed judges don't live by the rules they created for you. They don't even care about the rules. Ask them, what's your proof that Trump is Hitler? They will look at you as if you are an idiot. EVERYBODY knows that Trump is Hitler. What are you talking about? Everything he says is Hitler. Everything he does is Hitler. You are Hitler.

M-theory assumes that bad people can't do bad things without leaving traces. Even if this assumption is not true, nothing could be done about invisible criminals who could get away with murder flying back to Mars. This is certainly true for the main subject of M-Theory: mass propaganda. It's impossible to manipulate the minds of the entire public without exposing the tools by which the minds have been manipulated. M-Theory studies those tools in meta space, just looking at the flow of public information and analyzing, if needed, a small, possibly random, sample of pieces of information unleashed by the propaganda.

Propaganda can't allow free thought because it presents a mortal threat to propaganda itself. That's why they would call it a conspiracy theory. Even though that's how normal people think. And my point is that it's okay. And you don't have to prove to the biased audience that the way you think is okay. The reasonable, unbiased people will agree with you if you make rational arguments. M-Theory just brings a structure and helps organize the arguments.

And you save a lot of time because you are doing meta analysis; you don't need to study a lot of the details to make your decision and the algorithm is so simple that the chances of making an error in your decision are minimal.

When I was writing the book, one of the greatest surprises for me was the discovery that there is an American grandmaster of M-Theory who knowingly or not is using it with great success in making the most important decisions affecting the lives of millions of people. I know this person and you know this person and I'll talk about him further down the road after the basic concepts of M-Theory are explained.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 14, 2019, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on June 14, 2019, 03:06:34 PM
Yes or no is not an accurate aswer. See, It isn't about the "weapon" it is about the person who wields that weapon that is the issue. Lets break it down, almost ANYTHING can be employed as a weapon. That includes gas or another accelerant. Is it LEGAL To posses gas and put it in a container?...of course. I could go to the hardware store or grocery and purchase perfectly legal items ad go home ad make all sorts of bombs, poison gas ad "weapons"  I could also hit a intruder to my home on the head with a chair, stab him with a phillips head screwdriver or push a pencil ito his eye.

What is my INTEnT in possessing a chair, a screwdriver, a pencil or a gallon of gas?  Is it to assault people with....no, of course not, but if needed, I can defend my self with those items, the courts will determie if my actios in defending my home ad my person were legal or not. What is my iet in buying legal materials at a grocery store ad coming home and concocting explosives? 

now lets switch it over to firearms which under the 2d you have a RIGHT to own....unless you PROVE that you used it illegally.  I want a pistol for self defense, or I keep a shotgun for that purpose.....fine, this is for my home defense or  defense of my family...that is my intent, the guns are legally bought, legally owned and I assure you I am amply trained and qualified to handle such weapons.

I dont have molotov cocktails to defend my self or my home? Why? Because I'd burn down my house if I used that.  I dont have a 81 MM Mortar either....again I'd blow up my house if I used it. N o, such "weapons" are IMPRACTICLE for self defense they are no good for anything other than use in a war to breach the enemies walls or fortifications....OR TO BURN SOMETHING TO THE GROUND.

See, conservatives look at the individual and determine the reasonableness the practicality of his actions....NOT THE WEAPON ITSELF BUT THE APPLICATION OF THAT WEAPON

Thats why all this hoo haw over "assault weapons" is so much nonesense.  What is my intent in possessing such weapon?  Self defense?  Hunting target shooting or collecting?  ALL LEGAL, so what if it has a night scope, a barrel shroud or any of the other acoutremets that scares liberals so much.

SO WTF is this scumbag illegal alien doing with a weapon of TERROR designed to burn things down?

Billy, I didn't think of it like this.  You presented this in a logical, linear (A to B to C)  and concrete way.  And, it's direct language instead of round-about and vague.  I wish more ppl would communicate this way.  It would make things so much easier.   Now, that you explained it better for the 2nd guy I stand corrected.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 14, 2019, 03:33:50 PM
If anyone wants to see a hilarious "debate" on global warming, check out the comment section below this article:

https://conservativehardliner.com/physics-professor-william-happer-were-carbon-drought


Solar has him about ready to swallow his own tongue.  I just want him to answer two basic questions he already asserted, but is avoiding it at all costs, because once he does (either way he answers them), I can beat him in the head with them, hence why he's trying to stay "fluid" and just copy-and-paste.

Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 14, 2019, 03:56:54 PM
Zak, I was going to buy your book, but the description was wayyyy to defeatist for me.  It's a shame you're putting this "we lost" narrative out there.  I, myself, consider that fake news.

Don't disclose if you're not comfortable with it, but may I ask your age?  Or, to ask another way, how many political cycles have you lived through?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 14, 2019, 04:08:14 PM
I am seventy. I'll have to think more about your comment, maybe I should change the description a little. You have a good point. Thanks, taxed.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Cryptic Bert on June 14, 2019, 05:20:11 PM
You don't really debate them. You hit them with facts and then put on your helmet and wait for the caterwauling and death threats.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 14, 2019, 05:38:40 PM
Quote from: taxed on June 14, 2019, 03:33:50 PM
If anyone wants to see a hilarious "debate" on global warming, check out the comment section below this article:

https://conservativehardliner.com/physics-professor-william-happer-were-carbon-drought


Solar has him about ready to swallow his own tongue.  I just want him to answer two basic questions he already asserted, but is avoiding it at all costs, because once he does (either way he answers them), I can beat him in the head with them, hence why he's trying to stay "fluid" and just copy-and-paste.
I was thinking about this while reading Zaks excerpt. You never debate a lib on their narrative, you own the debate and make it yours.
Just as we have done with these two paid trolls, they keep pasting UNIPC BS and we refuse to argue it, rather take their argument and play it against them. What is science?
These kids keep claiming a theory has been proven, yet we still can't predict the weather beyond a week, had they proven AGW as fact, that would mean we have a solid understanding of climate, which the UNIPC has yet to accomplish.
Point is, you never let the left own the narrative, Ever!

We're winning on all fronts, we just have to recognize this and move forward and ignore their argument altogether.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 14, 2019, 05:44:21 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 14, 2019, 04:08:14 PM
I am seventy. I'll have to think more about your comment, maybe I should change the description a little. You have a good point. Thanks, taxed.

Oh, well, you have a few decades on me.  I'm not saying it is a negative book, but I've done negative during Hussein and end of Bush.  I'm personally more interested in how we're winning because THAT isn't covered in the main stream...
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: walkstall on June 14, 2019, 06:33:58 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2019, 05:38:40 PM
I was thinking about this while reading Zaks excerpt. You never debate a lib on their narrative, you own the debate and make it yours.
Just as we have done with these two paid trolls, they keep pasting UNIPC BS and we refuse to argue it, rather take their argument and play it against them. What is science?
These kids keep claiming a theory has been proven, yet we still can't predict the weather beyond a week, had they proven AGW as fact, that would mean we have a solid understanding of climate, which the UNIPC has yet to accomplish.
Point is, you never let the left own the narrative, Ever!

We're winning on all fronts, we just have to recognize this and move forward and ignore their argument altogether.

Hell they can't predict the weather beyond a day.  I check the weather everyday for 10 days out and for the 10 days they get about 4 days right.  For a week they are in the ballpark some weeks.   :lol:
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Possum on June 15, 2019, 03:04:18 AM
Quote from: walkstall on June 14, 2019, 06:33:58 PM
Hell they can't predict the weather beyond a day.  I check the weather everyday for 10 days out and for the 10 days they get about 4 days right.  For a week they are in the ballpark some weeks.   :lol:
Sometimes, they can get what happened yesterday correct.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: walkstall on June 15, 2019, 05:58:10 AM
Quote from: s3779m on June 15, 2019, 03:04:18 AM
Sometimes, they can get what happened yesterday correct.

I live in the British Columbia Desert in South Eastern Washington.  In the summer you have hot 80º hotter 100º and damn hot. (up to 115º)  We get very little rain in the Summer that starts June 21.  This month we have had 5 days of 100º and it's only June 15, it will be 91º so they say.  :lol:
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 15, 2019, 06:03:49 AM
Quote from: walkstall on June 14, 2019, 06:33:58 PM
Hell they can't predict the weather beyond a day.  I check the weather everyday for 10 days out and for the 10 days they get about 4 days right.  For a week they are in the ballpark some weeks.   :lol:
Yeah, that is sooo true, I don't know how many times they claimed we'd have clear weather. only to get another 10" of snow. They tootally missed our record rains a couple of years back while holding onto the global warming drought.
Then again this last winter, another reccord breaking amount of rain and snow, the Sierra snowpack sits around 200%, they'll be skiing in July, which means snow all yera, which means the start of a new glacier. :lol:
I swear, these libs glom onto a belief, and even when nature proves them wrong, they deny reality. I guess that's why they hate God so much.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 15, 2019, 10:27:05 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 14, 2019, 10:57:45 AM
I Just Told You!!!

"Weapons of mass destruction are not protected under the 2nd, neither are weapons that can maim multiple people, as in grenades, Molotov cocktails and bombs.".
Can you not deduce on your own what that encompases, entails?

No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people.  My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours.  So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not. 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: walkstall on June 16, 2019, 06:17:57 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 15, 2019, 10:27:05 PM
No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people. My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours. So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not.


No shit!  You are part of the government world.  Not the real working world.  When the taxpayer government check stops your whole world will stop.  You will be on the street corner begging.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 06:49:24 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 15, 2019, 10:27:05 PM
No, I can't.  Reason!  I don't think like you.  I don't think like most people.  My interpretation of what people say and their writings are different then yours.  So, I don't get how you are able to derive that these things are not covered under the 2nd amendment yet gun control is not.
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.

Weapons of mass destruction, that would be bombs, be it hand grenades to nuclear bombs, all are prohibited because they can maim multiple people at a time, meaning you are targeting the innocent indiscriminately.
So what does that leave you? Guns, knives, bats and a myriad of small arms, but under the law you can have and own fighter jets, tanks, because if a military can have it, you can too, they just have to be registered.

The first part assures the people the Right to form an army. The second part guarantees that the govt never ever interfere with the right to bear weapons.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With one restriction, you can't own weapons that kill indiscriminately.
The restrictions make sense, only because we have crazy people in the world and a bomb doesn't have a sight or targeting device. Personally, I hate any restriction, because truth is, laws mean nothing to those Hell bent on killing you.
But with this knowledge, can you now deduce what is allowed and what is not? Instead of asking silly questions, why don't you read the federalist Papers, they literally explain everything about our govt.
Don't pay lip service, look it up, read it then get back to me.

Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 16, 2019, 08:05:27 AM
I kind of agree with both solar and alienhand. Before I explain what I mean, let me duck because I expect bullets flying in my direction from left and right.
I apologize to solar and alienhand if I misrepresent their positions.

I agree with solar that there should be some exception to the second amendment. Nobody should be allowed a gun that shoots with H-miniature bombs, or some biological or chemical bullets, for example.

I also agree with alienhand that it's not what the second amendment says. It makes no exceptions.

The technology created weapons that the founders were not aware of. The Second Amendment should be changed. It's politically difficult, but it's in the interest of conservative as well, because otherwise the liberals will make the case to the rest of the public that the Second Amendment should be abolished. Or they will make various laws effectively killing it.

I also agree with both alienhand and solar that free expression of thought is always healthy and should be encouraged.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Sick Of Silence on June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
QuoteA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Militia, = ordinary citizens

being necessary to the security of a free State, = defense against tyranny

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, = personal gun ownership

shall not be infringed. = gun laws are Unconstitutional

It talks about guns, not explosive devices.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 01:25:22 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 16, 2019, 08:05:27 AM
I kind of agree with both solar and alienhand. Before I explain what I mean, let me duck because I expect bullets flying in my direction from left and right.
I apologize to solar and alienhand if I misrepresent their positions.

I agree with solar that there should be some exception to the second amendment. Nobody should be allowed a gun that shoots with H-miniature bombs, or some biological or chemical bullets, for example.

I also agree with alienhand that it's not what the second amendment says. It makes no exceptions.

The technology created weapons that the founders were not aware of. The Second Amendment should be changed. It's politically difficult, but it's in the interest of conservative as well, because otherwise the liberals will make the case to the rest of the public that the Second Amendment should be abolished. Or they will make various laws effectively killing it.

I also agree with both alienhand and solar that free expression of thought is always healthy and should be encouraged.
Nah, the 2nd does not need redefining, it stands on its own merit in context with the Bill of Rights.
Open that can o worms, and you can kiss the Bill of Rights good bye.
Problem with your statement is, conceding to the left to prevent an unknown scenario in the future. The GOP is to blame for how far the country has fallen leftward, all because of appeasement and concessions.
The only way to deal with leftists is when they make demands, tell them to sit down and shut the fuck up, when we want an idiots opinion, we'll cal on them.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 16, 2019, 01:41:10 PM
Sick of Silence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble. It has literary and historical meaning but no legal meaning. That's, by the way, is the main defense of the Amendment argued before the Supreme Court against those who say we don't have militia and don't need the Amendment. 
It says nothing about guns. It talks about arms. Besides, pretty soon high schoolers will be able to buy laser guns and H-bomb guns on a Black market. In our high school, they already have those (a joke.)
Solar, this fight is unavoidable, it's already started. I am not sure whether tactically it's good or bad to advocate changing the law. I tend to agree with you, that as long as it's not a real threat it's better not to raise the issue. But sooner or later we'll have to fight in ideas world and it does not hurt to review the options. 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 01:53:01 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 16, 2019, 01:41:10 PM
Sick of Silence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a preamble. It has literary and historical meaning but no legal meaning. That's, by the way, is the main defense of the Amendment argued before the Supreme Court against those who say we don't have militia and don't need the Amendment. 
It says nothing about guns. It talks about arms. Besides, pretty soon high schoolers will be able to buy laser guns and H-bomb guns on a Black market. In our high school, they already have those (a joke.)
Solar, this fight is unavoidable, it's already started. I am not sure whether tactically it's good or bad to advocate changing the law. I tend to agree with you, that as long as it's not a real threat it's better not to raise the issue. But sooner or later we'll have to fight in ideas world and it does not hurt to review the options.
Zak, do me a favor when you reply, keep on reply per post, otherwise it may get missed.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights stands on its own, separate from the Govt, against govt, because it was designed as a wall intended to keep govt in check.
Allowing govt to dictate any part of the BofR, defeats its purpose. The Bill can never be touched, ever again. Allowing the Fed to place restrictions on it in the 30s with the help of the NRA was illegal and should be overturned.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 16, 2019, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2019, 01:53:01 PM
Zak, do me a favor when you reply, keep on reply per post, otherwise it may get missed.

Like I said, the Bill of Rights stands on its own, separate from the Govt, against govt, because it was designed as a wall intended to keep govt in check.
Allowing govt to dictate any part of the BofR, defeats its purpose. The Bill can never be touched, ever again. Allowing the Fed to place restrictions on it in the 30s with the help of the NRA was illegal and should be overturned.

The changes could be good or bad, but there's nothing wrong with the ability to make changes.  The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and another part of the Constitution is the ability to make changes, or Amendments, Article 5. The entire Bill of Rights is added to the Constitution as amendments.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 16, 2019, 02:11:54 PM
The changes could be good or bad, but there's nothing wrong with the ability to make changes.  The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution and another part of the Constitution is the ability to make changes, or Amendments, Article 5. The entire Bill of Rights is added to the Constitution as amendments.
No, the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution, it is a stand alone document forbidding the govt interference with what are God Given Rights.
Keep in mind, when the Founders finalized the Constitution, the anti-federalists refused to back it, said it did not go far enough in protecting the Rights of individuals, so the Bill was created as an impediment towards govt.
So no, they are not part of one another, the Bill of Rights stands alone against govt interference.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 16, 2019, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2019, 02:57:02 PM
No, the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution, it is a stand alone document forbidding the govt interference with what are God Given Rights.
Keep in mind, when the Founders finalized the Constitution, the anti-federalists refused to back it, said it did not go far enough in protecting the Rights of individuals, so the Bill was created as an impediment towards govt.
So no, they are not part of one another, the Bill of Rights stands alone against govt interference.

The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 04:56:30 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 16, 2019, 03:06:48 PM
The 10 amendments that are now known as the Bill of Rights were ratified on December 15, 1791, thus becoming a part of the Constitution.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-bill-of-rights
You're missing the point. And yes, I misspoke. what I meant was the original intent, where the original 10 is what guaranteed our Constitution. The Constitution was drawn up and finalized. However, had a Bill of Rights not been ratified, we wouldn't have had a Constitution.
What separates the two, is the fact that the original 10 Amendments, Bill of Rights is essentially written in stone, our very existence depends on them.
This is what separates the two, yes, they are essentially connected, Article V covers it, and yes, it would require two thirds of both Houses to amend it, or two thirds of the states. if the original 10 are ever amended, our Republic is dead and a dictatorship will follow, guaranteed.

I know I'm not making myself clear. But the Constitution was drawn up as a final document. Done. But the anti Federalists wanted a separate document guaranteeing certain Rights that the Govt could not touch.
This why I said they were separate. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Zak on June 16, 2019, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2019, 04:56:30 PM
You're missing the point. And yes, I misspoke. what I meant was the original intent, where the original 10 is what guaranteed our Constitution. The Constitution was drawn up and finalized. However, had a Bill of Rights not been ratified, we wouldn't have had a Constitution.
What separates the two, is the fact that the original 10 Amendments, Bill of Rights is essentially written in stone, our very existence depends on them.
This is what separates the two, yes, they are essentially connected, Article V covers it, and yes, it would require two thirds of both Houses to amend it, or two thirds of the states. if the original 10 are ever amended, our Republic is dead and a dictatorship will follow, guaranteed.

I know I'm not making myself clear. But the Constitution was drawn up as a final document. Done. But the anti Federalists wanted a separate document guaranteeing certain Rights that the Govt could not touch.
This why I said they were separate. Does that make sense?

Sure, I understood what you were saying. It was just a technicality that I wanted to correct mainly for the benefits of others who might not have paid attention to the entire conversation.

Without the Bill of Rights we would be living in a Big Jail.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 16, 2019, 05:33:12 PM
Quote from: Zak on June 16, 2019, 05:03:18 PM
Sure, I understood what you were saying. It was just a technicality that I wanted to correct mainly for the benefits of others who might not have paid attention to the entire conversation.

Without the Bill of Rights we would be living in a Big Jail.
Yep, there's no doubt how the left would have interpreted the Constitution to fit their dictatorship.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 16, 2019, 09:06:38 PM
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2019, 06:49:24 AM
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.

Weapons of mass destruction, that would be bombs, be it hand grenades to nuclear bombs, all are prohibited because they can maim multiple people at a time, meaning you are targeting the innocent indiscriminately.
So what does that leave you? Guns, knives, bats and a myriad of small arms, but under the law you can have and own fighter jets, tanks, because if a military can have it, you can too, they just have to be registered.

The first part assures the people the Right to form an army. The second part guarantees that the govt never ever interfere with the right to bear weapons.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

With one restriction, you can't own weapons that kill indiscriminately.
The restrictions make sense, only because we have crazy people in the world and a bomb doesn't have a sight or targeting device. Personally, I hate any restriction, because truth is, laws mean nothing to those Hell bent on killing you.
But with this knowledge, can you now deduce what is allowed and what is not? Instead of asking silly questions, why don't you read the federalist Papers, they literally explain everything about our govt.
Don't pay lip service, look it up, read it then get back to me.

Solar, the burden of proof is upon to show where exactly the exceptions are and to make your case.  It's not up to me to trawl through documents to prove the negation of what you say.  You say there are exceptions.  Where?  Where do the founding fathers specifically state any exceptions exist? 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 16, 2019, 09:23:40 PM
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
A well regulated Militia, = ordinary citizens

Regulated = disciplined and well equipped.   They keep their guns, ammo, etc well maintained and secured when not using them.   They're disciplined with their emotions and they don't get cocky. Some gun owners I see on youtube videos are not regulated at all.  So, should every ordinary citizen have a gun?  Should a person who is having a full blown schizophrenic episode have a gun.  Are they well regulated?  I don't think so.


Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
being necessary to the security of a free State, = defense against tyranny

Agreed!

Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, = personal gun ownership

How do you derive that the word "Arms" means gun only and not weapon?

Let's use Solar's dictionary since he rejects modern dictionaries since he believes them to be of liberal construction. 

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/arms

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

Going by his dictionary of what arms means it doesn't limit the weapons at all.
Quote from: Sick Of Silence on June 16, 2019, 01:04:03 PM
shall not be infringed. = gun laws are Unconstitutional

It talks about guns, not explosive devices.

How do you derive arms to meaning guns only?  Can you explain this, show this and prove this to be the case?


Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 01:23:54 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 16, 2019, 06:49:24 AM
It's called the process of deduction or rather elimination. If I gave you a list of shit you can't have, then you simply compare that to what is available.



I have a problem with your reasoning.  I will explain why your reasoning is overly simplistic.  Let's say I have a jar of differing colored jelly beans.  Let's say all I'm told is I'm not allowed to have black jelly beans.  What does this mean?  Does it mean I'm allowed to have the rest of them?  Your way of thinking would be to assume yes but I say not necessarily so.  I have no idea whether I'm allowed to have the others or not.  I know I can put the blacks in the can't have jar.  But, do I put the other colored ones in the can have jar?  What about ones that may look dark purplish but to the other person who said I'm not allowed to have the black ones they looked black to them. 

See, that's the problem.  It's not as simple as you think. 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 02:22:23 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 01:23:54 AM
I have a problem with your reasoning.  I will explain why your reasoning is overly simplistic.  Let's say I have a jar of differing colored jelly beans.  Let's say all I'm told is I'm not allowed to have black jelly beans.  What does this mean?  Does it mean I'm allowed to have the rest of them?  Your way of thinking would be to assume yes but I say not necessarily so.  I have no idea whether I'm allowed to have the others or not.  I know I can put the blacks in the can't have jar.  But, do I put the other colored ones in the can have jar?  What about ones that may look dark purplish but to the other person who said I'm not allowed to have the black ones they looked black to them. 

See, that's the problem.  It's not as simple as you think.

It is simple.

If you're told you can't have a particular color jellybean, then why were you not told you can't have the others?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:00:29 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 02:22:23 AM
It is simple.

If you're told you can't have a particular color jellybean, then why were you not told you can't have the others?

And, that's a very good question.   It would be strange indeed.   Quite honestly I would not know why I was not told I can't have the others.  I have no idea what the other person was thinking.   Just like I don't get why people think the way they do or why they do the things they do?  And, when people write things I don't get why they never say what they mean but instead speak in a round about fashion.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:02:39 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:00:29 AM
And, that's a very good question.   It would be strange indeed.   Quite honestly I would not know why I was not told I can't have the others.  I have no idea what the other person was thinking.   Just like I don't get why people think the way they do or why they do the things they do?  And, when people write things I don't get why they never say what they mean but instead speak in a round about fashion.

Per Solar's point, that's where logic comes into play.  Forget about all the what-ifs and who's thinking what and just stick to logic.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:18:11 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:02:39 AM
Per Solar's point, that's where logic comes into play.  Forget about all the what-ifs and who's thinking what and just stick to logic.

Ok Taxed.  Let's try this a different way.

What is 2 + 2?   My first answer that would be off the cuff would be 4.  This is based upon the based 10 number system which the average person gets.  But, that assumes we're using the base 10 number system and we're doing a summation at all.

Why can't the + symbol mean concatenation as well? 

In summation (base 10) 2 + 2 =4.

In concatenation, 2 + 2 = 22. 

Which logic applies here? 

Back to this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does Solar derives what he derives from this?  It's him who made the claim.  He should be able to back it up and explain it.  Not acting like a liberal does and telling someone to read something instead of backing their stuff up?   

It's like he's just saying things from thin air and not explaining how we get from A to B to C. 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: lecarrjan on June 17, 2019, 03:28:05 AM
You are not going to win any argument with anyone about [guns abortion etc] with facts and reason for beliefs are not based on facts and reason, they are based on emotion. 


http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/argument.html


"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:29:46 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:18:11 AM
Ok Taxed.  Let's try this a different way.

What is 2 + 2?   My first answer that would be off the cuff would be 4.  This is based upon the based 10 number system which the average person gets.  But, that assumes we're using the base 10 number system and we're doing a summation at all.

Why can't the + symbol mean concatenation as well? 

In summation (base 10) 2 + 2 =4.

In concatenation, 2 + 2 = 22. 

Which logic applies here? 

It's always 4, because you set the context as adding two base 10 numbers.

For example, some programming languages do indeed use the '+' as a string concatenation operator, e.g. JavaScript: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Expressions_and_Operators#String_operators

The '+' is also an arithmetic operator.  JavaScript, at runtime, determines what the two datatypes are and figures out the context of the operator.  If you did want to concatenate a 2 and a 2 to make 22, you'd specify the two operands as a string by wrapping them in quotes, e.g. "2" + "2" == "22".

Point being, the context is established up front of what you're trying to do.


Quote
Back to this.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does Solar derives what he derives from this?  It's him who made the claim.  He should be able to back it up and explain it.  Not acting like a liberal does and telling someone to read something instead of backing their stuff up?
What in the hell are you talking about?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:43:26 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:29:46 AM
It's always 4, because you set the context as adding two base 10 numbers.

For example, some programming languages do indeed use the '+' as a string concatenation operator, e.g. JavaScript: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Guide/Expressions_and_Operators#String_operators

The '+' is also an arithmetic operator.  JavaScript, at runtime, determines what the two datatypes are and figures out the context of the operator.  If you did want to concatenate a 2 and a 2 to make 22, you'd specify the two operands as a string by wrapping them in quotes, e.g. "2" + "2" =="22".

Point being, the context is established up front of what you're trying to do.

Taxed, you provided me with some helpful information.  If I'm understanding you correctly certain meanings, definitions and contexts is simply just accepted.  And, concerning the 2nd amendment Solar, you and others have read these things like the federalist papers and are simply that the founding fathers had that is inferred from their writings.  Is that correct?  And, what Solar is telling me is read through these things myself and try to derive these meanings on my own from these things, is this correct?

Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:29:46 AM

What in the hell are you talking about?

Nothing!  Nevermind on this one!
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:47:46 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:43:26 AM
Taxed, you provided me with some helpful information.  If I'm understanding you correctly certain meanings, definitions and contexts is simply just accepted.

Correct. However, if you don't know the context, there's this amazing technique I've learned over the years; it's called "asking a question".

Quote
And, concerning the 2nd amendment Solar, you and others have read these things like the federalist papers and are simply that the founding fathers had that is inferred from their writings.  Is that correct?  And, what Solar is telling me is read through these things myself and try to derive these meanings on my own from these things, is this correct?

I can't really help you here, because I don't know how much more simple and clear the Second Amendment could possibly be.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:59:45 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:47:46 AM
Correct. However, if you don't know the context, there's this amazing technique I've learned over the years; it's called "asking a question".


If I ask the question and others won't give the answer saying things along the lines that it is common sense then what?

Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 03:47:46 AM
I can't really help you here, because I don't know how much more simple and clear the Second Amendment could possibly be.

Honestly, you really can't not in a direct sense.  And, that's b/c sometimes the question is to simply to really give an answer.   Example:   Could you explain to someone how to breath or take in a breath and exhale?   Certain things are so automatic and instinctual that one may do or know things at an unconscious level.  Am I making sense?  Even the founding fathers said that certain things were self-evident.  Maybe to them certain things were so plain and obvious that they couldn't explain it but in the most simple terms. 

Some things are simply to simple to explain.  If you get what I'm saying. 

My dead grandmother had a saying.  "You're so smart, you dope."  Trust me, my grandmother was blunt on things. 
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:05:43 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:59:45 AM
If I ask the question and others won't give the answer saying things along the lines that it is common sense then what?
Then ask again.

Quote
Honestly, you really can't not in a direct sense.  And, that's b/c sometimes the question is to simply to really give an answer.   Example:   Could you explain to someone how to breath or take in a breath and exhale?   Certain things are so automatic and instinctual that one may do or know things at an unconscious level.  Am I making sense?  Even the founding fathers said that certain things were self-evident.  Maybe to them certain things were so plain and obvious that they couldn't explain it but in the most simple terms. 

Some things are simply to simple to explain.  If you get what I'm saying.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying.  The Second Amendment is as simple as "See spot run".
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:13:37 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:05:43 AM
Then ask again.
I honestly have no idea what you're saying.  The Second Amendment is as simple as "See spot run".

I'll ask again.

And, it's fine you don't understand what I'm saying.  Let's just say I'm coming to a conclusion and coming up with a concept and I'm just mulling about it in my mind.   
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:14:32 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:13:37 AM
I'll ask again.

And, it's fine you don't understand what I'm saying.  Let's just say I'm coming to a conclusion and coming up with a concept and I'm just mulling about it in my mind.

Ask what?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:25:35 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:14:32 AM
Ask what?

meaning, I'll ask again like you said.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:25:57 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:25:35 AM
meaning, I'll ask again like you said.

Oh boy.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:43:46 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:25:57 AM
Oh boy.

???
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:44:39 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:43:46 AM
???

Let me ask, why don't you learn to code and just take people out of the equation all together?  Seriously, it would give your brain something to crunch on while being productive.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:48:56 AM
Quote from: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:44:39 AM
Let me ask, why don't you learn to code and just take people out of the equation all together?  Seriously, it would give your brain something to crunch on while being productive.

I do know how to code.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: taxed on June 17, 2019, 04:51:07 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 04:48:56 AM
I do know how to code.

Then you can help us with some stuff on Hardliner.  What's your Github?
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 17, 2019, 05:26:00 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:43:26 AM
Taxed, you provided me with some helpful information.  If I'm understanding you correctly certain meanings, definitions and contexts is simply just accepted.  And, concerning the 2nd amendment Solar, you and others have read these things like the federalist papers and are simply that the founding fathers had that is inferred from their writings.  Is that correct?  And, what Solar is telling me is read through these things myself and try to derive these meanings on my own from these things, is this correct?

Nothing!  Nevermind on this one!
Yes, it's in the Federalist papers. The very reason they were released to the public, so the people could all be on the same page in knowing what kind of govt they were about to agree upon.

But better yet are some of the quotes from our Founders and why it is so Damned important that the Constitution and Bill of Rights be pounded into the heads of our children.
Here's why I know what the Second means, I've read all there is on the subject.
Here's a collection of quotes explaining their mentality, they couldn't be any clearer. Note the dates, they were still clarifying nearly a decade later.
For this very reason, we can never define the 2nd further, it speaks for itself.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." – George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them." – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." – James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..." – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." – William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms...  "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." – Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." – St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves." – Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." – Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." – Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 17, 2019, 05:37:12 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 03:59:45 AM
If I ask the question and others won't give the answer saying things along the lines that it is common sense then what?

Honestly, you really can't not in a direct sense.  And, that's b/c sometimes the question is to simply to really give an answer.   Example:   Could you explain to someone how to breath or take in a breath and exhale?   Certain things are so automatic and instinctual that one may do or know things at an unconscious level.  Am I making sense?  Even the founding fathers said that certain things were self-evident.  Maybe to them certain things were so plain and obvious that they couldn't explain it but in the most simple terms. 

Some things are simply to simple to explain.  If you get what I'm saying. 

My dead grandmother had a saying.  "You're so smart, you dope."  Trust me, my grandmother was blunt on things.
There's a reason you are missing a ton of information and why you are unable to come to any conclusion. You are completely ignorant of our history.
Most of your questions are basic commonsense, assuming you had an understanding of our history, but you do not, so to you these are complex in nature because it forces us to give you basic knowledge and background.
Something you should have learned in school, but the left wants you ignorant for a reason, so they didn't teach you, and here you are now, doubting the language of our Constitution, so they succeeded.
So do yourself a favor, read the Federalist Papers, they really aren't that long or hard to understand.

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedi.htm
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 11:29:12 AM
Solar, you're not upset with me nor did I offend you or anyone on here?  Sometimes I can come off as an ass sometimes.  I don't mean to be. 

I've read your quotes from the founding fathers and going to read the federalist papers.  I've read part of the first one so far.  One of the things established is that we must have a gov't.  So, obviously they didn't believe in anarcho-capitalism.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 17, 2019, 02:56:07 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 11:29:12 AM
Solar, you're not upset with me nor did I offend you or anyone on here?  Sometimes I can come off as an ass sometimes.  I don't mean to be. 

I've read your quotes from the founding fathers and going to read the federalist papers.  I've read part of the first one so far.  One of the things established is that we must have a gov't.  So, obviously they didn't believe in anarcho-capitalism.
Nope. I may come off as an ass as well, but that's just because I tend to be blunt and concise.
Just keep reading, you have much to learn. The Founders believed in free mkt, period.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Billy's bayonet on June 17, 2019, 04:17:31 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 16, 2019, 09:23:40 PM
Regulated = disciplined and well equipped.   They keep their guns, ammo, etc well maintained and secured when not using them.   They're disciplined with their emotions and they don't get cocky. Some gun owners I see on youtube videos are not regulated at all.  So, should every ordinary citizen have a gun?  Should a person who is having a full blown schizophrenic episode have a gun.  Are they well regulated?  I don't think so.


How do you derive that the word "Arms" means gun only and not weapon?

1. Weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body.

Going by his dictionary of what arms means it doesn't limit the weapons at all.
How do you derive arms to meaning guns only?  Can you explain this, show this and prove this to be the case?

no every citizen should not be required to have firearms, but a citizen is entitled to have a firearm....Society can take away your rights....they do it everytime you get convicted of a offense and get set to jail/prison, you have few rights in prison, therfore you should not have the "right" to own a firearm when there is proof  you may likely use it to commit/continue committing crimes.

'Arms' are taken in the context of our constitution to mean "FIREARMS"  firearms trump all  other weapons like swords spears, pikes axes and knives or bows/arrows. 

REsearch the evolution of Japan from a fuedal society where only certain people were allowed to be ARMED (with swords)  See what happened whe peasants ad peasant armies got their hands on guns supplied by Dutch, English ad America traders, firearms defeated the finest swordsmen known to history.

One last thought for you to ponder, the RIGHT to bear arms  implies you have the right of self defense
against whomever, a home invasion gang a maurding raider, a hostile foreign power or a tyranical Govt.  The courts have up held the RIGHT OF SELF DEFENSE may times in many cases where a homeower shot a intruder/assailant.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 08:58:15 PM
Implied is the operative word.  When I read these things I need to look for what is being implied.  Sort of like what's the fine print? Most ppl, even the founding fathers, don't think and write in a literal way like I do.   
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 17, 2019, 10:03:52 PM
Quote from: alienhand on June 17, 2019, 08:58:15 PM
Implied is the operative word.  When I read these things I need to look for what is being implied.  Sort of like what's the fine print? Most ppl, even the founding fathers, don't think and write in a literal way like I do.
The Founding Documents were concise, there was no mistaking their intent, they were written so even an idiot could grasp their meaning.
The Founders intent was a super lean and small unintrusive govt. That's why the Bill of Rights was created, assuring the govt was hamstrung and kept away from God Given Rights.
That's the approach you need to take when reading the Federalist Papers. Our Founders despised govt, and saw it as a necessary evil.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 18, 2019, 12:51:17 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 17, 2019, 10:03:52 PM
The Founding Documents were concise, there was no mistaking their intent, they were written so even an idiot could grasp their meaning.
The Founders intent was a super lean and small unintrusive govt. That's why the Bill of Rights was created, assuring the govt was hamstrung and kept away from God Given Rights.
That's the approach you need to take when reading the Federalist Papers. Our Founders despised govt, and saw it as a necessary evil.


I'm on number 3.  So far, what I understand from reading these three is that

0.  All governments are inherently evil.

1.  A government must exist.

2.  It is better to have a bigger union then to have smaller confederacies and/or nations.

3.  All people have certain inalienable rights that governments are not allowed to violate.

4.  Governments job is to preserve this union while staying within certain bounds that make sure our inalienable rights are not violated.

5.  For a country to keep to this greater union the people must have certain similarities in traditions, beliefs, etc.

Am I on the ball park so far?


Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 18, 2019, 05:21:02 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 18, 2019, 12:51:17 AM

I'm on number 3.  So far, what I understand from reading these three is that

0.  All governments are inherently evil.

1.  A government must exist.

2.  It is better to have a bigger union then to have smaller confederacies and/or nations.

3.  All people have certain inalienable rights that governments are not allowed to violate.

4.  Governments job is to preserve this union while staying within certain bounds that make sure our inalienable rights are not violated.

5.  For a country to keep to this greater union the people must have certain similarities in traditions, beliefs, etc.

Am I on the ball park so far?
Congrats, you're starting to understand what we Conservatives are all about. :thumbup:
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 19, 2019, 04:05:25 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 18, 2019, 05:21:02 AM
Congrats, you're starting to understand what we Conservatives are all about. :thumbup:

Thanks!  Read #4 and it talks more about how unity is more important then having seperate confederate states and smaller divided countries.   

I'm starting to realize something from the four I read so far.  For a group of people to unite in harmony or as a nation

a.  the people that have to have more similarities and more common interests then differences and divided interests.

b.  There would have to be a pressing need like a foreign threat, extreme disaster, etc.

Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 19, 2019, 06:17:46 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 19, 2019, 04:05:25 AM
Thanks!  Read #4 and it talks more about how unity is more important then having seperate confederate states and smaller divided countries.   

I'm starting to realize something from the four I read so far.  For a group of people to unite in harmony or as a nation

a.  the people that have to have more similarities and more common interests then differences and divided interests.

b.  There would have to be a pressing need like a foreign threat, extreme disaster, etc.
This is what separates Conservatives from liberals.
We love the country, while libs are all about division, their entire party is comprised of self made victims.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: alienhand on June 23, 2019, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Solar on June 19, 2019, 06:17:46 AM
This is what separates Conservatives from liberals.
We love the country, while libs are all about division, their entire party is comprised of self made victims.

I will say that John Jay is a bit easier to read then Alexander Hamilton.  I don't know why though.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: walkstall on June 23, 2019, 04:35:11 AM
Quote from: alienhand on June 23, 2019, 12:37:23 AM
I will say that John Jay is a bit easier to read then Alexander Hamilton.  I don't know why though.


Some people when asked what time it is will tell you how to build a clock to give you the time.  Other will just tell you the time right out.
Title: Re: Debating liberals
Post by: Solar on June 23, 2019, 06:20:57 AM
Quote from: walkstall on June 23, 2019, 04:35:11 AM

Some people when asked what time it is will tell you how to build a clock to give you the time.  Other will just tell you the time right out.
Exactly! Some write in 'repair manual' speak, dry as a popcorn fart, while others write in dramatic prose. I prefer the manual approach myself, I could give a shit how someone "Feels" about any given subject.
If I want emotion, I'll watch a chick flick.  "Just The Facts Mam, just the facts" :biggrin: