Author Topic: Debating liberals  (Read 3358 times)

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #30 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?
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 01:16:15 AM by alienhand »

Online Sick Of Silence

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1303
  • Militant Libertarian
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #31 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).
Social Media are multi-national billion dollar corporations with foreign investors that are going unchecked with the power to effect our election process.

"Book burnings" have evolved into "de-plat forming". Its the same principles behind both: to eliminate accessible knowledge.

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #32 on: June 14, 2019, 10:57:45 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?
#WWG1WGA

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #33 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." 

Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #34 on: June 14, 2019, 02:05:16 PM »
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.
#WWG1WGA

Offline Billy's bayonet

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6229
  • Gender: Male
  • Fighting Communism since 1969
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #35 on: June 14, 2019, 03:06:34 PM »
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?
Evil operates best when under a disguise

TRUST THE PLAN

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #36 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.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2019, 03:42:53 PM by Zak »

Offline alienhand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 483
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2019, 03:17:37 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.

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23588
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #38 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.

Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23588
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #39 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?
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Offline Zak

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #40 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.

Offline The Boo Man...

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18355
  • Gender: Male
  • I shall play you the song of my people
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #41 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.


Offline Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66441
  • Gender: Male
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2019, 05:38:40 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.
#WWG1WGA

Offline taxed

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23588
  • Gender: Male
  • At some point, the money is due.
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2019, 05:44:21 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...
Gab  |  Disqus  |  BitChute  |  Minds | Parler

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25538
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: Debating liberals
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2019, 06:33:58 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:
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

 

Powered by EzPortal