DG on her own FB timeline.Wow, those two old, delusional, demented, power-happy, narcissistic, predatory perverts are actually going to have a "debate"? Oh well, this ought to do wonders for people's faith in the glory and legitimacy of our benevolent ruling class.
He can be all those things. He's still the greatest president we ever had.
Who is this "we"?
You can hate him all you want. Your ignorance in all things politics doesn't change the fact that he's still the greatest president ever
You confuse my indifference with hate.
If you vote for a politician to become a Legislator,
You vote for a person who drafts and enacts rules.
You vote for somebody who makes rules people must obey under penalty of death.
If you vote for a politician to become a Mayor, Governor, or President,
You vote for a person to enforce the rules made by Legislators.
You vote for somebody to make people obey or kill people if they resist.
Thus, If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.
Your ignorance of your enslavement and indoctrination doesn't change the fact that you are NOT living in "the land of the free and the home of the brave".
For that reason, I hope you will continue to learn about Larken Rose and his attempt to deprogram statist thinking.
That's why we're taking it back so that it is no longer corrupt. #Trump2020
To put a coarse point on my position.
Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who thought he could boycott taxes and ended up in jail and many years later broke up a marriage sleeping with a married woman. I saw his "dot" video. Great if you're a three year old. He can't debate for sh**.
I am well aware that there is corruption and we aren't 100% free. Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed. You can abandon it and moan and whine all you want. The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.
➽ That's why we're taking it back so that it is no longer corrupt. #Trump2020
Reading challenged?
Repeat:
➽ If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system.
Don't worry, facebook won't censor you. They love your types. They only censor people who speak truth.
"If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system." That's why you vote for people who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals". Jesus you sound like your avg low-IQ Larken bot. Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?
Sorry for taking so long to get back to your posts. I was saving our discussion on my website. I do that. I keep records of conversations for review to make sure questions I ask are answered. I also anonymize those I converse with by using just the initials. Plus it takes time to compose thoughtful posts.
That's done, so back to the discussion.
➽ Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who thought he could boycott taxes and ended up in jail [...]
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem
➽ He can't debate for sh**.
Pot-Kettle-Black.
What, specifically, do YOU know about the tax law? Let's see if you even have enough knowledge to discuss the ins and outs of Larken's entire interaction with "The Dragon."
➽ Larken Rose is a tool. A low-IQ individual who [...] many years later broke up a marriage sleeping with a married woman.
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument. Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
➽ He can't debate for sh**.
Pot-Kettle-Black.
Also, Since you and I do not know shit about Amanda's previous relationship with her ex, neither you nor I have any information to discuss on the topic with anybody. And in case you're still a virgin, It takes two to fuck.
And I did see that vid by Amanda's ex. The man was hurting. I am empathetic to that hurt because of my own failed marriage from other incompatibility issues. Yet I as a divorced man have a shit-load of questions that are none of my business to ask.
➽ I am well aware that there is corruption and we aren't 100% free.
That is, IMO, a good starting point. I emphasize STARTING point.
➽ Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed.
I acknowledge that you have stated your "opinion". I challenge you for stating your mere opinion as if it is a provable fact.
What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?
➽ You can abandon it and moan and whine all you want.
You mean like you whine and moan about the "other" candidate in the popularity contest?
See, For me, the issue is Liberty and Freedom, not "country".
IMO, you do not understand Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what Larken thinks about Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what I think about Liberty and Freedom. You do not understand what other who think like Larken and I I think about Liberty and Freedom.
➽ The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.
Before any of the rest of you can "attempt" to make something better, you need to understand what is wrong, what is broken. You need to fully "Grok" the problem. IMO, you do not. And that is what this discussion will bring to light. Not just for you and I, but for any silent reader.
⚠ It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope and pride. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.⛔
≈ Patrick Henry ≈
I do not think you are "willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst". How long you choose to continue our discussion will prove the point one way or the other.
➽ Jesus you sound like your avg low-IQ Larken bot. Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?
Beside the fact that you just did a second ad hominem (fallacy), I have a website filled with my "thoughts".
But I interpret your fluttering fingers as claiming the thoughts about Liberty, Freedom, what they are, and how to introduce the concepts to voting statist bots is not something original.
Me ➽ "If you vote, you give your consent to a gang of criminal extortionists and validate a corrupt system."
You ➽ That's why you vote for people who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals".
Translation "That's why you vote for a different gang of criminals who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals"."
➽ Can't you come up with an original thought on your own?
Martin Luther nailed his thesis to the Wittenburg church door,
Larken Rose mailed his thesis to Spaulding, the IRS whore,
Pope Leo X with Exsurge Domine answered with logic and fact,
The IRS having none chose to attack.
Larken, oh Larken, how dare you believe,
To ignore the IRS and their attempt to deceive,
We told you, we told you, we told you they chant,
But answers to questions they refuse to grant.
At your insistence twelve hundred did ask,
Six simple questions, that was our task,
Should I use this section and what does it say,
About how much taxes I really must pay.
We all must have mistakenly used invisible ink,
Or else the IRS chose not to think,
The answer they sent was only a threat,
If you ask these questions you will soon regret.
The IRS again and again chose to be truthless,
You didn't back down, so they got ruthless,
You are the one they put in a cage,
But I sit at the keyboard livid with rage.
Eventually we hope the truth will leak out,
So people will learn what eight sixty one's about,
It's actually no longer about payment of taxes,
It's about the Fed's choice to whack us with axes.
NeoCons are nazis with classier attire,
But still want to put Larken's book in a fire,
The story of Larken, this he has written,
Buy it and read it before it is smitten.
https://larkenrose.com/blog/861-blog/1625--sp-77951783.html
"Ad hominem bla bla bla" --- Ad hominem attacks are 100% acceptable when it matches up with what is being said.
"What, specifically, do YOU know about the tax law?" I'm not a tax lawyer and neither are you. And neither is Larken. I know what I need to know. A society needs taxes to function. He broke the law and went to jail for it.
"You attempted to manipulate an emotional response bla bla bla"
No. I'm clearly stating the reasons as to why I think he is a scumbag.
"I acknowledge that you have stated your "opinion". I challenge you for stating your mere opinion as if it is a provable fact.
What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?"
I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.
"IMO, you do not understand Liberty and Freedom"
I bathe in liberty and freedom. I know the Larken bots all too well. A bunch of communists in denial. Anarchism is a joke. If you clowns got your way we'd be speaking Chinese or Arabic within a week and then you can pretend to know all about liberty and freedom and what it takes to preserve/expand it.
You've got a lot of "IMO" and assumptions here. Says a lot about you.
"Translation "That's why you vote for a different gang of criminals who want to take power away from the "gang of criminals"."
No. The translation is you vote for people who aren't criminals, so they themselves can s hut the criminals down. That's right, people who are NOT criminals are allowed to run and they often do. Not everyone who runs by default is a criminal. Some of them aren't running to simply secure more power for themselves. Anarchist Larken bots seem to have a problem with distinguishing between these two things.
Larken and his team of mindless bots to me, are the flat Earthers of politics.
I can't believe you're comparing that pudgy commie little ginger wife-stealing midg** to any historical figures. Hilarious. And the poem is lame.
➽ "Ad hominem bla bla bla" --- Ad hominem attacks are 100% acceptable when it matches up with what is being said.
Wait! Didn't you claim LR "can't debate for sh**".
Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.
Yep. that's what you wrote:
➽ He can't debate for sh**.
Didn't I post what an ad hominem is?
Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.
Yep. That's what I posted:
➽ Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.
Didn't I call you on your Pot-Kettle-Black?
Scrolls up... Reads... Scrolls down.
Yep. That's what I posted. Perhaps you didn't comprehend what I meant and intended. Lemme help you increase your lexicon.
⚠ "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin, of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century. The idiom is glossed in the original sources as being used by a person who is guilty of the very thing of which they accuse another and is thus an example of psychological projection, or hypocrisy.⛔ Wikipedia
Why are you refusing to engage on what YOU posted, which sure looks to me that you "can't debate for sh**."
Looking forward to Larken coming on and refusing to debate. He'll go about it as your avg leftist does... Avoid giving any sort of rebuttal and resort to insults. And he is a leftist. Being in denial about it doesn't change anything.
➽ Looking forward to Larken coming on and refusing to debate.
You mean like you, already refusing to debate?
➽ I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.
⚠ semantics n. The study or science of meaning in language.⛔
Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
The questions are only rhetorical to those who refuse to debate concepts.
Refusing to debate? Just because you don't like the answers I'm giving doesn't mean I'm not debating.
Larken isn't going to "debate" me. I was 100% civil years ago when I attempted to debate him. Got him to say a few things but he would never answer my questions. I asked him the same exact 1 or 2 questions about half a dozen times over a span of a few weeks and he always avoided them. I finally asked the same questions but I included an insult in attempt to goad him into giving me an answer. The coward instead blocked me. This was on my main account of which fb permabanned a year and a half ago.
Larken is a coward. He doesn't have the brains to debate me.
He's old news. He's never gonna put out new, relevant info. He's too incompetent. He couldn't even if he wanted because his philosophy is too simplistic. It doesn't leave room for expansion. He can't see outside the box.
I would imagine that the real world confuses him which would explain why he could never answer my questions. He couldn't even give a wrong answer to my questions he would just ignore them entirely. Perhaps because I completely destroyed his ideology and therefore it was best for him to just ignore me altogether. Best to keep his scam going. Last thing he wants to do is adapt to reality. Best to ignore anything that might contradict that. He has his entire life invested in anarchism. His entire career. Your avg "anarchist" who has nothing to lose is usually too stubborn to concede. I don't expect some loser who scammed thousands of people for years to do the right thing and be a man... A man doesn't sleep with another man's wife so there's that.
Your "leader" is sitting on the sidelines picking his nose, convincing people not to vote because he's dumb enough to believe Trump and Biden are the same. At this point in time you have to be dumber than a rock to not see the difference. This bozo is keeping his zealots in line, making sure they step aside, continuing to boycott the vote.
You think fb wants to censor you? FB loves you. They want as many liberty-oriented people as possible not voting. I suspect there is some big money behind the anarchist movement. It wouldn't surprise me if even the LP has some shady backers. The Chinese gov loves "anarchists". As long as you keep promoting the abolition of our gov while continuing to brainwash people to boycott the system, you'll continue to be their best friends.
Larken should have made CHAZ his home while he had the chance. Perhaps he thinks he could have saved it or made it function better. I would have paid to see that.
You're welcome to put all of that on your "website". Can use my real name if you wish and link to my profile.
➽ Refusing to debate? Just because you don't like the answers I'm giving doesn't mean I'm not debating.
➽ I'm not entertaining your ridiculous rhetorical question if it's gonna be based on semantics.
⚠ semantics n. The study or science of meaning in language.⛔
Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
➽ The rest of us will be attempting to make our country better than it has ever been.
What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?
Sotto voce: I hope I don't have to limit myself to monosyllable words.
You asked me what the word country means. That's what I was responding to with my "semantics" comment. I have no interest in giving you the satisfaction of your low-IQ "anarchist" Red Amendment nonsensical made-up talking point.
While you're at it could you upload this vid to your website as well? It explains the failure of your philosophy. It was made about 20 years ago so it doesn't include exactly how we'd lose our country in today's terms if you and your buddies get what they want. In today's world, the Chinese or whoever the central banking oligarch decides will have all the fun, will come straight into our country the second you and your buddies destabilize it. You and Larken will have your own CHAZ communities for a few days. Maybe a week or two and then you'll be forced into a Chinese-American concentration camp having a cattle prod shoved up your ***. The Chinese owns the democrats by the way. They don't own Trump or his loyalists... But yea, Biden and Trump are totally the same thing. Way to adapt to reality. Keep preaching your philosophy though. I'm sure you can convince a majority of the population to have the logic of a 3 year old. It's totally a marketing problem on your end and in no way a logic problem. In no way is your "philosophy" flawed...
➽ You asked me what the word country means. That's what I was responding to with my "semantics" comment. I have no interest in giving you the satisfaction of your low-IQ "anarchist" Red Amendment nonsensical made-up talking point.
Translation: I don't wanna explain what I mean because then that nasty man will challenge me when I attempt to obfuscate with deliberate equivocation. If that nasty man knows what I'm trying to say, he might actually address what I'm attempting to present.
Voltaire's Admonition: If you wish to communicate, first define your terms.
Refuses to define terms used:
Refuses to communicate using defined terms:
so yes - Refuses to debate.
Third inquiry: What, specifically, do you mean by "country"?
You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap. You also seem to be getting more and more pretentious every time you repeat yourself. Here. I'll entertain your ridiculousness while you avoid literally every other thing I've said. I don't expect you to give me anything that resembles a rebuttal when it comes to everything else I've said. You'll ignore it and stick to the game plan which is continue to indirectly promote communism (anarchism). And if that confuses you, read my last comment very slowly and watch the video.
By the way. When you ask someone a rhetorical question and they refuse to answer, it's your job to answer the question for them and then get to the point, so you can move on and actually continue to participate in the debate. THat's how it's done.
I love how Larkin is hiding behind you right now. Letting his cultists do the talking for him. Makes him feel big which is important since he's very tiny. He's probably gorging down on milkshakes right now fantasizing about how he could use you as a general in the next CHAZ.
NB Be a pal and wait for awhile. Don't give DG any more distractions. That's why I have limited the number of words I'm using with her.
➽ You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap.
And you seem to be stuck on avoiding what YOU mean. Perhaps it's some sort of disability of yours. A handicap.
➽ I'll entertain your ridiculousness while you avoid literally every other thing I've said.
And I'll entertain yours while you ignore that you are hypocritically calling me by your maiden name.
⚠ "The pot calling the kettle black" is a proverbial idiom that may be of Spanish origin, of which English versions began to appear in the first half of the 17th century. The idiom is glossed in the original sources as being used by A PERSON WHO IS GUILTY FO THE VERY THING OF WHICH THEY ACCUSE ANOTHER and is thus an example of psychological projection, or HYPOCRISY.⛔ Wikipedia
➽ I don't expect you to give me anything that resembles a rebuttal when it comes to everything else I've said.
Go look up "Gish gallop".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
You don't know me, so for you to know what to expect from me... You must be a clairvoyant. And not a very good one.
Remember, I told you a keep copies of my dialogs. Just so I don't forget anything I might want to address. Once you settle down and focus, we can go through all your claims one by one.
➽ You'll ignore it and stick to the game plan which is continue to indirectly promote communism (anarchism).
Once you settle down and focus, we can go through all your claims one by one.
➽ By the way. When you ask someone a rhetorical question and they refuse to answer, it's your job to answer the question for them and then get to the point, so you can move on and actually continue to participate in the debate. THat's how it's done.
Really? Who made you the boss of me? Who says your edict has any authority over me?
Just because you dictate that my questions are rhetorical, does NOT make them rhetorical.
[My] questions are only rhetorical to those who refuse to debate concepts. I do this to nip equivocation in the bud before continuing with any discussion(s).
Equivocation – using a term with more than one meaning in a statement without specifying which meaning is intended. Wikipedia.
I've even OCR'd the definition of country you posted... For later discussion.
I'm not reading all of that nonsense right now. I'll check it out maybe later tonight. I personally don't like to repeat myself. I find it offensive. You seem to love it though. I can only tolerate so much stupid at one time so I will therefore continue this sometime in the next 24 hours. Gotta run, take care of some things and then watch the "debate" tonight.
If I don't respond you can assume Larken blocked me. If I do not respond, you are welcome to friend me or private msg me and it will be continued.
I appreciate your offer to continue. Thank you.
Like I wrote, I keep copies of dialogs I'm involved in so I can review the discussion. In doing so I see I have been unable to get you focused in a manner so that I can work with you to help you understand what I am driving at. That error is mine. Since I have been a PITA in regard to the meaning, and I still intend to present my point, I've brought your comments using the word "country" out of that record. Another word for PITA is pedantic.
➽ Still the most free country on Earth. Still the greatest country to have ever existed.
➽ It was made about 20 years ago so it doesn't include exactly how we'd lose our country[...]
➽ [...]will come straight into our country[...]
➽ You seem to be stuck on this whole country thing.
You made a claim that something is the most free on Earth. And then you claimed that the something is the greatest to have ever existed. You then made a claim about loosing that thing. And last, you correctly observed that I seem to be stuck on the something thing.
For context and to attempt to understand your thinking, I ask: Tell me about someone who is 50% a slave.
Alright I just read the last 3 things you said. You didn't say anything of relevance as far as politics goes. This is a political debate.
Your final paragraph is the only thing that is on topic so I'll answer that. A slave is someone who has zero freedoms and doesn't get paid money. We are 0% slaves. Nobody owns me. Participating in a civil society means you have to follow rules. If you break those rules, you lose your freedoms. Having rules doesn't make us slaves.
And I didn't delete the screen shot for the definition of country.
I didn't say you did. I deleted the OCR of the screenshot via editing of that post. I'll see what I can edit into the post so it makes a more easily understandable message. Sorry.
I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism and how China will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want and they take down our government. I have yet to see you say one thing in response to any of that. Kinda a major claim I made I would think you'd wanna address it... I also posted this video and you didn't say a word about it. I'm only interested in staying on topic not debating about the definition of the word country or all that other non-related gibberish.
I'll put the link to your vid here when I have one that I can click, not on fecesbook.
And I'd like a link to your website please.
^^ That right there is also specifically what Larken Rose refused to respond to. Tried to get him to talk about it about half a dozen times. Not a peep. He only acknowledges low-hanging fruit, never anything that contradicts and actually destroys his commie-philosophy. (I gave a description of how Anarchism leads to communism and how China will take us right over during the confusion if anarchists get what they want and they take down our government. I have yet to see you say one thing in response to any of that. Kinda a major claim I made I would think you'd wanna address it... I also posted this video and you didn't say a word about it. I'm only interested in staying on topic not debating about the definition of the word country or all that other non-related gibberish.)
Per your request:
http://wwwDOTsynapticsparksDOTinfo/dialog/index.php?topic=737.0
FecesBook censors dot info TLD's so you will need to edit the link to make it usable.
This link takes you to where our discussion is saved. No reason you can't use it as I do--- To remind of what I don't want to forget and thus ignore.
I will assume you know how to work your way up the directory tree to get to the rest.
Please note that I may spend as much as an hour or five composing my posts. I do take most discussions of substance seriously. IMO, our discussion is about serious substance.
Now back to the not so easy (meaning you make me have to think) posts of yours.
You may note that I update the page with my replies before you see them on FecesBook. I find it easier to compose where a mistaken [enter] key in place of [shift]+[enter] for a line feed posts a message before it's complete.
I might have to transcribe the video you posted. So I can grok the message. I will give you THAT consideration since you have agreed to continue the convo. Might take some time. Of course, on a discussion of substance, I don't care how many days it takes to complete.
It's always funny watching some self-important random online boot-licking, statist twit declaring how I don't dare to debate them, and that I "refused to respond" to some bullshit I hadn't even noticed. It's even funnier when such twits ON MY PAGE accuse me of blocking them. Deborah, you don't matter. You are making precisely no difference. You are one more duped dumbshit bickering over WHICH politician should own your stupid ass. You think your whiny noise matters. It doesn't.
Larken Rose
1. I own a group with 200k people, pages with about 500k people. Made a few documentaries back in the day. Am no doubt more skilled in After Effects, computer programming. Am more knowledgeable about virtually any topic, probably even your favorite topics. I can guarantee you that I've talked to people far more interesting than anyone you've spoken to before. I can guarantee you that I've witnessed far more interesting things than you. Even my uncle, my mentor is exponentially more accomplished than you. One of the first 50 libertarians in this country. Private 1 on 1 lectures with Mises. Best friends with Murray Rothbard (both he and my aunt were). He was one of the lawyers for Abbie Hoffman. He participated in the "raising of the pyramid" protest and has been fighting the FDA in court for over 30 years.
2. You are nothing dude. You are completely full of yourself. I was at Porcfest about 10 years ago and I remember you standing there all by yourself expecting people to praise you as they ALL walked by and ignored you. I kinda felt sorry for you at that moment but I sure as hell don't now after the scumbag things you've done and said.
3. You're lying. I know for fact you saw my comments back in the day because we went back and forth at least half a dozen times. I'd tag you and you'd tag me just like you are right now. And then I'd bring up that one talking point (how anarchism will let China takeover our gov - #5 below) and I'd tag you and I'd ask you very politely every time what you think about that scenario. And that's when you bailed, like clockwork. Not a word. Played that scenario out over a few weeks at least half a dozen times. You're a coward dude. You're not a man. You don't intimidate me one bit.
4. You made one shtty video that went viral of which was so simplistic in thought, that every simple-minded person out there flocked to it like flies on sht. If you were actually legitimate, you would have been banned off of social media like I was long ago. But you're not. You're not a threat to the Silicon Valley oligarch or their masters. You're either delusional or a willing shill for serious big money. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're just delusional. The globalists/communists love you. They need people like you shut people down, convincing them to stay out of their way. You are their favorite type of person. You encourage thousands of people to stay out of their way so that they can accomplish their most sinister plans.
5. I can't copy/paste verbatim exactly what I wanted you to answer years ago because my fb account was permanently removed off of fb's servers, but it was something like what I mentioned up above. This ---> "In today's world, the Chinese or whoever the central banking oligarch decides will have all the fun, will come straight into our country the second you and your buddies destabilize it. You and Larken will have your own CHAZ communities for a few days. Maybe a week or two and then you'll be forced into a Chinese-American concentration camp having a cattle prod shoved up your ***. The Chinese owns the democrats by the way. They don't own Trump or his loyalists... But yea, Biden and Trump are totally the same thing. Way to adapt to reality. Keep preaching your philosophy of "Anarchism" though. I'm sure you can convince a majority of the population to have the logic of a 3 year old and embrace anarchism. It's totally a marketing problem on your end you just have to try harder. In no way a logic problem. In no way is your "philosophy" flawed... Keep preaching "anarchism" so you can have more "freedom and liberty" I'm sure China will bring you and your buddies all sorts of new freedoms."
6. I have zero expectations when it comes to you giving me a straight answer. When I think Larken Rose, integrity isn't what comes to mind. Pudgy ginger flying on a unicorn at the edge of the flat Earth's ice wall shouting at the top of his lungs that everyone should move down there and live with with you, with you as their guru, is what comes to mind. I don't take you very seriously if you have't noticed.
1) none of your boasting--whether accurate or not--has anything to do with whether you are making ANY lasting impact on the world, or anyone's viewpoint.
2) The fact that you mindless believe and repeat idiotic online gossip, as if that is a super-reliable source of info, shows exactly how worthwhile your opinion is. Also, that WILL get you blocked. As demonstrated.
3) Do you have any idea how many stupid comments from stupid statists I see? If you think that me not responding to one means I don't dare to debate someone, then you're kind of an imbecile.
4) You claim to be a threat to the establishment ... while advocating a ruling class. That's cute.
5) Thanks for the example of why you are too stupid to be worth talking to. "IF WE AREN'T CONTROLLED BY A RULING CLASS, SOME RULING CLASS MIGHT COME AND CONTROL US!" Dumbass.
6) Have fun kissing that orange fascist ass. Bye.
Edit: Correct typo.
Larken Rose I dunno if you blocked her or not. It's nine hours after your post. If you would leave her unblocked, I'd be happy to continue my discussion with her.
The participants are her, I, the lurkers and the passers-by. Educational fun for everyone.
With your notoriety and all the people you've meet, dunno if you remember me. Scrambled eggs and a place to park in Michigan.
I'm interested in taking her points and examining them one by one. I'll spend the time... You only have to correct me if I incorrectly speak for you.
Oh, and protect your keyboard or UI device before reading.
Jump Scroll to next discussion comment10471244_757346444306369_4104544600856
42694_n.jpg
