Wait, you didn't know I was the guy you've been watching stream, or talking to on Skype?

I didn't know your name was Charles.

Charles is the best worst name ever.

I'll bet you're not even a real king.

It's regal, bitch.

Bull****. You're just plain wrong. Republicans want the current laws on the books enforced but don't want even a single new law because they believe in the slippery slope theory that any new laws will lead to the government taking away their guns.

And f you are talking about classical liberalism then your argument is badly out of date. The liberal movement of my lifetime are always for more gun control. Find me a source from the modern era that backs up your claim that true liberals DO NOT want gun control or stricter gun laws. I'll wait right here and be ready to toss back at you dozens of sources that back p the realities of the modern liberal.

You have a sadly over simplistic view of Republicans that is flat out untrue. Off the top of my head the stand your ground law. Another thing that my surprise you is the healthcare mandate. That idea was created by Mitt Romney and then STRONGLY supported by the Republicans until it was put into Obamacare, that's when it became unconstitutional all of a sudden. :rolleyes:

Just because the media pushes this ill-informed definition of what a Liberal is doesn't mean that it's what a Liberal is. Really, it's just dumb ass Democrats and "progressives" calling themselves Liberal because Liberals support social justice. Oh, and it's cooler to claim you don't align with the mainstream parties even though you still vote for the mainstream candidates... You just can't call yourself liberal if you want gun control. It's contradictory to the core of Liberal/Libertarian ideals; our personal liberties.

And I refuse to accept the drastic redefinition of Liberals over our lazy ill-informed public.

First off we're talking about guns and gun control here. Good read here:

Civil Liberties or Gun Control? - Reason.com

Liberals have evolved when it comes to looking at civil liberties and gun control. They've decided that it's ok not to think of them as interconnected. You may not like it but that's the way it's been for decades.

As far as Republicans go all you need to do is look at what happened in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. (20 first and second grade kids along with 6 teachers slaughtered by a mentally unstable 20 year old using an assault weapon).

An assault weapons ban was proposed in Congress a month later but was voted down. 173 out of 188 democrats voted for it. 246 out of 247 republicans voted against it. Why, because of their respective democratic and republican constituents.

Again, you may not like it but that's what America is at the moment, and again, has been for quite a while now.

Pontificate all you want but it doesn't change reality.

Actually, I have never heard Liberals being lumped together with Democrats until recently. As in the last few years. Not last election. Definitely not last election.

Republicans don't want gun laws changed much, that's true. Does not mean they are against any new laws. In fact, you'd be surprised to find out that Republicans do want to make it harder for people to get the guns. They just don't want a gun ban. I know this, because I have listened to republican talking points. Specifically what Ben Shapiro had to say about gun laws.



Here listen to Ben Shapiro, my favorite Republican jew that I disagree with just about everything with, absolutely destroy Pierce Morgan.

I hate what America has been for a long time. Both the Republicans claiming that Obama wants our guns despite the only laws he put forth taking away restrictions and the Democrats that think Republicans are a bunch of gun loving trigger happy hill billy's. I say this again, they are playing you like a fiddle.

I've lost track, do you live in the US? Liberals have been interchangeable with Democrats here for at least the last 35 years. Poll 1000 people and 998 with say that they are the same thing.

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/w...7050855759.jpg

Sorry, but you are miss-informed on this. See my previous post. Just one of many, many examples.

Not me, the masses. I stay ridiculously informed during these elections. Re: The masses, name a country that doesn't get played by their politicians and political establishments. You should stop pointing at the reality of things here in the US as some sort of aberration.

Every election cycle I have 2 options.

1. Vote for the person I'd really like to see get elected.
2. Vote against the person who I do not want to see get elected.

I threw out the option of apathy decades ago.

Yes, I live in America, no I haven't seen that until recently. Either way, the American public is stupid. What the American public thinks does not equal the truth.

I am obviously more informed than you are on this. I know they are against the banning of semi-automatic rifles. That does not mean they are against any new laws.

I'm guessing you didn't watch the Shapiro video to get the actual Republican perspective. So, I guess you don't really stay ridiculously informed during elections. Reading through these bull**** articles that spend more time on bashing Republicans than giving the actual facts and perspectives of Republicans does not make you informed. Cherry picking facts to fit the notes your fiddle player plays does not make you informed either.

I couldn't point to that country and I couldn't point out a time in American history where we weren't played like a fiddle, doesn't mean I'm going to stop telling the fiddles when they are being played. It's fun, because nobody likes knowing that they are a fiddle.

Yeah, you gave up your vote to your fiddle player, I get it. It's nothing to brag about.

Lol Batlord's real name is Charles.

:D was going to say he doesn't seem like a Charles, it's too regal.

I was thinking the same thing after reading a couple of the victim blaming posts.

Spot-on.

He is more like a Chuck. I'm going to call him Chuck from now on.

It's fine if you are blinded by ideology and get off on being a troll. At the end of the day the numbers don't lie.

This bull**** is worse than saying that if you don't support the war you don't support the troops.[/QUOTE]

Not the same thing at all, what kind of strawman silliness are you spouting?

Also, when you say you're realistic or a realist, that doesn't make your views or opinions any more valid it just means you're egotistical.[/QUOTE]

When did I declare this? It seems like you are talking about your own self. You are the one going around insulting people and calling them fiddles because you think you superior looking down from your high horse.

I'm not saying let's just make guesses and assume the hat wearer started it but if you actually use your head and think the type of response he is getting is way out of control to him just standing there with his hat not doing anything.


I'm not pretending that they are some students on campus that can get a bit ridiculous but this specific incident seems different and I feel instinctively that there was definitely more to the story than the video shows. You hate her type that's why you want to just go along with what's presented in front of you instead of thinking what could have instigated her to react that way.


It's easy to make her out to be one. Just instigate her, don't record you egging her on/trolling her to just get a rise out of her then only record her response and act normal like you didn't do anything. You are kind of gullible if you believe this is the full story.

I was going to say I was the only one pretty close but you definitely are. Just warm him up for when I get there. I'm down for violence as well.

The idea was created by Mitt Romney and worked in his state but don't pretend like the entire Republican party was on board with it. They hated it so much that they kept ****ing with Obamacare to have it roll out to be the monstrosity that it is today. You know how many times Obamacare was presented and it was voted down by the Republicans so they could take bits and pieces out and add in stupid ****. They just wanted it to roll out and only be a shell of its former self. So that the public would turn their backs on it and Republicans would push to have it overturned.

I think you need to actually look up the differences between Liberal and Libertarian because they are obviously different and it's strange that you don't know/or see it.
Or nevermind maybe you do but you just decide to remain ignorant about the definitions.

Just like you cherry pick your facts to support your arguments but of course you aren't a fiddle. You are so woke and everyone else around you are just sheeple. :eyerolls:
As I suspected earlier, you just like to troll. I'm not going to bother responding to anything else you have to say. If you want to think I'm a fiddle then go ahead but you are one too.

You mean "I am superior to the masses", right? What the public at large thinks is reality. You have your truth, they have theirs.

You are extremely mis-informed when it comes to the Republican stance on gun control.

No I didn't. One dude who happens to align with your ridiculous claims means nothing. Again, the overall opinion of the masses = the reality/truth. And stop with the fiddle crap you pretentious twat.

Because you are the end all authority, right? Only you get to decide if everyone else is right or wrong. Nobody likes knowing they are a fiddle? How do like knowing you're a pretentious twat rebel wanna be?

Not bragging at all. Just speaking the truth and the reality of my own personal situation. One of the two parties is going to influence my world for the next four years. And yes, you have your own little rebel wanna be fiddle player too so your insult doesn't really sting anywhere near as much as you'd like it to.

Yes, it is out of control. And since that link got posted, two more appeared where students overreacted to Trump support. You seem to be suggesting that it's impossible for the girl to demand he take his hat off simply because she didn't like it, even though we have two other examples posted of similarly 'triggered' students.

Ok. Well I feel the crybullies are overreacting (and the evidence is on my side).

The video suggests it was the hat that instigated her.

Yes mate it's all just a big conspiracy :D

When there is a pattern for this I have no reason to think the Trump supporter started it. When she was talking, she made no mention of any confrontation prior to the video being recorded and she didn't mention it in her little Facebook statement that she later posted.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/...4056866764.jpg

"I went up to him."

She openly admits she started it. All the evidence is there.

You're just blinded by your hate for Trump and his supporters.

Well since you provided evidence then yeah whatever she's a typical SJW that overreacts.

I'm not blinded by anything. Yes, I have a personal bias against Trump but as far as his supporters go. Only the unreasonable ones I have hate for. There are some reasonable Trump supporters out there that I don't hate.

I did look up the difference between a Liberal and a Libertarian. The clearest idea I could get is that Liberals focus more on social justice and equality than Libertarians. Other than that, I'm going off of what my Political Science teacher taught me while you guys go off what your dumb ass 'news' sites go off of.

Dude, you said that you don't vote third party because you're realistic, that's what I pulled it from.

No, the Republican party loved the idea of the mandate while it was Romney's idea. Just because they ****ed with Obamacare that much does not mean they didn't support the idea when it was Romney's campaign point.

If you want to name one fact I cherry picked, I'll wait.

And for the person who that comment was actually aimed at, that still apparently hasn't watched that Shapiro video, who probably never takes the time to actually hear what a Republican has to say, thanks for proving my point that you are a cherry picker.

The irony of both of you calling me an egotistical know it all who sits on his high horse, because that's how everybody else feels about you guys. And that's why I'm 'trolling' you guys with the facts. Fiddles.

Plus, let's be honest with ourselves for a second, is it even possible to have a political stance with out having a high horse?

That's pretty pretentious. Semantic courtesy is that you don't argue a mainstream definition against an expert definition unless you are trying to make a specific point that requires the clarification. Even in that case, associating the mainstream definition with "dumb ass" is posturing - it provides no constructive criticism about the problem with the definition - and knitpicking definitions is unproductive in the first place anyway. Once you see the definition that is being used by the majority of participants in the discussion, accept it an move on discussing the mechanics and ideas and issues rather than wasting more time on definitions.

No.

Edit: The whole point of me bringing it up in the first place was to get people to use the word right. This is honestly the first time I've had anybody argue that I was wrong about it. With their sources being the news sites that get a lot of things wrong rather than anything official.

How much of what you were taught was modern politics and how much was historical politics. Because you are obviously confusing the two. And no, personally I do not go off of news sights to form my opinions. You're acting all superior again.

You realize that Romney's mandate only dealt with one state, right? It was not a nationwide thing and most republicans outside of Massachusetts weren't even aware of it.

I spent my first 37 years surrounded by Republicans. All of my family back east and a lot of my friends are Republicans and I talk with them all the time. Stop painting with a broad brush when trying to determine how others who disagree with you think or get their information from. Again, your superiority complex needs working on dude.

The irony of both of you calling me an egotistical know it all who sits on his high horse, because that's how everybody else feels about you guys. And that's why I'm 'trolling' you guys with the facts. Fiddles.[/QUOTE]

Why are you yelling?

All of it, the book we had for that class was made that year, 2012.

You realize I wasn't referring to the mandate he passed, but was referring to the mandate that he promised while running for president that got support from the Republican party, right?


Again, the irony of you saying that. Yeah, you talked with me yet still ignore the facts I present about the Republican views. I saw you talk with Republicans on here and completely ignore any real point they had. Seems like you do more talking than listening. And that's the problem.


I didn't yell, I just used big letters. Maybe you yelled it while you read it and I bet anybody around you probably thought that was weird if you did. Either way, that's just to make sure you got the point.

@ all the posts debating what liberalism is

http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/a4/a4c88...32ab0b75d9.jpg

All he promised was to dismantle Obamacare. He stated over and over during the 2012 election that what he did in Mass was good on the state level for not for the country as a whole.

Romney on Health Care

You are not presenting facts. You are expressing your opinions as if they are facts. Big difference. And that's the problem.

Ya, my two dogs kinda freaked out a bit.

Next time we do a Skype stream we are going to argue over the definition of a Liberal and the proper etiquette of accepting the redefinition of words in the context of the discussion. Or funyuns, I liked funyuns better.

No we are ****ing not.

I'd pay to watch that.

Maybe I'm assuming it was part of his campaign because I knew he supported it.

No, I presented what Shapiro had to say about it, and you ignored it. And are you going to pretend you guys aren't presenting opinions like they are facts?


C'mon, they have to be used to you yelling at your computer by now.

That's all I need to know it's a bad idea.

Also, sorry for spamming this, but correct me if I'm wrong but didn't George Bush pass the most gun restrictions in history after 9/11?


There is him talking about extending the assault weapon ban and trying to get stricter regulations to stop the gun show loophole.

You know your political system is ass when you find yourself agreeing with Varg Vikernes more than you're comfortable with, even if he's not saying much you don't already know. But I'll post the video anyway cause we all need more Varg in our lives.

First couple of minutes was cool but the rest was just too repetitive.

You know that makes you pretentious now too!

But this isn't a democracy, it's a representative democracy, aka a republic.

Yeah, he tends to repeat himself, but I just like listening to him talk. And his beard looks like the beard I used to have until a few days ago. We were like brothers who have become estranged because one of them is a Nazi who lives in the woods preparing for the fall of civilization.

But he's pretty interesting when he's talking about his black metal days, which I assume is what he does when he's worrying about his view count. Until he (hopefully) writes an autobiography, I don't think you'll get this level of detail from him. Just, you know, take him with a grain of salt. Cause he's Varg.




Oh, and if you press the left arrow key when playing a Youtube video it sends it back five seconds, and if you do this right at the beginning you can make a Varg remix. Try it. It's addictive.

He talked a big game but didn't follow through on most of it and actually sign any legislation.

The 2 cases cited in the quote led to the floodgates opening up for gun ownership and the loosening of restrictions. Talk to any gun nut about sensible gun control and they'll use DC v Heller like Captain America's shield in defense.

The Supreme Court is the most important issue in this years election. There's already one open seat and possibly another two that could open up within the next 4-8 years.

No maybe's about it. You made a completely false statement about Romney and Republicans. So much for your political cred.

You said, "I'm stating facts and you guys are ignoring them". Again, your cred takes a direct hit.

And so, children, we see the working class male's preoccupation with "cred". Please don't tap on the glass.

But they did support it when he did it locally. The whole point of me bringing it up in the first place was your false statement of Republicans not wanting any new laws. Bam, new law from Romney. Point proven.

I did state facts. Two Republicans that do want gun control laws when you said they don't. Your only response is cases where they turned down out right gun bans. If you don't know the difference between gun control and gun bans maybe it's not my credentials that are in the dumps.

You really are dense. I said new laws in regard to gun control. Stop moving the goalposts.

Republicans as a whole are against these as a partial example:

- expanding background checks
- limits on magazine capacity
- closing the gun show loopholes
- waiting periods when purchasing a gun
- restrictions on open or concealed carry
- restrictions on silencers
- having to notify authorities when transferring ownership of a firearm

And your Bush example was completely debunked by me. Try again.