Let's have a conversation

[Dante]

Are you... just... You know, cherry-picking that?

Please try and pay attention. I wrote: "Example"

 

[BluesLegend]

Do you "converse" with terrorists? Or their supporters?

They need to be CRUSHED. That is all

It's not possible to have a conversation with Democrats. They LIE straight to your face while other Dems sneak up behind you and knife you in the kidneys.

Democrats have been caught red handed laughing about how they will screw over Republicans on compromises. Dems get what they want out of the compromise, the rube Republicans get screwed over again and again when Dems welsh on their part of the deal.

 

[Dante]

moi: and of course, even in the comments section people hear what they want and spin narratives that ignore some things.

But as I've long said: Charlie Kirk was no true debater. He was a provocateur and a bully boy of the right, and Maga Loudmouth

Just like you have.

Nope. I try and keep an open mind. I've long had issues with people that demand I have one, when in reality they are asking to keep an empty mind they insist on filling with "alternative truths."

I have allies at times, and have never been a part of any group. I have no vested interest here. I've been attacked by and have attacked allies here.

ask around

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Dems get what they want out of the compromise

Compromise is ONLY the right losing ground. They NEVER compromise

 

[SweetTea]

If you are not what they accuse you of or label you as, don't do what they accuse you of, don't be what they label you. Corner them with their own flawed logic. I've been doing that here for almost 13 years now.

The problem is, when they are cornered by logic, they lash out, sometimes violently. Most are not capable of admitting that they have been wrong, no matter how illogical. They will even start changing definitions of words and lying about statistics. The Kirk murdererer is a prime example. A large segment of Democrats are attempting to say he was not a lefty. That is disingenuous and they know it, but they simply can’t accept that they may be wrong. It is not in their programming.

 

[Chuz Life]

It's not possible to have a conversation with Democrats. They LIE straight to your face while other Dems sneak up behind you and knife you in the kidneys.

Democrats have been caught red handed laughing about how they will screw over Republicans on compromises. Dems get what they want out of the compromise, the rube Republicans get screwed over again and again when Dems welsh on their part of the deal.

Your post made me pause and think again about what the definition of insanity is, and even though I know better from my own experience, I keep trying to engage them in a meaningful conversation anyway.

Hard reminder after a long night of insomnia.

 

[Dante]

If I am baiting, then I have succeeded in snaring you.

But since that is not, nor will it ever be my intention to, I sense insecurity on your part. I didn't force you to respond, did I?

I believe you have yet again missed the point.

I'll explain as if you just came out of nowhere - just parachuted in here:

The "baiting" reference went to the set up:

Charlie Kirk wanted to 'have a conversation,' and he got shot dead for it.

Did Kirk really get shot "because he wanted to have a conversation?

...and the veiled attacks:

Is it a conversation you want, or something else? Say, maybe, total capitulation to your own views of the world?

If I have to explain what is meant by "the veiled attacks" above, then you are either being consciously disingenuous or you are being consciously disingenuous.

 

[BluesLegend]

Compromise is ONLY the right losing ground. They NEVER compromise

Running to the courts is the Dems favorite F you to the American people. Whether that's welshing on legislation or after losing an election. The notion that Democrats support democracy is laughable.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Your post made me pause and think again about what the definition of insanity is, and even though I know better from my own experience, I keep trying to engage them in a meaningful conversation anyway.

Hard reminder after a long night of insomnia.

Sometimes you do it, NOT FOR THAT KOOK, but for the reasonable reader

 

[Carl in Michigan]

 

[Chuz Life]

Sometimes you do it, NOT FOR THAT KOOK, but for the reasonable reader

100%

 

[BluesLegend]

Your post made me pause and think again about what the definition of insanity is, and even though I know better from my own experience, I keep trying to engage them in a meaningful conversation anyway.

Hard reminder after a long night of insomnia.

Okay, why would you want to have a conversation with a people who LIE by default? Do you think you can reform a Dem? Not possible. Do you think you can make any argument that will get past their shell of CULT intolerance? Also not possible. But go ahead beat your head against that brick wall.

 

[BluesLegend]

That was uncalled for

Are you shitting me? 200,000+ Americans KILLED. Rubbed out by the Democrats army of 15 million invading illegals. Countless Americans RAPED, MURDERED, crippled, robbed, HELLO. Oh it's 1000% called for.

 

[SeaMajor7]

That would be better than engaging in the tactics that led to their ruin. It will ruin you, too.

What the hell is this?
I'll tell you what, it's NONSENSE.

 

[BULLDOG]

So now comes the point where I ask you to prove it.

Starting with racism.

No. Your remarks are spread widely across this site, and speak of your racism better than I can. Besides that, your cult training would prevent you from accepting anything I might say.

 

[berg80]

Charlie Kirk wanted to 'have a conversation,' and he got shot dead for it.

I could have sworn I heard some reporting on the shooter just yesterday indicating he was not cooperating with the police as to his motive for murdering Kirk. So......there's that.

While stipulating there is no justification for killing someone over their opinions, it is the height of disingenuousness to assert Kirk was shot because he wanted to discuss his. My assumption is he was shot because of the power he had to get his hateful opinions translated to public policy.

Alan Berg was not killed by white supremacists because he wanted to have a conversation on the radio about his views.

 

[Chuz Life]

Okay, why would you want to have a conversation with a people who LIE by default? Do you think you can reform a Dem? Not possible. Do you think you can make any argument that will get past their shell of CULT intolerance? Also not possible. But go ahead beat your head against that brick wall.

Damn dude I said I was insane already.

I even said I should know better. LoL.

That's said, I do get some helpful feedback from their reactions and that does let me know my point might be seen by others. Even if the tard I'm debating with doesnt get it.

 

[Dante]

No. Your remarks are spread widely across this site, and speak of your racism better than I can. Besides that, your cult training would prevent you from accepting anything I might say.

I could have sworn I heard some reporting on the shooter just yesterday indicating he was not cooperating with the police as to his motive for murdering Kirk. So......there's that.

While stipulating there is no justification for killing someone over their opinions, it is the height of disingenuousness to assert Kirk was shot because he wanted to discuss them. My assumption is he was shot because of the power he had to get his hateful opinions translated to public policy.

Alan Berg was not killed by white supremacists because he wanted to have a conversation on the radio about his views.

Hmm...

and...

Wow!

 

[midcan5]

Whenever a person starts a question with a label (left) you realize you are in a place of name calling and lack of thought.

Kirk's writing and ideas offended people who were different, and he had every right to have those ideas. It would have been more helpful to counter his bias through normal methods such as comment and news commentary.

 

[Chuz Life]

Whenever a person starts a question with a label (left) you realize you are in a place of name calling and lack of thought.

Kirk's writing and ideas offended people who were different, and he had every right to have those ideas. It would have been more helpful to counter his bias through normal methods such as comment and news commentary.

What "bias" are you referring to?