My issue with the untruth about Jeff Sessions

[Brazilda]

When Stefan makes untruth videos about Trump I look at it as supporting Trump. There are a million untruths in the world but we pick and choose which are important based on who we want to see succeed. Helping clear Trumps name of falsehoods is a way of helping him. I'm sure there are probably some untruths out there about Al Sharpton but we don't make videos about it because we don't care if he succeeds or not. 

 

I get the message of the video... people are trying to slander Sessions as a racist and hes not one. But I don't want to see Jeff Sessions succeed because he is notoriously pro drug war. I guess what I'm trying to communicate is that its a matter of priority here. I strongly believe its more important to criticize him for being pro drug war than it is to pat him on the back for not being racist. 

 

I care about this alot because I smoke weed and live in North Carolina which is a bible belt state that is probably going to be the very last to legalize. I've been to jail before just for possessing a few grams of weed. I am absolutely not ok with that. I really really want to side with the police. I think most of them are good people that just want to help their community. I am in a very tricky position with police however because I strongly believe I am doing nothing wrong and I do not want to go to prison because some cop is just doing his job. I know you guys aren't going to like this but in that particular situation i think its ok to consider killing the cop to avoid prison because at the end of the day they are escalating violence against me by trying to arrest me for smoking weed. No one forced them to become a cop and escalate violence against people who aren't bothering anyone. Can you really blame me for escalating the violence even more? Why should I allow them to rob me of a year or whatever of my life without a fight??? 

 

I believe 98% of the anti cop attitude coming from this country is caused by the drug war. I think its only going to get worse the longer it lasts. It's like a slow chipping away/erosion process. I want to fix that and see a country that respects the police. I don't want to kill anyone. I don't even want to consider it but my hand is forced by self proclaimed authority of the government. 

 

Jeff Sessions is on the wrong side of history... 

 

[Mister Mister]

I agree with you about Sessions' position on the drug war.  When you say 98% of the anti=cop attitude comes from this policy, however, how do you know that?  Are you not perhaps mistaking the world for yourself?  In other words, your biggest problem with the cops is that they would arrest you for the harmless action of smoking weed, but other people might have other reasons.  Nevertheless I think you are maybe getting worked up over nothing, as the Attorney General answers to the President, and it is very likely that Trump will de-schedule cannabis.

I also think that Stef's arguments about drugs are correct.  I smoked weed for many years and now I am better off without it.  The more in touch with my thoughts and feelings I became, the more I found that cannabis made me feel neurotic, paranoid, anti-social, and disoriented.  I used to think I needed it to be creative, but now I am writing an album's worth of quality songs every year for the past 3 years with absolutely no mind altering drugs except for the occasional drink.  I would urge you to try it, and to find other ways to cope with issues than self-medicating and risking imprisonment.

[Brazilda]

Youre probably right that I am mistaking the world for myself when saying that "98% of the anti cop attitude comes from the drug war."  I dont think there is anyway to prove how much drug war is effecting sentiments in USA. To be fair though I specifically said "I believe" before I said that so I'm atleast upfront that its my opinion.

 

I think sentiment towards the drug war are underestimated because there is no good reason to publicly come out in support of doing drugs. Even if you dont even do drugs and you are simply advocating freedom most people will just look down on you. Its an inconvenient hassle to hold an unpopular opinion. 

 

I love Stefans arguments about drugs. The show he did with Gabor Mate is my favorite one yet. I've learned so much about myself that I was unaware of. Understanding the truth about why I do drugs is a great start but it's doesn't make me feel any better. I feel a lot of emotional pain that I don't know how to cope with any other way than doing drugs. I spoke to MMD personally thru emails a few years ago and took his advice to seek out therapy but that didn't go well. It was good to talk to someone but I realized this particular therapist I was seeing was saying the exact opposite of what Stefan and Gabor Mate say. He was telling me that im a genetically predisposed to doing drugs. We basically established that I have serious daddy issues but he never dug deeper to understand what is causing the daddy issues. I decided to stop seeing him because not only do I disagree that drug use is some predetermined thing, I think I would be a lot worse off if I believed that because that would mean I was predestined to be a drug user because of genes which is absurd. 

[Brazilda]

Well "we" don't make videos. Stefan and I make videos - you use illegal drugs and live in fear of the police in a completely predictable way.

 

If the mainstream media was smearing Al Sharpton - I'd absolutely love to do the untruth about Al Sharpton. But they aren't.

 

Eventually people might figure out that this show has been focused on exposing the mainstream media while teaching people how to think - and we use current events to highlight the media's continued dishonesty.

 

Dude I am well aware you run the show here. I am not trying to take credit from you by saying we. Please allow that to be overlooked. I just meant that when anyone clears up negative untruths about someone else you are helping them out by doing that. 

 

Al Sharpton wasn't really a good example. My point is that there isn't enough time to cover every untruth in the world so you have to pick the ones that are most important. When you guys made the Sessions video I saw that as a confession that you think its important that we understand Sessions isn't a racist. 

 

Its like focusing on how well Obama has improved the cost and quality of school lunches when you could be focusing on isis, doubling the debt, fast and furious, etc.

 

You are a lot wiser and smarter than me Michael. Go easy on me man. If I'm wrong please explain why in the simplest least snarky way possible so I can understand and adjust to reality. I need things to be explained to me like im a stupid child. I'm not proud to say that but its the truth. 

[DaVinci]

Well "we" don't make videos. Stefan and I make videos - you use illegal drugs and live in fear of the police in a completely predictable way.

 

If the mainstream media was smearing Al Sharpton - I'd absolutely love to do the untruth about Al Sharpton. But they aren't.

 

Eventually people might figure out that this show has been focused on exposing the mainstream media while teaching people how to think - and we use current events to highlight the media's continued dishonesty.

 

Where would you draw the line on that? Who wouldn't you do a video of if they were a mainstream target? 

[Wuzzums]

The opposition wants you and you and your kin to be poor and weak and pathetic. Make no mistake, we are in a war and in a war the most important thing is winning.

[Brazilda]

you use illegal drugs and live in fear of the police in a completely predictable way.

 

 

It sucks being looked down on by someone you respect. It sucks more when you are alienated by everyone around you. I don't expect you to tell me drugs are ok. I know they are bad and I'm not looking to justify my own bad behavior. But I do expect you to have the courage and wisdom to say "its not okay for people to imprison you and destroy your life because you do drugs" despite what the finger wagging baby boomer Jeff Sessions type people have to say. 

 

 

 

The opposition wants you and you and your kin to be poor and weak and pathetic. Make no mistake, we are in a war and in a war the most important thing is winning.

 

huh? 

[Wuzzums]

It sucks being looked down on by someone you respect. It sucks more when you are alienated by everyone around you. I don't expect you to tell me drugs are ok. I know they are bad and I'm not looking to justify my own bad behavior. But I do expect you to have the courage and wisdom to say "its not okay for people to imprison you and destroy your life because you do drugs" despite what the finger wagging baby boomer Jeff Sessions type people have to say. 

 

 

 

 

huh? 

 

You seem the kind of guy that only looks 1 foot ahead of him. This is about the big picture. This is the battle the left has been playing for decades and people like you (and once upon a time me also) don't see it. 

 

Take gay marriage for instance.

Conservatives have always argued it will lead to a slippery slope therefore marriage should always be between a man and woman.

Liberals have argued the moral stance saying it's a human right and the government should have no say in that matter.

 

And where are we now? Yep, the left is strongly pushing for pedophilia and child rape to be not only accepted but also virtuous in doing so.

 

This is what you're doing. You're arguing the moral stance which will lead to the barring of a worthwhile candidate in the fight against collectivism.

[Brazilda]

You seem the kind of guy that only looks 1 foot ahead of him. This is about the big picture. This is the battle the left has been playing for decades and people like you (and once upon a time me also) don't see it. 

 

Take gay marriage for instance.

Conservatives have always argued it will lead to a slippery slope therefore marriage should always be between a man and woman.

Liberals have argued the moral stance saying it's a human right and the government should have no say in that matter.

 

And where are we now? Yep, the left is strongly pushing for pedophilia and child rape to be not only accepted but also virtuous in doing so.

 

This is what you're doing. You're arguing the moral stance which will lead to the barring of a worthwhile candidate in the fight against collectivism.

 

I knew someone was going to try to frame me as a leftist. And with all due disrespect that is incredibly simple minded. You seem to have tricked yourself into thinking you're anti collectivism. But the war on drugs (aka the war on people as Stefan would say) is a perfect example of collectivism. Morality is not a one way path that leads to pedophilia. This is about freedom and liberty. You don't have to think it's smart or like it but if you aren't allowed to ruin yourself then you are less free than if you could. I value freedom more than some vague sense of the greater good and I look down on you for not doing the same. 

[thecurrentyear]

You are being very passive about your victimization in all this. Take some responsibility. Move if you need to. Make some choices and do something other than defend your bad habit and demand others' change their opinions on it.

[Wuzzums]

I knew someone was going to try to frame me as a leftist. 

I didn't say you are a leftist nor did I say I was pro war on drugs.

 

Morality is not a one way path that leads to pedophilia.

Mhm. I'm not debating ethics with you, I'm arguing over real life consequences:

 

http://archive.is/qh5kk

https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2204177/virtuous-paedophile-is-not-ashamed-of-being-sexually-attracted-to-children-as-young-as-three-because-he-doesnt-act-on-his-desires/

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2610776/outrage-as-school-set-maths-homework-asking-them-to-solve-problem-based-around-a-girl-being-sexually-abused/

 

This is about freedom and liberty.

I don't know what that phrase means because you just used two interchangeable terms as being different. This sort of confusion you have over your principles is an excellent way for the enemy to exploit your views for their own agenda.

 

So again, you don't want Jeff Sessions because you disagree with his VIEWS on the war on drugs. Fair enough. 

 

Do you have any friends or acquaintances that do not share your views on drugs?

Do you think FDR should disassociate with anyone that doesn't share your views on the war on drugs?

Do you also think lawyers should follow their own personal views instead of the law?

 

 

 

I believe 98% of the anti cop attitude coming from this country is caused by the drug war.

 

Make your case then. Don't just moan at people to behave the way you want them to for the sake of your "beliefs".

I'm waiting.

[DaVinci]

You are being very passive about your victimization in all this. Take some responsibility. Move if you need to. Make some choices and do something other than defend your bad habit and demand others' change their opinions on it.

This sounds like "if you don't like paying taxes then move to Zimbabwe" 

[Anuojat]

We are still talking about putting piece of vegetation in your own mouth right? Jeff Sessions is wrongnot merely regarding the morality/sanity/consistency of drug war but also its effects. ITs beena bsolute failure and distater on the American people and also to mexicans.

 

Mexico partially being the hell hole it is because of war on drugs. Partially.

[thecurrentyear]

This sounds like "if you don't like paying taxes then move to Zimbabwe" 

This country is the United STATES of America. There are other options. Vote with your feet. Make states compete and feel the effect of enforcing laws you don't like. You don't HAVE to. But it is an option. Don't pretend you have no choice in the matter.

 

FYI, "this sounds like..." is not an argument.

[DaVinci]

This country is the United STATES of America. There are other options. Vote with your feet. Make states compete and feel the effect of enforcing laws you don't like. You don't HAVE to. But it is an option. Don't pretend you have no choice in the matter.

 

FYI, "this sounds like..." is not an argument.

 

There are other options for places to live where there are no taxes, no government, no police, etc. Maybe it's not an argument to say "it sounds like", but I don't think it is an unreasonable thing to compare what you said to what leftists say all the time when you bring up anarchy. You also have a choice where you live. How would you respond to a leftist telling you to stop being so passive in your victimization. I get that you are trying to help the OP out, but you are also minimizing him.

[thecurrentyear]

Taking full responsibility will only help. Stef, Trump, everyone who has ever been successful has had to live under a state. They never let it stop them. Stop complaining and do something.

[Brazilda]

So again, you don't want Jeff Sessions because you disagree with his VIEWS on the war on drugs. Fair enough. 

 

Do you have any friends or acquaintances that do not share your views on drugs?

Do you think FDR should disassociate with anyone that doesn't share your views on the war on drugs?

Do you also think lawyers should follow their own personal views instead of the law?

 

 

 

Make your case then. Don't just moan at people to behave the way you want them to for the sake of your "beliefs".

I'm waiting.

 

 

I'm not here to make demands of anyone. Just proposing a minor criticism. Of course I don't think FDR should 'disassociate with anyone that doesn't share my views on the war on drugs'. That's ridiculous and not even the issue because I know Stefan believes the drug war is wrong. I think Stefan is making a compromise by supporting Sessions and that's what I am criticizing. Stefan is the most rational person I've ever seen but his pro Jeff Sessions and anti drug war views don't make a lot of sense to me. It's a contradiction or atleast a compromise. 

 

There is a huge difference between a lawyer just going along with the law and Jeff Sessions stating for the record that no good people smoke marijuana. That is an insight into the way he thinks and it's very ugly.

 

 

Taking full responsibility will only help. Stef, Trump, everyone who has ever been successful has had to live under a state. They never let it stop them. Stop complaining and do something.

 

I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "taking full responsibility". Will you elaborate? I'm not a millionaire yet but I will be successful. I am working at the moment to develop the skills to effectively interpret charts. I trade currency right now with live money and I'm raking in exponential profits. I increased my account by 23% in one day last week. I'm not scared to take huge risks. I hope you can say the same. What do you know about success?????? I can't just up and move to Colorado right now (or vote with my feet as you put it) but I will be successful regardless of your assumptions. This isn't about being successful though. It's about freedom. It's about right and wrong. I would be saying the same thing even if I didn't do drugs but because I do them I am directly effected therefore it matters more to me. I am here making the case that we shouldn't support Sessions because what FDR thinks matters to me. Isn't that "doing something" ??? 

[Wuzzums]

 

There is a huge difference between a lawyer just going along with the law and Jeff Sessions stating for the record that no good people smoke marijuana. That is an insight into the way he thinks and it's very ugly.

 

It's ugly because he's lying or it's ugly because he actually believes a falsehood?

[DaVinci]

Taking full responsibility will only help. Stef, Trump, everyone who has ever been successful has had to live under a state. They never let it stop them. Stop complaining and do something.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "taking full responsibility". That sounds like you are saying he messed up and needs to make up for what he did, as if he wronged someone in some way. 

 

What does "stop complaining and do something" mean? Clearly, based on his posts, he is doing "something" Why do you think he should "stop complaining"? Again, aren't you minimizing him by continuously trying to paint him as a lifeless whiner? 

[thebeardslastcall]

Isn't the point of the Untruth videos just to get people to attack Trump, or whoever, for the right reasons in a sane and legitimate manner, if they are to attack him at all, instead of spreading insanity in the name of victory? If you care about truth you care about the manner in which you fight and win and want to spread truth, which means you don't justify lies as a valid way to win, which just has everyone lying all the time to try to win, if such were a valid means of "winning". If your goal is to spread truth you challenge the biggest lies, regardless of who that seems to help or hurt, to get a more rational assessment of the situation. If you think Trump is worse than Clinton then you should be able to make the case rationally without lies, which means cutting out the lies doesn't alter your position, but helps refine it towards the true elements which people can't point to on the other side as lies, emboldening their opposition unjustly.

 

The fact that the videos are done to "trigger" people is kind of why they probably choose to do the ones they do, because they need to trigger people to shake them out of their insanity and get their attention. If you did it on something that wasn't immediately relevant and the source of a lot of lies, nobody would care or pay attention or be triggered, because it would be irrelevant to their lives. Relevancy is important if you mean to change and have an affect on people.

[thecurrentyear]

Calling in to the show would not be a bad start.

[Spenc]

I did not perceive the podcast the same way that you did, Brazilda.  I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to doing an episode on Jeff Sessions, because it means they are not putting there considerable time and energy in doing all that research and production into some other valuable show. 

 

In fact I've argued on this board and on the facebook group that Stef is potentially misallocating his talents in covering political issues. 

 

However, I felt it was clear in the episode that the show was moreso attacking the talking points of the anti-Trump people and media that are trying to frame everything to do with this administration (and non-left ideologies) as racist, intolerant, etc.  It never seemed to me like a blanket endorsement of Jeff Sessions and all his positions or even a significant majority of his positions.

 

If you are to call in to the show, I think it would be interesting if you talked to Stef about what he feels his responsibility is going forward with the Trump presidency and the movement that is connected now to the FDR community.  I'm not seeing much debate and self-reflection among these conservatives and alt-right people who are calling and posting on facebook.  When is Stef going to debate Vox Day or STATIST Bill Whittle on their statist bullshit instead of just talking about the left?  There was just last week I think that conversation with the French woman who was facing consequences for doing journalist work with Russia Today--she stated multiple times int he call how only christianity can provide morality for society.  Now, I seem to recall a little book called Universally Preferable Behaviour that Stef wrote to contradict what that woman was saying, but Stef didn't seem to find it germane to the conversation to mention anything about "rational secular ethics" which really was quite annoying to me. 

 

It feels (yes, this is not an argument, I'm just trying to share my experience) to me like Stef is erasing his own voice and his own decade of philosophical contributions in order to kinda fit in with the right wing crowd without any reciprocity from his counterparts.  Why the fuck should Bill Whittle (STATIST Bill Whittle!), among other right-wingers, feel like he can come on Stef's show and spout a bunch of anti-philosophical pro-state ideology without being challenged on it?  And Stef seems to not have the same freedom, by his own omission of counterpoints and reluctance to debate.  I get that before Nov 8, the show's motivation was to help Trump, so I'm not even arguing that he has to interject counterpoints into every conversation.  But when you look back at older volumes of the show, Stef consistently debated with libertarian thinkers like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, and everyone got along and the libertarian community was better for it.  I'm eagerly waiting for Stef to inject the same contribution to the anti-left/alt-right/Trump crowd because they desperately need it!

[DaVinci]

I did not perceive the podcast the same way that you did, Brazilda.  I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to doing an episode on Jeff Sessions, because it means they are not putting there considerable time and energy in doing all that research and production into some other valuable show. 

 

In fact I've argued on this board and on the facebook group that Stef is potentially misallocating his talents in covering political issues. 

 

However, I felt it was clear in the episode that the show was moreso attacking the talking points of the anti-Trump people and media that are trying to frame everything to do with this administration (and non-left ideologies) as racist, intolerant, etc.  It never seemed to me like a blanket endorsement of Jeff Sessions and all his positions or even a significant majority of his positions.

 

If you are to call in to the show, I think it would be interesting if you talked to Stef about what he feels his responsibility is going forward with the Trump presidency and the movement that is connected now to the FDR community.  I'm not seeing much debate and self-reflection among these conservatives and alt-right people who are calling and posting on facebook.  When is Stef going to debate Vox Day or STATIST Bill Whittle on their statist bullshit instead of just talking about the left?  There was just last week I think that conversation with the French woman who was facing consequences for doing journalist work with Russia Today--she stated multiple times int he call how only christianity can provide morality for society.  Now, I seem to recall a little book called Universally Preferable Behaviour that Stef wrote to contradict what that woman was saying, but Stef didn't seem to find it germane to the conversation to mention anything about "rational secular ethics" which really was quite annoying to me. 

 

It feels (yes, this is not an argument, I'm just trying to share my experience) to me like Stef is erasing his own voice and his own decade of philosophical contributions in order to kinda fit in with the right wing crowd without any reciprocity from his counterparts.  Why the fuck should Bill Whittle (STATIST Bill Whittle!), among other right-wingers, feel like he can come on Stef's show and spout a bunch of anti-philosophical pro-state ideology without being challenged on it?  And Stef seems to not have the same freedom, by his own omission of counterpoints and reluctance to debate.  I get that before Nov 8, the show's motivation was to help Trump, so I'm not even arguing that he has to interject counterpoints into every conversation.  But when you look back at older volumes of the show, Stef consistently debated with libertarian thinkers like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, and everyone got along and the libertarian community was better for it.  I'm eagerly waiting for Stef to inject the same contribution to the anti-left/alt-right/Trump crowd because they desperately need it!

 

Yeah, there seems to be a certain segment of the people who have been here a while who have noticed what you brought up, which is why there have been multiple threads in the past six months wondering why Stef is now a statist and endorsing Trump. Especially from people who weren't here for a while, and then came back.

 

At the end of the day, they are making a show and so have to make programs that are profitable to stay in business. Sometimes that means having a guest on who doesn't get challenged. The challenges these days seem to happen with the regular callers, hence all the "if you want to call in to the show" posts .

[RichardY]

That Jeff Sessions guy looks like a real hardass to me, which I guess is good if he is going to be enforcing the law, as at least people know where they stand. Can change pot laws latter when civilisation is not imploding.

 

Maybe someone could get a hall of fame, or video of the month competition going, instead of ploughing energy into posts and complaining about opportunity costs.

[Brazilda]

Yeah, there seems to be a certain segment of the people who have been here a while who have noticed what you brought up, which is why there have been multiple threads in the past six months wondering why Stef is now a statist and endorsing Trump. Especially from people who weren't here for a while, and then came back.

 

At the end of the day, they are making a show and so have to make programs that are profitable to stay in business. Sometimes that means having a guest on who doesn't get challenged. The challenges these days seem to happen with the regular callers, hence all the "if you want to call in to the show" posts .

 

They aren't purposely not challenging guests to make a profit LOL wat. The Trump train made perfect sense to me because Hillary was so corrupt. Jeff Sessions is an angel compared to Hillary. 

 

 

I did not perceive the podcast the same way that you did, Brazilda.  I agree with you that there are opportunity costs to doing an episode on Jeff Sessions, because it means they are not putting there considerable time and energy in doing all that research and production into some other valuable show. 

 

In fact I've argued on this board and on the facebook group that Stef is potentially misallocating his talents in covering political issues. 

 

However, I felt it was clear in the episode that the show was moreso attacking the talking points of the anti-Trump people and media that are trying to frame everything to do with this administration (and non-left ideologies) as racist, intolerant, etc.  It never seemed to me like a blanket endorsement of Jeff Sessions and all his positions or even a significant majority of his positions.

 

If you are to call in to the show, I think it would be interesting if you talked to Stef about what he feels his responsibility is going forward with the Trump presidency and the movement that is connected now to the FDR community.  I'm not seeing much debate and self-reflection among these conservatives and alt-right people who are calling and posting on facebook.  When is Stef going to debate Vox Day or STATIST Bill Whittle on their statist bullshit instead of just talking about the left?  There was just last week I think that conversation with the French woman who was facing consequences for doing journalist work with Russia Today--she stated multiple times int he call how only christianity can provide morality for society.  Now, I seem to recall a little book called Universally Preferable Behaviour that Stef wrote to contradict what that woman was saying, but Stef didn't seem to find it germane to the conversation to mention anything about "rational secular ethics" which really was quite annoying to me. 

 

It feels (yes, this is not an argument, I'm just trying to share my experience) to me like Stef is erasing his own voice and his own decade of philosophical contributions in order to kinda fit in with the right wing crowd without any reciprocity from his counterparts.  Why the fuck should Bill Whittle (STATIST Bill Whittle!), among other right-wingers, feel like he can come on Stef's show and spout a bunch of anti-philosophical pro-state ideology without being challenged on it?  And Stef seems to not have the same freedom, by his own omission of counterpoints and reluctance to debate.  I get that before Nov 8, the show's motivation was to help Trump, so I'm not even arguing that he has to interject counterpoints into every conversation.  But when you look back at older volumes of the show, Stef consistently debated with libertarian thinkers like Walter Block, Jan Narveson, Michael Badnarik, and everyone got along and the libertarian community was better for it.  I'm eagerly waiting for Stef to inject the same contribution to the anti-left/alt-right/Trump crowd because they desperately need it!

 

For me the debates are naturally more interesting than the shows where more relatable guests come on. There is more for me to learn and grow from when I see conflicting ideas duking it out opposed to 2 people agreeing with each other for an hour. I think Stefan is not benefiting as much as his audience from the debates.

 

 

You're welcome to call in and make your case too.

 

I'd find that rather entertaining.

 

I want to learn preferably without getting ass blasted by Stefan on youtube but I appreciate the offer. I get that you believe we have misconceptions. I'd be totally satisfied if you could help to clear them up. Preferably in a straight forward non cryptic manner. 

 

Since I am well aware that main stream media is dishonest what lesson about how to think am I going to gain from an hour long video about why Jeff Sessions is obviously not a racist? 

 

I think you think going after Jeff Sessions for being pro drug war is irrelevant or unimportant because you've already covered drug war in the past. Does that sound about right? 

[Wuzzums]

I want to learn preferably without getting ass blasted by Stefan

 

 

 

Since I am well aware that main stream media is dishonest what lesson about how to think am I going to gain from an hour long video about why Jeff Sessions is obviously not a racist? 

 

 

That video was not just for you exclusively. Surely you see how we (or at the very least I) see your post as nothing more than concern trolling when you don't even donate. Take it as a life certainty that you will always be met with staunch opposition when you make demands but offer nothing in return.

 

I think you think going after Jeff Sessions for being pro drug war is irrelevant or unimportant because you've already covered drug war in the past. Does that sound about right? 

Time and time again it was explained that this is a fight for gaining control of the narrative, or pushing back against the false narrative or however you wanna describe it. The drug war is important, yes. That is a fight for another day. Now we are fighting the MSM. If we don't win this fight we'll never get to fight against the drug war. Capisci?

 

"You head off trouble down the road once you've dealt with the trouble on it."

[Brazilda]

Too much defense. We could be out there dribbling the ball in between people's legs instead. I want to see some pep in your step. Go long Jonny blue 42 blue 42 hut hut. Good hustle. Butt pats all around.  What's the point of being Mike Tyson in the 90s if you just have thumb wars and play fighting simulators with your cousin?

 

 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

If you could have cannabis legalized or have an end to illegal immigration - which would you chose?

[Brazilda]

If you could have cannabis legalized or have an end to illegal immigration - which would you chose?

 

end something that is already illegal kek  

[neeeel]

Take gay marriage for instance.

Conservatives have always argued it will lead to a slippery slope therefore marriage should always be between a man and woman.

Liberals have argued the moral stance saying it's a human right and the government should have no say in that matter.

 

And where are we now? Yep, the left is strongly pushing for pedophilia and child rape to be not only accepted but also virtuous in doing so.

 

 

 

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is a fallacy for a reason

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

[Wuzzums]

The Slippery Slope Fallacy is a fallacy for a reason

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Not an argument.

I have clearly addressed this in a reply.

[neeeel]

Not an argument.

I have clearly addressed this in a reply.

 

Nope, your "addressing it" was simply restating the slippery slope fallacy

 

pointing out that it is the slippery slope fallacy is an argument. Its pointing out a flaw in your logic.

[thecurrentyear]

Something being a fallacy does not make it untrue.

[Wuzzums]

Nope, your "addressing it" was simply restating the slippery slope fallacy

 

pointing out that it is the slippery slope fallacy is an argument. Its pointing out a flaw in your logic.

You said it's not an argument that gay marriage leads to a slippery slope leading to the promotion of pedophilia.

You showed no evidence.

I showed clear evidence to the contrary.

 

You can either concede or pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

Your move.

[neeeel]

You said it's not an argument that gay marriage leads to a slippery slope leading to the promotion of pedophilia.

You showed no evidence.

I showed clear evidence to the contrary.

 

You can either concede or pretend the evidence doesn't exist.

Your move.

 

 

I really dont see your evidence anywhere. I might have missed it, so please point it out to me if I have.

 

heres what you said 

 

Take gay marriage for instance.

Conservatives have always argued it will lead to a slippery slope therefore marriage should always be between a man and woman.

Liberals have argued the moral stance saying it's a human right and the government should have no say in that matter.

 

And where are we now? Yep, the left is strongly pushing for pedophilia and child rape to be not only accepted but also virtuous in doing so.

 

 

 

This is not evidence that legalising gay marriage will lead to a slippery slope. This is you stating that conservatives have CLAIMED that it will lead to a slippery slope.

Even saying "look whats happening now, therefore, slippery slope" is not evidence. It MAY be the case, sure, but you havent shown it. you havent shown causation. You havent shown that one necessarily follows from the other. You have , at best, shown correlation.

 

You also havent shown that the slippery slope argument is sufficient evidence to support not allowing gay marriage. 

 

 

Something being a fallacy does not make it untrue. 

 

 

I agree