May I ask why you posted that video on <Big Pawn>'s forum?

Is that how you see <Big Pawn>?

Do you envisage that fellow lying on the couch to be an accurate representation of <Big Pawn>?

Has <Big Pawn>'s comments led you to believe that is a true depiction of his relationship with his wife?

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-con...

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-con...

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-con...

Don't look at this one, but it's funny

http://www.returnofkings.com/wp-con...

The article is great.

http://www.returnofkings.com/95976/...

What has happened is that, by design, men have been taught, or I should say brainwashed, to put women on a pedestal and to take themselves off the pedestal to make room. We live in culture of woman worship and this is done to get the men to think and vote more like women, because women are liberals.

Women are scared of guns for instance, because they're women. Yes, I know there are exceptions so spare me.

Any man that wants to control guns is operating out of a woman's spirit, so to get to the bottom of any gun control discussion, we must include in the conversation something about how gun cucks identify with what has become, in their fallen state, their female spirit.

There must be a reason for this trauma. A lot of times it can be because of a weak father failing to shield his sons from an overbearing mother. Things like that. It's a spiritual disorder to be like a woman and think like a woman when you're supposed to be a man.

These cucked cultures in Europe and Australia have gelded all their men and turned them into big, strong women with beards.

I mean, he posted the video, not me.

I was just curious as to why he posted it on your forum.

Didn't you wonder about that?

Anyway, I can see that my innocent questions to <zborris8> have triggered a reaction in you.

I thought <Zborris'> video was hilarious and I appreciated him sharing it here.

I can see that you're still in triggered-cuck mode, and I'm sorry if my funny post to you got you all emotional again.

You never answered my questions, which is a shame, because I was looking forward to understanding your positions better. I guess my questions struck a nerve and you wanted <out> of the discussion.

I want you to stop being scared of my questions and answer them so we can debate liberal gun control with a full understanding of each other's perspective.

I could tell that straight away from your previous post which was way over the top in response to my simple couple of questions directed at <zborris8>.

I mean, my questions weren't even directed at you.

I also thought <Beer and a lady-friend> was pretty funny, but then I thought, hmmm ... I wonder why <zborris8> posted it on BP's forum?

I didn't notice any prior posts leading up to it. It just sort of appeared out of nowhere.

I just wondered if <zborris8> was making a comment about you.

Didn't you wonder about that?

It wasn't really a response, it was more of chiming in on the discussion.

I think you've taken it the wrong way.

<I mean, my questions weren't even directed at you.>

I realize this and I have no problem with your questions.

<I just wondered if <zborris8> was making a comment about you.

Didn't you wonder about that? >

Nope.

Now look here boy. I want you to get back to the liberal gun control debate by answering my questions so we can get to it.

You're not going to be able to hide from me on this. I'm not going to let that happen, though you wish I would.

I guess the bottom line is, if you really believed in your positions, you would have the courage of your convictions, like I do.

Okay...

Do you believe that under the second amendment any person in the USA, including anyone with a serious psychiatric disorder or violent criminal conviction, should be allowed to purchase as many guns as they like, up to and including an arsenal of military assault rifles, and all the ammunition they can store?

You don't want to be unfair, do you?

Now get to it or else I'm going to have to conclude that you are running away and forfeiting the debate.

Big wuss.

Archie Bunker always answered even the toughest questions. And as articulately as you do.>

You are a symphony of ignorance. The facts, which you never concern yourself with because you're a lib, show a different story.

<Optimal Play> asked me more than 10 questions in a row and I answered them all. In one post alone he fired off ten questions, and I answered every single one of them.

Now it's his turn to answer my questions, but he doesn't want to! He wants just skip that part and just keep asking more questions!

No I haven't. I committed fully to responding to his question after he answers my questions.

Here is the proof:

<<optimal play: Tightening gun laws translates to gun laws in harmony with liberalism.> Can you clarify what you mean by that?>

Exactly the same thing you meant by this.

<Do you accept there is any need for a tightening of gun laws...>

<Do you believe a society where Christian values are widely held and practiced is compatible with gun-control?>

If by "gun control" you mean imposing liberal values on the right to bear arms, then no. It is immoral to infringe on a man's right to bear arms.

<Do you think a strong defence force is sufficient to protect America's freedom and liberty?>

No.

<Are individual liberty and personal security necessarily incompatible in the USA?>

No.

<Does American society really fall so neatly into two separate groups?>

Yes. There are lots of ways to do that. Men and women would be one. Obese and not obese would be another. Under 40 and over 40 would be yet another. Everything is always black and white, if you climb up the category tree high enough.

<Can't someone be anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-transvestite, pro-Christian, pro-Christmas, anti-Islam, anti-divorce and pro-gun-control?>

No. A Christian has nothing in common with a liberal when it comes to morality, and disarming men is immoral.

<Do you classify gun-control as evil? >

Disarming men, infringing on their God given right to bear arms is evil.

<Do you think each of the kids at the Florida school should have been armed?>

18 and older. I think all the teachers should be armed, if they want to be.

<If each of the kids at the Florida school had been carrying their own firearm for self-defence,....>

Not until the age of majority.

<Would you feel that Americans would be safer if everyone over the age of say 7 or 8 carried a gun on their hip like back in the old west?....>

Age of majority.

You made no statements, as usual, and resorted to asking me 10 ridiculous, time wasting questions in a row. That is called passive aggressive behavior and it's not manly, <optimal>. It's very <liberal female>, but I answered you anyways to show you how to answer someone directly. >

Now it's his turn.

Meathead.>

This impasse was independently arbitrated by <Colonel Mortimer>...

<Feb-28-18 Colonel Mortimer: From <optimal play>'s link, referring to <big pawn>'s 'unanswered' questions..

<big pawn> <How did you manage to convince yourself that you weren't ashamed of being emasculated an neutered by being disarmed?

Are you really convinced that it's bad to be a masculine man, or do you know that you're fooling yourself?

Are you aware that you live in an insanely libtarded society, like Europe, and that you've been taught that it's bad to be a real man?

How does it feel to know you're on the same side as the people that a pro gay marriage, can't see Islamic Terror, are pro abortion and so forth?

Are you aware that you sound like a male feminist?

Do you think a large and strong military can end home invasions?

Do you see a strong man as contrary to Christian values?

Who are the top 10 STRONG WOMEN that have influenced your life the most and in what ways did they influence you?...>

These are leading, personal questions. It's difficult to objectively comprehend how these are in anyway conducive to furthering an adult debate on the topic of guns in America.

Either <big pawn> answers <optimal play>'s debate question, or he asks a serious question of his own. At which point they both agree to answer questions posed in good faith.

Anything else will mostly likely be judged as "running away" by the forum.

The ball is in your court <big pawn>..>

Kenneth S Rogoff (kibitz #319894)

My response...

<Feb-28-18 optimal play: <Colonel Mortimer: ... These are leading, personal questions. It's difficult to objectively comprehend how these are in anyway conducive to furthering an adult debate on the topic of guns in America.

Either <big pawn> answers <optimal play>'s debate question, or he asks a serious question of his own. At which point they both agree to answer questions posed in good faith.

Anything else will mostly likely be judged as "running away" by the forum.

The ball is in your court <big pawn>..>

I agree to the Colonel's proposal.

I will answer a serious question from <Big Pawn> and he will answer my question.>

I never gave in to <mort> and made him the arbitrator.

You just resigned tonight when you failed to answer my questions. You can't fail to answer your opponents questions and then carry on like nothing ever happened.

BP 1
OP 0

If you ever want to start another debate and pick up where we left off, start with answering my questions or <no dice>.

Let's refer this to the independent arbiter, shall we?

<Colonel Mortimer: ... Either <big pawn> answers <optimal play>'s debate question, or he asks a serious question of his own. At which point they both agree to answer questions posed in good faith. Anything else will mostly likely be judged as "running away" by the forum.>

The verdict is therefore as follows:-

<Colonel Mortimer> (the indepedent arbiter) on behalf of the forum, thereby judges correctly that <Big Pawn> has run away, and therefore loses the debate.

OP 1
BP 0

And you can't agree on any kind of arbitration without my consent.

It's all over now anyways, <optimal>. It's been weeks and you haven't answered the questions, so it was high time and fair to "call it", and that's what happened.

You had your chance. I was calling you out in your forum, in my forum, on the rogoff page, but you drooped your tail and ran away!