Aye, and since you accept the historical record in advance, you assume your conclusion, declaring yourself the victor in advance. Oops!>

You don't seem to understand at all.

<Accepting the historical record> is not even close to meaning <assume the conclusion>. The conclusion is the <result> of knowing history.

But my point is this: It is not even <possible> to have a sensible discussion about history with someone who rejects the historical record. This is independent of what conclusions can be drawn from the historical record.

<Translation: If you want to debate a point with me, you must agree with all my a priori conclusions.>

Wrong. See above.

<If I disagree with you, you should easily be able to show why I'm wrong to do so. Let's go.>

We already did go. Which is why I wrote <tga: Heh.

Since you reject the historical record in advance, this challenge is tantamount to declaring yourself the victor in advance.>

I challenge <tgm> to defend that claim.>

<OCF: I challenge <tgm> to defend that claim.>

Ah, clear. Thanks!>

Glad to help!

<Troller: I understand the premise here. But related to my original post, I asked if people in here really believed that liberals - I take it, this means the 50% or so left of the middle - wants Christians to be put into concentrations camps. This was the statement above.>

OK, I think this is where we differ. "Liberals" does not mean the half of the population that's <left of the middle>. It means the extremists who happen to have cultural and political power now. One credible estimate is that they are about 10% of the populace:

https://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=22...

Go to minute 44, "The number of the crazy", for Z Man's estimate.

<1) You say "they" get some radical crazies to work. Who are "they" and do you really think somone approached <al wazir> to make him post what he did?>

The radical Left is composed of two groups - the useful idiots, who accept the propaganda with credulity, and the thought leaders of the Left, who come up with the propaganda. These thought leaders know the truth about what they want is <never> in the propaganda slogan, the propaganda is always just a tool to get to the objective.

<al wazir> is just a useful idiot, who volunteers for his own brainwashing by naively accepting whatever the propaganda organs tell him to believe. I know this because he has said it himself, although not with these terms.

<2) The mechanism is not reserved for the Left.>

Actually, it is. The true "Right" has been disenfranchised and banned from media, social or otherwise.

<It is a political weapon - unethical perhaps - but surely the Right has the means and intention to put it to their own use as well.>

If you are referring to the Republican party, then all I can do is shake my head. It is obvious that the Republicans' role in politics is to divert the citizenry from forming a true opposition party. They siphon off the votes of people who oppose Leftism, yet if the GOP ever wins an election, they immediately surrender to what the Left wants.

It's why Reagan, Bush I, W and Trump have all put nominees on the SCOTUS, yet Roe v. Wade will never be overturned.

I challenge <tgm> to defend that claim.>

More bearing false witness. You're just trolling now. I will pray for you, but I will also suggest that <Big Pawn> should consider enforcing his troll ban:

Are any of the American Elite Posters going to be involved in these protests?

This must mean the liberals have absolute political power now in the US (having the presidency and the House).

The claim is that they will set up concentration camps and deport Christians into these.

<The key to understanding politics is to stop listening to what politicians say, and start looking at <outcomes>. What is the result? And <know>, not just suspect, but <know>, that the outcome is exactly what the donor class wanted all along.>

So even if they are saying otherwise the outcome will be concentration camps for Christians.

I still doubt it will happen.

Regarding the GOP, you are basically saying they are colluding with the liberals. I can imagine such a scenario but I would choose to see the conflict not between different sets of values but between the financial elite and the rest of society. And if you think Trump's sympathies lie with the latter, I believe you are mistaken. One main <outcome> of his is the tax reform which certainly benefits the elite more than the rest of the population.

<Actually, it is. The true "Right" has been disenfranchised and banned from media, social or otherwise.>

Is that the claim?

I will not be attending any of those protests. They may be full of Antifa-like people looking to hijack the event and use it as antiChrist propaganda.

I thought that maybe, just maybe, the Right found themselves pushed over the line, leading to that peaceful protest at the Capitol building, but it now appears that Antifa-like agitators instigated it.

They stole the election and the law did nothing about it because the people that are supposed to uphold the law are corrupt. There is corruption through and through and it's very sad. The election was stolen in front of everybody in such a brazen fashion and yet they got away with it.

What now?

Now the libs are calling for putting conservatives, Christians, and Trump supporters in <concentration camps>. Just read <al wazir's> comments on the Other Page and you'll see that there was zero outrage from the libs.

Zero outrage.

Read my posts above (you may have to scroll back a page) and you'll see even more outrageous examples like this coming from the libs, but not just the Rogoff Libs. I'm talking about libs in high places and well-known libs.

These are the times we are moving into. There is division (started with Obama), violence from the left, cities burned down, police officers killed, stolen elections and all kinds of craziness being proposed by the new administration.

<BP: Trolling will get you banned - no warnings. >>

<OCF> has not reached the level of trolling just yet. His posts have a point even if they are unpleasant for you.

Nevertheless, do you think there is any benefit in a show of support by patriots turning out in large numbers to protest Biden's "inauguration"? Bearing in mind that 99% of the people at Washington DC who were genuine Trump supporters did not invade the Congress nor became involved in any way in the violence.

A large turnout at the fifty capital cities may send a strong message to the Dems that they are not going to get away with the stolen election.

Furthermore, it will show them that it won't be so easy to put conservatives, Christians, and Trump supporters in concentration camps.

The Left just want to put the stolen election behind them and say, "alright, time to move on and begin the healing", but if the Right maintains the rage, they can keep the pressure on the politicians.

I think that 50 state protest thing was for the 17th, so, that didn't amount to anything.

It will not be easy to put us Christians, conservatives and Trump supporters into those <concentration camps> because we are armed to the teeth. Libs think, "How will they compete with the might of the US armed forces?" but look at what 10,000 armed insurgents in Iraq did. They bogged down the US army for a long time.

We are not 10,000. We are 150,000,000-200,000,000 all armed.

However, if they can infringe further on our right to bear arms and start taking the guns, then we're getting on those trains. They will try to do this with <common sense> gun laws. You know, <common sense>. Like, "All reasonable people agree that mentally unstable people shouldn't have guns, right?" and then the definition of what a mentally unstable person because whatever they want.

About maintaining the rage on the right, I don't see much coming of it at this point, unless something unexpected happens. They will go home, get fat, sit on the couch and watch TV and say, "oh well, that's politics" - unless the left overplays their hand.

Where did you get this from?>

Further up the thread:

<Jan-13-21
Premium Chessgames Member Big Pawn:
...Is the Left really calling for concentration camps for Christians and conservatives? I will answer this directly...

...You'll notice that none of the libs on the Other Page pushed back on <Al-Wazir's> call for concentration camps where Christians and conservatives are tortured for being non-pc. >

There won't be any armed conflict. Your personal arsenal of the latest weaponry will gather dust in the cupboard while the Dems in DC pass law after law marginalising your rights and freedoms.

They know not to overplay their hand. The MSM will provide cover for the worst of their excesses, and big tech will silence anyone who tries to alert the public to the incremental loss of their freedom.

The claim is that they will set up concentration camps and deport Christians into these.>

What are you talking about? I never made such a claim (although it wouldn't surprise me). I think you have me confused with someone else.

<<<<>>>Regarding the GOP, you are basically saying they are colluding with the liberals.>

Stop changing what I write! These are YOUR words, not mine.

I am very precise in my wording, but you are completely botching what I wrote.

<OCF> has not reached the level of trolling just yet. His posts have a point even if they are unpleasant for you.>

Making up anti-Christian lies and attributing them to me is nothing like making a point. Not even close.

<I think the discussion you guys are having has long since become non-profitable.>

Nevertheless, do you think there is any benefit in a show of support by patriots turning out in large numbers to protest Biden's "inauguration"? >

<A large turnout at the fifty capital cities may send a strong message to the Dems that they are not going to get away with the stolen election. >

Notice how it works for them:

<30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers.>

<31. Belittle all forms of American culture>

<32. Support any socialist movement >

So they can destroy countries with discredit/belittle/support, but you can’t destroy Democrats with discredit/belittle, and support of truth/freedom????

They can do it with lies/failure, but you can't do it with truth/success?

<OCF and I are <not> having a discussion. I consider the discussion <long> over (as I made clear about 2 weeks ago), regardless of OCF's troll attempts.>

Excuse me, YOU told me to begin our next discussion. I did.

<But why don't you go ahead and comment, whatever it is you want to say, and see if it produces a profitable discussion?>

I just noticed this on Alan's chessforum, not that I read his forum but it was the most recent post and therefore showed up on the chessforum activity page.

Alan's forum is the one that says "Behold the fiery disk of Ra!" at the top of his bio!?

(whatever the heck that means)

Anyway, I was going to post a reply but the forum wouldn't allow me?!

It seems odd that Alan would be reading my posts and commenting on them despite having me on ignore!?

How does that work?

Also I notice Alan isn't listed on the "Hall of Shame trolls not allowed to troll the Free Speech Zone" so I wonder why he didn't post his reply here since this is the forum where I made the post he commented on.

Anyway, I kind of wonder why Alan even comments on politics.

Alan has proudly stated he is a professional poker player, and I would think such a "profession" has little to do with politics, unlike normal professions.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Alan takes pride in his "profession" as a poker player.

What I mean is, a doctor contributes to society by healing people.

A fireman contributes to society by putting out fires and rescuing people.

An engineer contributes to society by constructing things for the community.

Even an ordinary office worker may take satisfaction in working for an organisation that produces goods or services for the benefit of the community.

But how does a professional poker player contribute to society?

Unlike other jobs which produce a win-win outcome, gambling is necessarily a win-lose enterprise.

I wonder how much satisfaction Alan derives from fleecing some poor sucker out of his life savings?

Does Alan feel a sense of pride in skillfully extracting an ace from his sleeve or successfully bluffing some 'mark' out of his rent money?

I don't really see how being a professional poker player contributes to the benefit of society.

Also I notice Alan isn't listed on the "Hall of Shame trolls not allowed to troll the Free Speech Zone" so I wonder why he didn't post his reply here since this is the forum where I made the post he commented on.>

What he's doing is viewing all of our posts here in the <Free Speech Zone> while not logged in, so he can view the posts of those he has on ignore, and then he logs in on another browser to do his posting, and show you that you're on ignore.

And the reason I do not have him on the <Hall of Shame> Troll List is because even though he's a troll, I derive a lot of satisfaction from reading how butthurt he is over me and the Elite Posters.

Another reason I didn't put him on ignore is because he would use that as the excuse why he doesn't post here. "I can't post there, <BP> has me on ignore, but I would..."

This way, when we see him reading our posts on this forum and then commenting from afar on his forum about them (completely disconnected), we <know> that deep down inside, he wants to be on the inside here. He wants in the club of Elite Posters, but we also see that he doesn't have the guts to post here.

After all, the Elite Posters welcome disagreement from all sides!

<Everett> the lib was posting here too, but when I wouldnt' let him off the hook, he complained that he didn't like my <style> of debate!

LOL!

So he ran out of here in his skinny jeans, tail tucked between his legs, over to the Spit Ball forum.

<wtpy>, I think is too lazy to post here. He knows he can't get away with lazy posting, lazy debating and the usual lib-level crap posting that is the norm at the Other Page. Therefore, <wtpy> doesn't post here.

Do the Elite Posters really think that <wtpy> or <everett> or any of those other butthurt lib-nerds are going to come out and say, "I hate getting my ass kicked in the free speech zone, so I'm not posting there anymore"?

No!

They will say:

I don't have time for the FSZ

I don't like the FSZ

They are dishonest at the FSZ so I won't post there.

The FSZ isn't good enough for me.

I don't even <want> to post at the FSZ.

And so on.

You won't get anyone to agree with this claim.>

Doesn't make me wrong.

<<OCF and I are <not> having a discussion. I consider the discussion <long> over (as I made clear about 2 weeks ago), regardless of OCF's troll attempts.>

Excuse me, YOU told me to begin our next discussion. I did.>

I was referring to the <previous> discussion, as was <BP> (I think). If he wasn't, then he <should have>, because the <current> discussion is just you trolling.

<<<<But why don't you go ahead and comment, whatever it is you want to say, and see if it produces a profitable discussion?>>>

Anything else? You aren't entitled to your own set of facts.>

<wtpy>, I think is too lazy to post here.>

How very peculiar!?

<<Also I notice Alan isn't listed on the "Hall of Shame trolls not allowed to troll the Free Speech Zone" so I wonder why he didn't post his reply here since this is the forum where I made the post he commented on.> He knows he doesn't have what it takes to compete with the Elite Posters and he knows that a debate with an Elite Poster would leave him with a wounded sense of pride, and he doesn't fancy that at all!>

What a snowflake he is!

I get it that the Elite Posters can be very intimidating, but we're fair and honest in our debates.

Sure we're not afraid to get into the rough 'n' tumble of an argument, but we keep it clean.

I suppose the leftists prefer to just wallow in the filth of their marxist propaganda rather than put their arguments to the test.

The Non-PC Free Speech Zone is like a crucible in which the arguments of the Rogoff leftists simply couldn't survive.

Oh, and btw, you need to amend your bio:

<Rules of Engagement at the Free Speech Zone (Non PC). UPDATED for 2010>