Steve brings us the story of the ‘personal preferences’ of certain debate judges. Speak the words, “Illegal Alien” — automatic loss! Defend capitalism, freedom, private property or America — automatic loss! The really disturbing thing is not what their preferences are… it’s the fact that they have ‘preferences’ at all.
Join our elite squad of anti-elitists by becoming a Citizen Producer today:
https://billwhittlecom.wpenginepowered.com/register/
17 replies on “Undebatable”
The left used free speech to their advantage… and then shut the door behind them.
Lie-La Lavender……let that name sink in…
To take a bit of an old Firewall ….physically take the phone away from Lila, sell it and give the money to the first homeless person you see…..
And watch tuff guy Marxist Lenninist Lila go full William F. Buckley on you!
This is what happens when children aren’t spanked. LOL.
“I hate Trump!!!”…whiny communist Democrat (redundant, I know) voter.
“Well why do you hate Trump?”…sane, mature people.
“I just don’t like him. He should be in prison”….whiny communist Democrat voter.
Any questions?
We need to stop giving these bad faith toddlers deadset on ruling over us a place in any conversation. It presumes they can do adult things like admit when they’re wrong and decide based on facts not emotion.
When they grow up, then they can sit at the adults’ table. Until then, I have no time for them and neither should you.
I can’t take people seriously who on the one hand rue the assassination of MLK and blame the FBI then on the other use the FBI to prosecute parents as “domestic terrorists” for daring to say we shouldn’t teach CRT in schools.
They say whatever they need to say whenever they need to say it to get what they want.
Even the worst con artist toddlers take a break from lying and hypocrisy now and then.
RINO’s are even worse since they pretend to be on our side.
Unite. Unity is our strength. DEI is a con game for tyranny disguised as victimhood.
Only tyrants condemn people they don’t like without facts or evidence. Kings, for example, didn’t need a reason to scream, “Off with his head!” just like critical theory Marxists don’t need a reason to implement their dictates while redefining truth:
****Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress,***
Source: Encyclopaedia Britannica, definition of critical theory
* full definition and link below
Notice we didn’t get a vote on the declaration of June as “Pride Month.”
That’s why I thank God for the wisdom of the founders who gave us due process and equal protection under the law.
Both of these are being violated by the communist globalists led worldwide by the CCP and nationwide by the Democrats and RINO’s. “No one is above the law!” (Trump, Stone, Flynn, Papadopoulos, Manafort, Jan. 6ers, etc.) except when it comes to their own. Vile and disgusting communists seeking to steal our freedom need to go, but if we don’t fix every aspect of our elections by 2024 including the machine rigging, they will rule us.
We really need to start taking people like Sidney Powell and Mike Lindell and Patrick Byrne and all the rest seriously. Dominion, ES&S and there’s I think one more voting machine provider need to be brought to account.
=====MARXIST CRITICAL THEORY=====
“Critical theory, Marxist-inspired movement in social and political philosophy originally associated with the work of the Frankfurt School. Drawing particularly on the thought of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theorists maintain that a primary goal of philosophy is to understand and to help overcome the social structures through which people are dominated and oppressed. Believing that science, like other forms of knowledge, has been used as an instrument of oppression, they caution against a blind faith in scientific progress, arguing that scientific knowledge must not be pursued as an end in itself without reference to the goal of human emancipation. Since the 1970s, critical theory has been immensely influential in the study of history, law, literature, and the social sciences.”
https://www.britannica.com/topic/critical-theory
In other words, they believe they’re allowed to ignore facts in order to remake society and correct social “inequalities” whether these inequalities exist or not. They’re doing the same thing with gender “theory,” “climate change” and this stupid shamdemic where science was an afterthought at best.
Follow the science!!! (until it gets in the way of our power grab).
God bless you all.
James Fishback, the author of the article Steve Green referenced in the Right Angle episode from May 31, 2023, “Undebatable“, was the guest on a talk show the same day:
The Voice of Reason with Andy Hooser; a young “thirtysomething” conservative talk show host. (https://hooserreason.com)
Podcast Link:
https://www.podbean.com/ew/pb-ajzyf-14218cc (22:10 – 36:30)
The interview runs through a commercial break for a second segment.
In the second segment, Andy and James discuss the details covered in “Undebatable”.
I just have to say, I loved Scott’s take on this.
Ironically, I was having a similar discussion last night with 2 retired teachers at the high school level, both old friends of 40 years. We rarely talked politics as they knew of my conservative attitude but we finally “debated” both sides and my main point was the need foterr open discussions. They agreed completely and that made me smile because when are “right” YOU are RIGHT!! I’m not sure I could take the Left’s position on any issue these days, so I would not be a good debater. We must know our limitations.
Plus, my spell did not work….
This is the most ridiculous academic nonsense I have heard in, well, forever. And that is a pretty high bar to cross at this point.
Makes me glad that I went to the Ron White school of debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_B8joWR8BY
Warning NSFW, but it’s Ron White so you probably knew that!
I can relate with Ron White! That was hilarious.
Saw that Ron White bit. Loved it then, and it was the first thing that popped into my head when Steve said “Bill, what are your thoughts”!
The doctor’s lounge at our hospital was formative for me in debate. There were equal numbers of “carpetbaggers”, mainly New York Times-reading, NPR-listening, Ivy-league top 5% medical specialists and Southern-heritage surgeons. (Lately, the demographics have changed, with lots of well-learned Dr. Patels.). The former were much more well-read and brilliant at debate than me. (I was often rebutted with quotes from Founding Fathers or statistics of which I was not familiar).
But, no matter how much history I read, no matter how many mornings of NPR, no matter how many books on economics recommended to me from liberal, mostly lawyer, former classmates, I could not do what true debate teams are supposed to do. I could not cogently and faithfully argue for their side. It rang not only not true but ridiculous. There were only positions taken arising from feelings of guilt and false pity, straw man examples, and utter lies. “Oh, the poor, the unfortunate; we know what will fix them. We know what works for these dumb animals that can’t do for themselves.”
I “lost” a lot of debates, but the liberals eventually found a way to sit far away from me. I like to think they were protecting themselves and their orthodoxy from the truth. In an America that works, those dumb animals might one day be your boss. And it won’t be because of the help of liberals. It will be because they rose above their circumstance with merit and work.
I was not in debate club, but had to debate capital punishment, taking the pro side. Which at that time I was against.
Convinced myself to become pro.
As to defending it now, I’d say the following:
“Given furloughs for people sentenced to life, and life becoming fourty years, people can, and have, murdered again. However, the recidivism rate of people executed is zero. There is your deterrent.”
The no recidivism factor is the best component of this argument.
But we also know of too many cases where (even with the best of intentions and efforts, let alone with incompetent or malign and malicious efforts) sometimes the due process system fails and an (eventually discovered) innocent person is convicted. Then they languish on death row for years while the appeals run their course.
Conversely, once someone is convicted, and they have been judged to have committed the crime of murder, then they ought not be allowed to enjoy further life. Thus, I continue to wonder if some form of mandatory action to put convicted murderers in a coma for the rest of their life, but with the possibility that if new evidence or malfeasance is found later, that they can be “re-awoken” to resolve the situation.
They are not “alive” but they are not “dead” either. I don’t know how long people can purposefully be put into a coma without other problems, nor how much it would cost vs. current practices. Anyone have more info or thoughts?
More distrurbing is whoever hired these totalitarians as judges. Before the debate even happens the debate is why your school is even letting these debate boards govern your competitions. It might be fun to mess with them but a far unhealthier rot has taken root here
Bingo. It’s simply unconscionable for these “judges” to insert their own biases and prejudices in a process that simply by use of the term “judge” is supposed to be neutral. The rot has been developing for years now and in this particular application, it has firmly taken root.