Quote of the day—Pam Carlson @PamCarlson3

Keyboard commando who has to carry a gun everywhere because his penis is so tiny says what?

Pam Carlson @PamCarlson3
Tweeted on September 24, 2021
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! H/T to In Chains @InChainsInJail.

Keyboard commando who can’t bring anything but childish insults to the discussion says they lost the argument.—Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Pam Carlson @PamCarlson3

  1. As far as I’m concerned, any argument beginning “you say X because Y” is suspect on its face.

    First, claims that someone said X must be checked carefully; people often lie about what other people have said. (They call it “sloppy research” when called on it. No, misquoting someone is a lie.)

    And second, unless someone says explicitly why they believe something, we simply don’t know. Making up reasons for someone else is the cheapest tactic ever; it means nothing and it’s fundamentally dishonest.

    “You only carry a gun because”… (a) guns start with a G, just like your favorite Grand Latte (b) you like words with Gs in them, like “gun” or “arugula” (c) you have to carry a gun in case Trump voters ever come knocking at your door (d) you need a gun in case you’re invited to a Black Lives Matter rally and they need extra muscle (e) what if the police won’t submit quietly to defunding? (f) Joe Biden said to fire a shotgun through the door, and you took him seriously

    …and on and on. This is easy. (I’ll be here all week, folks. Tip your waiters.)

      • Heh. Remember the old ads?

        “What’s the word?
        What’s the price?
        Fifty twice.”

        That was, what, in the ’70s?

  2. Understanding the mindset

    It doesn’t matter to them that they “lost the argument”, as you put it. That’s not the point, at all.
    “Losing the argument” will never deter the forces of evil. It’s just a first step.

    When verbal persuasion fails, they simply resort to other means.
    If you won’t submit to their arguments, they’ll make you submit to their threats.
    If you won’t submit to their threats, they’ll make you submit to violence.
    If you won’t submit to violence, they‘ll you’ll surely submit to death.

    And if you think about it, both sides in this great controversy operate by essentially that same set, or progression, of tactics (reason, warning, maybe some pleading and so in, maybe a few lies, then threats, then violence). Police enforcing the law will apply some version of it, same as the criminal violating the law, same as a Roman dictator enforcing his own “law”.

    And so it comes down to which law is the superior law in your mind.

    In the collective mind of the left, the law is only a means to power, and so it is a matter of which power is the superior power. They’ll prove it, ultimately, by killing you, taking over your property, using it, destroying it, and then strutting, like peacocks, over the ashes. “Logic” and “reason”, even occasional truth, are among the tools in their tool bag, but they’re certainly not the only tools, nor the best ones. “Losing” an attempt at a rational argument therefore hardly matters. It’s like when you damage a screwdriver trying to get a stuck screw out. You’ll simply grab another, better tool, or resort to drilling, or etc. Whatever is required to get the job done.

    Christians of course prefer the law of God, which is perfect. The forces of evil prefer making their own law. They’ll call it superior because of the extra latitude, or “freedom”, it gives them. “No limits” and all of that, right?

    • Who was that man, Scott, whose property in Santa Barbara County was invaded via a no-knock warrant twenty-five or thirty years ago because of a “reputable tip” that there was marijuana grown on it in order to exercise the property forfeiture law and gain a big extra chunk of money for new LEO toys?

  3. Says someone who puts political sweaters on dogs? HAHAHAHA!
    Their scared. They should be.
    Getting played into awaking in sleeping giant. Guess who gets crushed first?

Comments are closed.