YouTuber Old Fart Rants takes The Big Government Challenge

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.2104198026483269&type=3 https://archive.is/0dGeO https://www.facebook.com/notes/old-fart-rants-debunked/old-fart-rants-takes-the-big-government-challenge/2104198569816548/ If you refuse to log into Facebook (I was not able to archive the final link, so I posted it all below. Sometimes Facebook cooperates, sometimes they do not) I did post the entire transcript of the beatdown I gave the drug addict Old Fart Rants back in 2017. The screenshots are archived & can be viewed sans a Facebook log-in. IF you want to see how I used EMPHASIS in this piece (not sure how to do that on Rumble) you will have to log-in to Facebook & see the original.

***
Old Fart Rants take the Big Government Challenge! BONUS: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?

Screenshots 1-2: Back in March 2017, I challenged Old Fart Rants & his dentist to name all the government programs they could that were on time & on budget during implementation. As you all know by now (or should), Old Fart Rants is a fervent-supporter of income redistribution—some of it because he benefits from it quite a lot (Medicare) & thus feels guilty & he’s insanely jealous of people who create jobs—he’s never created a job in his life.

I figured the old feller could rattle off (because he’s quite learned you know & most people are below him intellectually) a dozen or so government programs that have benefitted various groups (I was ready for him to cite the federal food stamp program, National School Lunch Program, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.). I also was looking at time-frames (Program X will be implemented in 2 years & cost Y dollars) as it is also important.

Progressives are quick to cite Pentagon cost-overruns, but their hypocrisy comes to the forefront when they fail to require the same standards or welfare programs or other government pie-in-the-sky programs that seek to redistribute wealth.

I made sure he saw these challenges & gave him several days to prepare for my challenge. Since he’s online virtually 24/7 (I marvel at all the time he spends online telling everyone else how busy he is & how great his life is when he’s not being a YouTube vegetable—I think he’s trying to convince himself, but I digress) he knew the gauntlet was going to be laid down.

Most of my rebuttals were already prefabricated https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z10naLiNob0 here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G3esT1NvNI here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQYA2r7pxVg here, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcb4Ue2zSzs here or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lliA3ZJZCAY here (just to name a few of the more important ones). I was ready for basically anything this fossil would come up with. I had plenty of details on numerous subjects, so any proof he would offer for a government program being beneficial (as well as on-time & on-budget—Chris Edwards of Cato has something called “Edwards’ Budget Law”, demonstrating that the federal government is guilty of obscene cost-overruns on most projects) would be challenged.

Any of those who have diligently followed by slapdowns of Old Fart Rants know he’s not much for details. He’ll offer a 5-sentence magnum opus on one topic, then another & then another. I think he does this because he doesn’t know much and he thinks throwing 300 lbs. of dung at a wall (seeing how much will stick) intimidates his opponents.

Not that anyone would get a word in edgewise on one of his vids or one of his friends’ channels, you have to contend with a slew of “this channel has no content” trolls https://web.archive.org/web/20210304113328/https://professor_enigma.webs.com/oldfartrants3 if you dare disagree with him. It’s always been easier for me to use my own bully pulpit, as he can’t do anything about that, aside from threatening to get me suspended from YouTube. “Disagree w/ me, I’ll get you removed from YouTube.” Spoken like someone from the Stasi indeed.

Without further delay, let’s get to Brown Teeth’s responses to my challenge (and I will debunk his topic-avoiding challenge as well).

Screenshot #3: Old Fart Rants had stayed away from OtherDupe’s channel for several months since I crushed him on election night. https://archive.is/j16Rn https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1918440138392393&type=3 I knew I’d be able to goad him into coming back eventually & come back he did.
I’d been planning to do this for some time & had been goading him (he checked my activity on an almost daily basis, his seething rage got him to come back, as well as thinking he had a good “zinger”) for a long time to take this challenge.
As you can see from the previous screenshots, he was aware of this challenge, but offered nothing to me as a pushback (I’ll refute his “counter challenge” in a bit, he’s just copying talking points from Richard Dawkins, just as he copied rants from Hillary Clinton & I squashed those on election night, whoops!).
Keep an eye on the timestamp in the lower right hand corner of the screenshots folks!

Screenshot #4: Challenge issued again, Old Fart Rants is caught looking at a 95-MPH fastball whiz by him… again.

Screenshot #5: Challenge issued again. Once again, Old Fart Rants cannot name even ONE government program that was on-time & on-budget. Whaaaat? OFR thinks by segueing to another topic, he wins! Uh, no.
One would think a highly-educated man such as himself would be able to rattle off at least three or four. The poor old feller is conceding just as the gun goes off.

Screenshots #6-7: Challenge issued again, Old Fart Rants fails again. He came to the plate & didn’t even swing the bat, he watched 3 fastballs go over the plate & is crying in the dugout about how unfair that is.
I took time to mention how laughable it is that Old Fart Rants keeps whining about debates w/ me & I’m not worth his time, yet he keeps responding to me. If that were the case, he would’ve just blocked me long ago.
He wants to keep an eye on everything I say because his modus operandi is to get me suspended. That’s proof I have soundly defeated him. As for the trolls that hang around him, I just block them—they’re only around to get me to waste time w/ them & run interference. Let’s see if OFR comes up w/ anything better next time around, eh?

Screenshot #8: OFR usually does this, after a while he’ll quit the thread (or delete the thread https://rumble.com/vcnbtf-old-fart-rants-engages-in-freudian-projection.html see 2:08-2:50). As an aside, nobody’s taking OFR’s challenge to reveal where they bank, who’s dumb enough to do that? Only an idiot would fall for his “trolling for info” ploy) & start a new one so the one he’s getting thrashed on moves down the totem pole.

I tried to get the fossil back on task, I make sure I give him amply opportunity to respond to my challenge, just in case he tries to say I only said it once in passing & then left the thread. I also record it as it happens, because he will delete the thread too (this is why he never posts on threads he doesn’t originate, he can’t delete it/cover up his defeat).

Screenshot #9: Yet another attempt to get OFR to answer. One would think a highly-educated (cough) “man” such as himself would be able to rattle off a couple examples. He knows that I have detailed responses ready (responses that I put together myself, they aren’t copied off of Hillary Clinton’s campaign website) & OFR doesn’t do details.

If he cannot end a debate in 5 sentences, he throws a hissy fit. This is why his videos are so generalized folks, he stupid & lazy. That’s a bad combo! Let’s see how he does!

Screenshot #10: It’s becoming pretty apparent that Old Fart Rants is waiting until I log-out. I guess he cannot name even ONE government program that was on time & on budget. Then why does he support Bernie Sanders and/or Hillary Clinton?

Well, he’s been brainwashed. One has to attend some school to be brainwashed, so perhaps all his brainwashing was done at home. OFR doesn’t care, so long as money is being redistributed from one class of citizens to another.

Screenshot #11: OFR is raging at this point & comes back to something he’s done often. His vaunted Yes/No question that he asked me many years ago has already been debunked https://web.archive.org/web/20221208115611/https://professor_enigma.webs.com/senileoldfart.htm (he keeps asking because he has a lot of free time & figures he can yell over me because unlike him, I’m not a YouTube vegetable) & we’ll get to his new set of zingers in a moment.
I issue the challenge again, how many government programs can OFR name that were on time & on budget? Still hasn’t named any so far.

Screenshot #12: OFR is going silent again, so I issue the challenge again. How many government programs can OFR name that were on time & on budget. Hello?

Screenshot #13: I have no idea who brown teeth means by the fat pig under a tent. Maybe it’s his girlfriend, I don’t know. I’ve beaten you in debates over & over again Dave, https://web.archive.org/web/20220608033448/https://professor_enigma.webs.com/oldfartrants.htm get used to it. You are my personal doormat.

I guess Dave couldn’t name even one government program (and his counter-challenge was proof of this, he wanted out of this debate) that was on time & on budget, despite extolling the virtues of big government (in generalized, Kindergarten-level fashion of course) in virtually all his videos (any time he speaks of “being opposed to government waste” that’s about as far as his knowledge goes—I’m not kidding, he’s that stupid).

Then why does he continue voting for big government? I’d say it’s his way of making up for all the government money he & his family have received. Maybe it’s white guilt? But he can’t articulate why he’s in favor of big government, he just is.

I gave him amply opportunity to answer & he did not. He knew any generalized example he gave me would get squashed & require a retooling of his examples. Even if he could do that (and he cannot), he’s too lazy to do so. Now to his segue/counter-rebuttal, which really doesn’t prove much.
******************
Basically, Dave is saying these United States isn’t a Christian Nation & because John 3:16, Philippians 2:10-11, Romans 10:9 or Exodus 20 aren’t ensconced in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, then by golly this proves what exactly?

Before we get to that though, I do have a pushback from Old Fart Rants’ own words. Back on election night (linked above) the foundation of his argument (which I dispensed with) was “like any [Constitutional] right, there are & should be sensible restrictions.”

Go read all that commentary for yourself & my rebuttals, no need to repeat it here. Ok, I could finagle “sensible” restrictions/ambiguous addendums/living Constitution into the 1st Amendment (or any other for that matter) & declare that since Congress is no respecter of religions, Christianity could be recognized as the truth & Jesus could be recognized as God who “pitched his tent with men.”

See, all I need is an ambiguous term & we’ll run with it. OFR says he’s against ObamaCare (but has a bi-polar fit whenever someone talks ill of it, go figure that out), but we all know he’s for it. He simply says he’s against it because he knows it’ll be a failure & he can use that failure to push for single-payer (that way he can have all his health care paid for, instead of most of it).

Anyways, since he supports violations of Article I Section I (Congress is the lawmaker, not an alphabet soup agency) & supports penalties… err taxes on folks who do not do something (in this case, purchase health care insurance & the government will determine what qualifies as “health insurance”), then perhaps Congress can create a Dept. of Religious Integration & Instruction & that Cabinet-level agency can decree that Jesus is Lord and Savior.
Heck, we need not do that, Congress can send a few thousand sheets of blank paper (after Congress passes it of course) over to the State Dept. & it can then declare that Jesus is Master & Lord of all, every knee shall bow, every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord.

We can even penalize… err tax folks who refuse to go to synagogue or church—of course, Washington will define what “synagogue” or “church” is. You may not like it, but they’re doing it for your own good, much like health care & just about everything else you do. Those folks in government agencies are made of a much finer clay than you & they know what you need better than you do. You’re too stupid to run your own life, let these economically-ignorant, morally-repugnant pukes in Congress decide for you.

This is where Old Fart Rants goes ballistic & rejects my arguments because I either don’t give him a 3-sentence summary for mouth-breathers—Or because it’s “boring” or because “it’s just stupid” or something. He’ll have some cockamamie response to justify victory in his tiny brain pan.

What I’ve written above would be enough to stale-mate his arguments about whether the first three commandments violate the First Amendment. Old Fart Rants regularly votes for candidates & supports members of Congress who knowingly, willingly, gratuitously violate Article I Section I, the 2nd Amendment (as an aside, here’s a compendium of sources https://web.archive.org/web/20190320224615/https://plus.google.com/103481995330471327263/posts/92vB5YLVaHJ illustrating Old Fart Rants’ complete & total lack of knowledge on firearms/2nd Amendment), the 4th Amendment & Congress’ specifically Enumerated Powers.

Old Fart Rants is a Stasi-like authoritarian & he doesn’t like my “assault weapons” (this goes for anything he doesn’t like, such as paying for his own health care) so by golly, the 2nd Amendment is subject to “reasonable restrictions.”

Old Fart Rants complaining about something violating the Constitution is selective outrage & it’s a YUUUGE case of pot meet kettle. So, I could stop there as I’ve stale-mated him & exposed his hypocrisy. But I won’t, we’re going to engage in a brief discussion of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, https://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.php specifically Article 11 https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp#art11 . Several items need to be mentioned:

1) For 3 centuries, the Barbary Coast states had been attacking, pillaging & plundering merchant ships in the Mediterranean Sea. These Moslem fanatics were also attacking ships because they worshipped a different god, they were attacking Christian ships.

2) The Barbary States would lose a toe-to-toe battle with the British Navy at that time, but other states (such as the UK & France) were encouraging the piracy because it tamped-down competition from “lesser” states, such as these United States.

3) This put these United States between a rock-and-a-hard-place, as their Barbary aggressors considered themselves “at war” with anyone that they did not have a formal agreement (Treaty) with. The U.S. had been hurt financially by this piracy, couple that w/ a lack of any international coalition to oppose the Barbary barbarians & it would’ve been extremely counterproductive to send the treaty back to be re-negotiated, despite the possibly disagreeable minutiae.

4) When the Treaty was re-worked 8 years later, Article 11 had been exhumed from the text.

5) “Fearing that his overthrow was near at hand, Yusuf Karamanli agreed to negotiate a peace. On June 4, 1805, he accepted the last American offer of $60,000 for the release of the American prisoners and approved a new treaty that did not require tribute payments. Once the American objective had been accomplished, Hamet was left without support to continue the attempt to overthrow Yusuf Karamanli.”

6) “America did not stop paying tribute to all of the pirates completely until 1815. But it is clear enough that by this time, where Tripoli was concerned, they had the upper hand that they did not have years earlier. This suggests that the reworking of the treaty without Article 11 should be regarded as better reflecting American sentiments than the earlier version, regardless of who wrote or negotiated it. It may be further noted that no such verbiage as Article 11 is found in any of the treaties with the other Muslim pirate states -- which throws a wrench into the idea offered by the above skeptical site that it belonged in the text and would have been welcomed by Muslims.”

J.P. Holding stated to me in an e-mail message (4/25/17): “The rub is that the phrase to people back then would have meant basically a theocracy or a monarchy ruled by a king who was also in some way over the church.

Obviously, that's not what we are and it isn't what we were founded as. The atheist view is just as stupid, the one that sees NO influence from Christian thought. The Bible was one of many inspirations to more than one Founder. I wouldn't call it Christian or secular. But I'd say they took for granted that the people who have some kind of religious influence on the society.”
Jesus was still resurrected for my sins, regardless of whether America was founded as a “Christian Nation” or not. Now some closing comments from the previously-linked piece, which are uber-important.

We do not argue that eliminating Article 11 is the same as proving that America was indeed "founded on the Christian religion" -- whatever that may mean. To what extent that may or may not be so is something we plan to look into in future essays. For the present, please note that:

“The article as it stands merely says that the government of America is not founded on the Christian religion. This does not mean that the American social/political network was not founded with Christian principles of mind, or that the peoples of America were not Christian to some degree; it merely addresses the government of America. Why?”

“It may occur to critics that the phrase ‘founded on the Christian religion’ would have a certain meaning to those whose state were ‘founded on’ the Islamic religion -- a ‘Mehomitan nation’. The essential message would be that America was not a Christian theocracy, or a state where the church had political power, as the religious authorities in Muslim nations had power -- which is something no one argues for America.”

Our conclusion: Article 11 is a skeptical dud that proves nothing about the founding principles of this nation and says nothing about to what extent Christian influence has shaped us or our government.

And some comments from Jonn Eidsmoe, author of the book Christianity and the Constitution:

Those who use the Treaty to prove that the United States is not founded upon Christianity argue that it it doesn't matter what the Arabic version of the Treaty said, because only the English version was read to and ratified by the United States Senate. I believe it does matter. A treaty is a contract between two (or more) nations, and an essential element of a contract is a "meeting of minds." If you contract to buy my house from me, and my copy of the contract lists the price as $200,000 and your copy lists the price as $150,000, we do not have a meeting of minds. On a major matter like the purchase price, this lack of a meeting of minds would probably mean the entire contract is invalid. On a less essential matter, it might mean only that the disputed provision is invalid. Likewise, the difference between the English and Arabic versions of the Treaty of Tripoli mean that, at the very least, the alleged Article 11 is invalid. However, I have to add that although the alleged Article 11 of the Treaty is invalid and has no legal force and effect, it might still be of some evidentiary value in understanding how the founders viewed the relationship between Christianity and the founding of the United States government.

You make an excellent point when you note that the disputed Article 11 says the government of the United States is not founded upon the Christian religion. The government is not the nation, and the government of the United States is not the same as the state and local governments. In adopting the First Amendment, the Founders clearly intended that there be no established religion at the national level, but they left the states free to have their own establishments. A primary reason for the adoption of the First Amendment establishment clause was the different establishments at the state level -- Congregationalists in New England, Anglicans in the South, Baptists in Rhode Island, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, etc. If I had been a Senator at the time of the ratification of the Treaty of Tripoli, I might have raised my eyebrows at the wording of Article 11, but I probably wouldn't have considered the statement categorically false. The statement does not directly contradict my understanding that the United States was founded upon Biblical values that were brought to America largely by Christians.
You correctly note that the diplomat Joel Barlow was instrumental in the negotiation and drafting of the Treaty. My understanding is that Barlow was a religious skeptic, and he may have used this note from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli to insert this statement into the Treaty. I've also read that Barlow did not know Arabic…
Those who cite the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, usually ignore the https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris.asp Treaty of Paris of 1783. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording.

In closing, Old Fart Rants’ attempt to inject naturalism/secularism into the very foundation of America (at least at the federal level) is not totally & completely wrong, but it’s very far from being correct.
Congress is no respecter of religions & it shouldn’t be. I wouldn’t want these lunkheads debating legislation to establish a federal/state-sanctioned religion anyways. If you would, have you seen how they manage taxpayer money? That alone should be enough to keep them out of that arena. Have a nice day!

My playlists (many of these vids are on Rumble) debunking Old Fart Rants & his brown teeth! https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoA9J0G6s-6rOXxz8xDS6oAWKaHk_TgWF https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoA9J0G6s-6peqTWO19H3NBQqchkcBOGF Old Fart Rants falsely claimed to have studied the Bible for 50 years, I shredded that claim https://rumble.com/vcztdd-old-fart-rants-never-studied-the-bible-hub-video.html because I have talent on loan from God. And when I say God, I mean Jesus Christ.