Conquer Club

Immigrant demands money. so immigrant works.doing jobs the lazy arse white boy cant be arsed to do.
rest of your point. invalid.
Savvy?

suggs wrote:mmmmmmmmm thai lady boys.....
back in 7 mins.

I just watched this yesterday! (This is an Alan Partridge reference, yes?

He has permeated your mind. And mine.

in answer to your "what could be healthier?" -do i really have to say it?
back to me Lady Boys mmmmmmm

btownmeggy wrote:

suggs wrote:mmmmmmmmm thai lady boys.....
back in 7 mins.

I just watched this yesterday! (This is an Alan Partridge reference, yes?

He has permeated your mind. And mine.

classic scene that- "I dont find them attractive , just confusing"

... I take Michael Savage's International manifesto not too seriously, though I agree on some points. Savage makes much better arguments on the domestic front, IMHO.

... And as to the line of critics here, many of whom you will notice are foreign, they use the standard method of liberal argument - they change the subject, or make illogical comparisons (with some exceptions).

... "Well, what about (fill this part in with favorite, only tangently related outrage)"?!

... Government is bigger than it has ever been, in terms of money taken from the population and in the amount of regulation and controlit has over the citizens it should be serving. I find myself using an Obama line, "Enough is enough"! I want some "Change"!

... Somebody please give me a direct and to the point reason why assistance should not be cut off from every able-bodied person (and let's not dance around the subject with diversionary talk of earthquakes and tornados).

... Send the message, "You have 6 months to get a job, because in 6 months, your assistance will end". People want to eat, of that I am sure. They will work. Detractors will claim, "Where are the jobs?!" This goes hand in hand with the expulsion of illegals. Think about it. People who wish to eat will work.

... "Okay", they might argue, "Who's going to watch this single mother's kids when she's at work making minimum wage"? A valid argument and a situation created by the welfare state. It will be a slow process. I agree we cannot just let the kids go hungry so a slower weaning will be required with the hard-core welfare cases, while taking away their ability to produce more state-dependent children of course.

... America's been overrun by liberal brain-washed pussies who never knew a better America. It might be a stretch to get them to understand.

...

Napoleon Ier wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:Oooooh yays for meggy, she's gone and recited all that long list of nasty long words we use to describe people who we disagree with when we can't be arsed to present a proper argument.

You NEVER do this.

Alright, at least by-and-large mine are my own material (or Jeremy Clarkson and Nrse's occasionly, but w/e), you're just a parrot repeating what socialist academia and leftist news outlets regurgitate to you.

Besides...xenophobia, patriarchal hierarchies, a bit of healthy, viril expression of anger through hatred of oppressive authorities...what could be healthier?

You invent all your own words?

I usually find it more convenient to use already invented words to most clearly and concisely convey my ideas.

Schmibmlex.

btownmeggy wrote:You invent all your own words?

Shakespeare did it all the time.

tzor wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:You invent all your own words?

Shakespeare did it all the time.

Some of them, but mostly he stole them from... the annals of the history of the English language (aka the leftist academic elite??)

btownmeggy wrote:

tzor wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:You invent all your own words?

Shakespeare did it all the time.

Some of them, but mostly he stole them from... the annals of the history of the English language (aka the leftist academic elite??)

Don't you have some embroidery or something to do?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Don't you have some embroidery or something to do?

I win!

suggs wrote:Schmibmlex.

and blimffjog. Grok? (Chortle)

suggs wrote:mmmmmmmmm thai lady boys.....
back in 7 mins.

Katouey is the preferred title.....they certainly tend not to act like ladies

jonesthecurl wrote:

suggs wrote:Schmibmlex.

and blimffjog. Grok? (Chortle)

Word.

Snorri1234 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:

suggs wrote:Schmibmlex.

and blimffjog. Grok? (Chortle)

Word.

Yep, those are words.

btownmeggy wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:although this deserves acknowledgment for the simple fact that the policy measures are consistent, coherent, and have an aim and ways to achieve said aims in mind, i still cant bring myself to believe in the premises.

In the context of a globalizing world in which reworking of the social contract is probably required, taking your ball and going home is not a very well thought out way to approach such a negotiating table, and that is more or less what the policy measures add up to.

GT... mi amor... it drives me crazy how in threads like this, in order to, I dunno, "start a meaningful dialogue", you lend even the tiniest bit of credence to xenophobic, patriarchal, regressive, hateful blather.

it is a personality flaw of mine, i apologize, and tentatively say never again (though we both know im lying, and now youll have to add dishonesty to my flaws...)

the rhetoric is much more hateful when you abstract it and look at what essentially the message is. Here more or less is the message of the domestic policy especially...If you make moral choices that we as lawmakers and policy advisers dont like, your lifestyle will be punished. There are a number of ways in which its awfully regressive, hateful, and patriarchal. Its not hard to find which policy points are being referred to there. While often people will remark about the "common sense policy" hinged around what they feel is cleaning up excesses, it doesnt reveal to them, but does reveal to anyone who doesnt think like that, a festering dislike which borders on hatred of people doing those things.

got tonkaed wrote:

btownmeggy wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:although this deserves acknowledgment for the simple fact that the policy measures are consistent, coherent, and have an aim and ways to achieve said aims in mind, i still cant bring myself to believe in the premises.

In the context of a globalizing world in which reworking of the social contract is probably required, taking your ball and going home is not a very well thought out way to approach such a negotiating table, and that is more or less what the policy measures add up to.

GT... mi amor... it drives me crazy how in threads like this, in order to, I dunno, "start a meaningful dialogue", you lend even the tiniest bit of credence to xenophobic, patriarchal, regressive, hateful blather.

it is a personality flaw of mine, i apologize, and tentatively say never again (though we both know im lying, and now youll have to add dishonesty to my flaws...)

the rhetoric is much more hateful when you abstract it and look at what essentially the message is. Here more or less is the message of the domestic policy especially...If you make moral choices that we as lawmakers and policy advisers dont like, your lifestyle will be punished. There are a number of ways in which its awfully regressive, hateful, and patriarchal. Its not hard to find which policy points are being referred to there. While often people will remark about the "common sense policy" hinged around what they feel is cleaning up excesses, it doesnt reveal to them, but does reveal to anyone who doesnt think like that, a festering dislike which borders on hatred of people doing those things.

... F (the latter half), G (the first half), and H, I have to agree that these are moral issues and government's role should be severely limited.

F. Increase pay for active duty combat troops by 10 percent. Number Two.
Fire any unmarried military person becoming pregnant while on active duty.
”

G. Make abortions illegal, except when the physical survival of the mother
is threatened, to be determined by three medical doctors. Require Norplant
for all women on welfare of childbearing age.

H. Close all houses of sex and massage.

... However, this one adds an interesting twist and runs contrary to the "Poor moral choices to be punished" theory.

I. Expand the DEA, while decriminalizing most drugs.

...

Most of it's extreme, and most of that is probably too extreme and I'm not sure if it would get the job done, but a lot of it is hitting pretty close to the mark.

I don't see a way to stall the decline of the U.S. and I figure as our clout diminishes in the foreign policy arena, we'll become more introverted and the President will be forced to hand the majority of his power back to Congress as it should be.

Hologram wrote:Most of it's extreme, and most of that is probably too extreme and I'm not sure if it would get the job done, but a lot of it is hitting pretty close to the mark.

I don't see a way to stall the decline of the U.S. and I figure as our clout diminishes in the foreign policy arena, we'll become more introverted and the President will be forced to hand the majority of his power back to Congress as it should be.

I honestly think the US probably is going to come back to the fold so to speak no matter what policies are enacted in the medium to long term. How exactly this transition is facilitated, in my own personal opinion, will depend to a great deal on how the US looks at this scenario and responds.

got tonkaed wrote:

Hologram wrote:Most of it's extreme, and most of that is probably too extreme and I'm not sure if it would get the job done, but a lot of it is hitting pretty close to the mark.

I don't see a way to stall the decline of the U.S. and I figure as our clout diminishes in the foreign policy arena, we'll become more introverted and the President will be forced to hand the majority of his power back to Congress as it should be.

I honestly think the US probably is going to come back to the fold so to speak no matter what policies are enacted in the medium to long term. How exactly this transition is facilitated, in my own personal opinion, will depend to a great deal on how the US looks at this scenario and responds.

Well, it looks like right now the economy will force the government to cut money to foreign policy and pull out from some of our overseas bases (like Japan and NATO) which will basically end our ability to police other nations in our own interests and then with a diminished military, the President's wartime privileges will be revoked and Congress will be given the power it hasn't had since the 20s.

As someone else said, the manifesto doesn't go near far enough.

As hologram said;

Well, it looks like right now the economy will force the government to cut money to foreign policy and pull out from some of our overseas bases (like Japan and NATO) which will basically end our ability to police other nations in our own interests and then with a diminished military, the President's wartime privileges will be revoked and Congress will be given the power it hasn't had since the 20s.

Does this mean that with a super powerful Congress, they will take back their reins of lawmaking from the Judiciary? What a deal!

i wholeheartedly support this candidate and think all neo-cons should vote for him. and his manifesto (in soviet russia, manifesto read you!). here in america, generally there's a "platform", but hey. semantics.

we need more splinter political groups off the republican single issue voter conservatives.

this is good for democracy. especially the democracy supporting Obama.

Nobunaga wrote:Where precisely is the hateful bit in this?

It's not hateful. It's just another bullshit rhetorical smokescreen that the left uses in order to shut off disagreement with their agenda. You'll notice she never answered you on that.

I agree with a lot of that manifesto except for this part -

Nobunaga wrote:H. Close all houses of sex and massage.

My good buddy Snorri would probably have a cow if that part ever became law

we need more splinter political groups off the republican single issue voter conservatives.
this is good for democracy. especially the democracy supporting Obama.

Mr. Chairman.....(insert crowd noise).....I yield the floor to the man from Pennsylvania.....(insert mike feedback)....who has been mentored by the man who wrote the book on how to splinter a political party.....B. HUSSEIN OBAMA!

Since it seems theres a bit of a disconnect about why the policies as elucidated are seen as hateful, and my first post did not clear up the issue this is why at least in my opinion (and possibly others) the platform in part (or in whole) can be viewed as hateful.

When you look at any policy, it does not simply do justice to look at what the policy does. In doing simply this, you would have a hard time at crafting or evaluating any policy, because there seems to be no justification or necessity to do anything. Hopefully that would end any claim that the policy need only be looked at by what it does, as such a comment or argument seems shortsighted.

Having moved on from the simple assertion that policies are just targeted in order to do certain things, its necessary to move onto the why a certain policy is enacted or attempted. Usually we cannot argue something is just fiscally expedient, as most governments cannot be that rationale if their constituency is made up of people who are not solely rational decision makers. Therefore if something is not done in order to just clean the books or to run a leaner ship, we must establish why these things were chosen, instead of something else.

At this point we should probably pose that most people are not altruists, though we all enter the social contract. It seems safe to assume from there that people probably will not choose to enact policies that cause them harm, discomfort, or limit their decision making capacity in ways they do not agree to. This of course applies to policies that take something away, rather that policies which create...but since most of the policies tend to be about scaling back, thats what is most relevant to discuss.

Now it would be enough to assume that people are just choosing to take away from areas that dont affect them, given that they want to keep the policies that benefit them, but care little about the others, as they not altruists. But to assume that they can adequately understand what does or does not affect them, they need to be able to place others in relation to the policies that are being enacted. Therefore people do not make decisions in a box, they do so in relation to other people in which they engage the social contract.

At this point we must pose the question, if people are able to understand how the policies they choose to enact will affect someone elses life, probably in a negative way (not too far of a jump from what we have discussed thus far) why do they choose to support such a policy? Well, it seems rather unlikely that people would just choose to support policies that take away from aspects of society that do not affect them, as people support things all the time that in all likelyhood will never affect them. Often as a result of a particular policy therefore, we must assume people make a judgment in order to support a certain policy. Therefore, people likely realize they are doing something which negatively affect someone as its not hard to make that connection.

Since most people do not wish to cause harm to their fellow human in general, they likely have to make justifications about why they would choose to take away a policy that supports others. In all likelyhood it is because they perceive the action or people who partake in the action as bad. Therefore they have fewer qualms about doing something which will negatively affect them.

At the end of things, if you are choosing to enact policies that negatively affect people, especially when it is unlikely that you will personally feel the effect of the policy remaining or not having been made in concrete terms...you are likely doing so out of a variety of a emotions/justifications. Hate, although certainly not the only one of these emotions/rationalizations is certainly one of the possible ones.

While i regret the tldr...ive tried to make the line of thought as laid out as possible, so that it would be as clear as possible for someone who disagreed or did not see where the logic came from.