Conquer Club

Believe it or not there is method to this madness.

The U.S., like all countries now, is run not by the government but by the corporate interests. They decide who gets to be the figurehead pres and make sure he's in line with their agenda.

Well they've decided that a really big ass collapse of the American economy is necessary for whateverthefuckdiabolicalplantheyhavenow, and so they set up a smokescreen named Obama to keep the public eye on the government. Obama will be given a lot of leeway to do what needs to be done, our already Bushraped economy will implode, and we will have chaos and destruction, for a while anyway.

I don't know what happens after that, but Obama will bear the blame and probably join his bro Osama in hiding. Rumor has it that he's now on a tropical island protected by the CIA, playing golf with Noriega, Elvis and a buncha naked houris.


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Believe it or not there is method to this madness.

The U.S., like all countries now, is run not by the government but by the corporate interests. They decide who gets to be the figurehead pres and make sure he's in line with their agenda.

Well they've decided that a really big ass collapse of the American economy is necessary for whateverthefuckdiabolicalplantheyhavenow, and so they set up a smokescreen named Obama to keep the public eye on the government. Obama will be given a lot of leeway to do what needs to be done, our already Bushraped economy will implode, and we will have chaos and destruction, for a while anyway.

I don't know what happens after that, but Obama will bear the blame and probably join his bro Osama in hiding. Rumor has it that he's now on a tropical island protected by the CIA, playing golf with Noriega, Elvis and a buncha naked houris.


Honibaz

ignorance is bliss.. It was policies of the clinton administration that led to the economical crash of 2008. Although bush did prolong it by allowing the manipulation of the interest rate and until the fed rate reaches a healthy percentage any economical advances are questionable at best.

b.k. barunt wrote:I don't know what happens after that, but Obama will bear the blame and probably join his bro Osama in hiding. Rumor has it that he's now on a tropical island protected by the CIA, playing golf with Noriega, Elvis and a buncha naked houris.


Honibaz

Come on! I would expect this kind of garbage from some, but not you. Corporate interests weighing heavily on our government -- absolutely, but any connection between Obama and Osama... you are in lala land.

It's true and like he said they're also in cahoots with Elvis

Actually Osama and Obama are two triplet brothers (no shit! Why do you think Osama wears that big ass fake beard?). They've been known to switch up a lot over the years, so there's no telling who's really in the White House at any given time.

Communists? Yougottabefuckingkiddingme. We're not in danger from Communists - are you stuck in the fooking fifties? Nobody takes that shit seriously anymore since the USSR caved in. Our true enemy now is Hillary Clinton, who is actually the third of the triplets in disguise, and one mean mofo.

Elvis is evidently just along for the ride. He's a fun guy to have around.


Honibaz

You are wrong.
The third triplet is the Dalai Olama.

Holy shit! There's four of the rat bastards!


Honibaz

b.k. barunt wrote:Actually Osama and Obama are two triplet brothers (no shit! Why do you think Osama wears that big ass fake beard?). They've been known to switch up a lot over the years, so there's no telling who's really in the White House at any given time.

Communists? Yougottabefuckingkiddingme. We're not in danger from Communists - are you stuck in the fooking fifties? Nobody takes that shit seriously anymore since the USSR caved in. Our true enemy now is Hillary Clinton, who is actually the third of the triplets in disguise, and one mean mofo.

Elvis is evidently just along for the ride. He's a fun guy to have around.


Honibaz

We're not in "danger" in the same way that we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis but there is a very real threat that political forces with an agenda to increasingly socialize the United States will be successful in abridging our liberties and fundamentally altering the American way of life.

For the record, Hillary Clinton is part of this movement.

I'm so happy he's gone.

GabonX wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Actually Osama and Obama are two triplet brothers (no shit! Why do you think Osama wears that big ass fake beard?). They've been known to switch up a lot over the years, so there's no telling who's really in the White House at any given time.

Communists? Yougottabefuckingkiddingme. We're not in danger from Communists - are you stuck in the fooking fifties? Nobody takes that shit seriously anymore since the USSR caved in. Our true enemy now is Hillary Clinton, who is actually the third of the triplets in disguise, and one mean mofo.

Elvis is evidently just along for the ride. He's a fun guy to have around.


Honibaz

We're not in "danger" in the same way that we were during the Cuban Missile Crisis but there is a very real threat that political forces with an agenda to increasingly socialize the United States will be successful in abridging our liberties and fundamentally altering the American way of life.

For the record, Hillary Clinton is part of this movement.

The left will take away your liberties? The definition of liberal means the promotion of civil liberties and freedom. O, and you wanna see which party has taken away most of the liberties in history of the USA, look at the Republicans.

Titanic wrote:The left will take away your liberties? The definition of liberal means the promotion of civil liberties and freedom. O, and you wanna see which party has taken away most of the liberties in history of the USA, look at the Republicans.

Quite ironic isn't it? It's what happens when they feel that the government has to provide every want. Today being "liberal" means bigger government, not expanding freedoms. It's conservatives who have been fighting to preserve religious freedoms, gun rights, states rights, freedom of speech, and many of the other rights and freedoms we enjoy. Liberals want to fight prosperity and use the government to distribute the wealth. Liberals fight for "equality of outcome", but that is impossible. The true equality is "equality of opportunity", but that's not enough for most liberals.

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:The left will take away your liberties? The definition of liberal means the promotion of civil liberties and freedom. O, and you wanna see which party has taken away most of the liberties in history of the USA, look at the Republicans.

Quite ironic isn't it? It's what happens when they feel that the government has to provide every want. Today being "liberal" means bigger government, not expanding freedoms. It's conservatives who have been fighting to preserve religious freedoms, gun rights, states rights, freedom of speech, and many of the other rights and freedoms we enjoy. Liberals want to fight prosperity and use the government to distribute the wealth. Liberals fight for "equality of outcome", but that is impossible. The true equality is "equality of opportunity", but that's not enough for most liberals.

Conservative commentators hae rephrased liberal to mean "big government" when infact thats false. Liberalism is not a political ideology, more a social one. "Big government" would be a more accurate description of socialism, not liberalism.

I'm not going to go over every area you think the conservative have done better, but gun rights and state rights are not an area of liberties or freedoms. "Liberals" do not fight for an quality of outcome or fight prosperity, they'll be in power for at least 12 out of 20 years by 2012 and taxes have only marginally increased, whilst the economy was great during the Clinton years). Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

Fairness doctrine, removing religion from the public eye, labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

Fairness doctrine, removing religion from the public eye, labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Removing religion from the public eye is not against the freedom of religion. To be against freedom of religion is to actually attempt to stop people from being allowed to practise their religion, limiting their choices, or telling them what to actually believe in.

Also, calling protesters racist is not against free speech, its not a good thing to do (unless its true). Add onto that the the Republicans used to smear anti-war protesters (whose cause was much more valid and just) for years on end and ran them into the ground like crap, so hard to only point to the "liberals" on that.

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

Fairness doctrine, removing religion from the public eye, labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

You're free to put up a nativity scene on your front lawn, but if nativity scenes are put up on the front lawns of courts, town halls, or on any front lawn of a public building, even if it is funded privately the state is promoting religion over non-religion as well as promoting one strain of religions over all other religions. And that goes against "freedom of religion".

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Show me one example of this where it wasn't true...

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Show me one example of this where it wasn't true...

Me.

thegreekdog wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Show me one example of this where it wasn't true...

Me.

I mean in the news, genius. hah.

Anarkistsdream wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Anarkistsdream wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Titanic wrote:Also, sinec when were "liberals" against freedom or religion or speech?

labeling health care dissenters as racist, etc.

Show me one example of this where it wasn't true...

Me.

I mean in the news, genius. hah.

Tonight's main story: thegreekdog is a racist. More at 10.

I see. Well, the one interview I saw that was done by a "unbiased" news source (CNN) showed a man being interviewed by a CNN newsbabe. After realizing that the man being interviewed was speaking intelligently, the newsbabe decided to cut to commercial because of all the racists around. You may have seen this video; it's been circulating around this forum and youtube.

Anyway, I'm not sure you can grasp the idea that someone who disagrees with the president might not be racist, despite what Janeane Garafolo will tell you.

thegreekdog wrote:I see. Well, the one interview I saw that was done by a "unbiased" news source (CNN) showed a man being interviewed by a CNN newsbabe. After realizing that the man being interviewed was speaking intelligently, the newsbabe decided to cut to commercial because of all the racists around. You may have seen this video; it's been circulating around this forum and youtube.

Anyway, I'm not sure you can grasp the idea that someone who disagrees with the president might not be racist, despite what Janeane Garafolo will tell you.

So how was this man labeled as a racist? Or, what was said in the interview to show he was racist before he spoke?

Also, saying something like "I'm not sure you can grasp the idea" to someone whom you don't know and hasn't been around in quite sometime is not only immature name-calling, but it makes your arguments fairly ineffectual... Maybe you should learn to actually cite facts and not your opinions...

(1) Relax.

(2) You pointed out, originally, that you wanted some kind of proof that healthcare protestors were not racist. Does this seem a little strange to you? It does to me for two reasons. One, you presume to ask for evidence proving that people aren't racist. I think it would go the opposite way. In other words, you would presume people aren't racist and then ask for proof that they are. So, there's that. Second, I'm a healthcare protestor. So, you effectively called me a racist.

thegreekdog wrote:(1) Relax.

(2) You pointed out, originally, that you wanted some kind of proof that healthcare protestors were not racist. Does this seem a little strange to you? It does to me for two reasons. One, you presume to ask for evidence proving that people aren't racist. I think it would go the opposite way. In other words, you would presume people aren't racist and then ask for proof that they are. So, there's that. Second, I'm a healthcare protestor. So, you effectively called me a racist.

1) Relax? What are you getting at? I requested info on how it wasn't true.

2) I said show me one example where this wasn't true... You have failed to do so. So, try this... Don't respond unless you can actually PROVIDE something to the conversation... Because, as I said, all you did was make yourself look foolish.

3) I didn't call YOU a racist... I called EVERYONE racist. I don't care how much people try not to be, I have never actually met a person who does not have some level of racism/bigotry in their heart.

4) You still insulted me... Try a new way of typing so that you don't come across as a total douche.

Anarkistsdream wrote:1) Relax? What are you getting at? I requested info on how it wasn't true.

See your #4.

Anarkistsdream wrote:2) I said show me one example where this wasn't true... You have failed to do so. So, try this... Don't respond unless you can actually PROVIDE something to the conversation... Because, as I said, all you did was make yourself look foolish.

So... if I get this... I look foolish for saying that I'm a healthcare protestor and am not racist? But, you're not foolish for calling everyone who is a healthcare protestor racist, and then asking for proof that they are not? What sort of proof are you looking for exactly?

Anarkistsdream wrote:3) I didn't call YOU a racist... I called EVERYONE racist. I don't care how much people try not to be, I have never actually met a person who does not have some level of racism/bigotry in their heart.

Okay... if we're being existential, then everyone is a racist, whether they are healthcare protestors or not. I can get on board with that (seriously). But, I still don't think that's what you meant. I think what you meant was, simply, that all healthcare protestors are racist.

Anarkistsdream wrote:4) You still insulted me... Try a new way of typing so that you don't come across as a total douche.

First, this is what I meant by "Relax." Second, if I insulted you, report me to C&A. Third, I insulted you because for some reason you've determined that everyone who is a healthcare protestor is a racist, which is a bullsh!t statement that was either ignorant or was meant to ilicit comment. I chose to think it was an ignorant statement. Fourth, I enjoy the way I type precisely because I come across as a "total douche."

No, you look foolish for saying:

Well, the one interview I saw that was done by a "unbiased" news source (CNN) showed a man being interviewed by a CNN newsbabe. After realizing that the man being interviewed was speaking intelligently, the newsbabe decided to cut to commercial because of all the racists around. You may have seen this video; it's been circulating around this forum and youtube.

However, you were unable to answer the following, very SIMPLE, questions...

So how was this man labeled as a racist? Or, what was said in the interview to show he was racist before he spoke?

Then, you proceed to insult me, unknowing what my stance on the situation is, anyway... Again, you look like you have argued so many times that you think you know the way people feel right off the bat, and then can't handle when you don't and are made to look like an ass.

Okay... if we're being existential, then everyone is a racist, whether they are healthcare protestors or not. I can get on board with that (seriously). But, I still don't think that's what you meant. I think what you meant was, simply, that all healthcare protestors are racist.

You thinking seems to be a problem, obviously... Because that is exactly what I meant.

Second, if I insulted you, report me to C&A.

Unlike many people here, there is no need for a mod... An apology from you would suffice just fine, though I doubt your pride will let you see the truth in that.

Third, I insulted you because for some reason you've determined that everyone who is a healthcare protestor is a racist, which is a bullsh!t statement that was either ignorant or was meant to ilicit comment. I chose to think it was an ignorant statement.

Yes, illicit comment... And it did, though not from the person I actually TARGETED with the topic... Again, you choosing to think seems to be hard for you. You know blindly going against something is just as bad as blindly following it... I would hope you have your eyes open, but from your derisive statements and general cock attitude, I doubt you can keep them open for long.