Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Obama has lost my support

Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:02:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

I agree. Obama is merely a Republican who pretends to be a liberal; I am only going to vote for him because I do not want Romney to win.
bhatti1020
Posts: 216
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:13:49 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:08:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.:

You're so f*cking stupid that it's comical.

*throws Inferno a box crayons*

AAAH GOD NO!!!! NWOOO!!!!!!!! lol
-Tourism & Immigration minister for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
"hey, no Jerry springer here!"
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:21:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:02:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

I agree. Obama is merely a Republican who pretends to be a liberal; I am only going to vote for him because I do not want Romney to win.

lmfao; I think you are a bit confused.

10th Amendment
Republicans are for State rights
Obama is for a more centralized government

2nd Amendment
Republicans are for the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Obama is against the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Healthcare
Republicans are against Nationalizing the Healthcare industry
Obama is for Nationalizing the Healthcare industry

Tort reform
Republicans are for changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages.
Obama is against changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages.

Leaissez faire vs Keynesianism
Republicans are against government intervention in commercial affairs
Obama is for government monetary and fiscal programs intended to stimulate business activity and increase employment

Capitalism vs State Socialism
Republicans are for an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Obama is for an economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed

Social Justice
Republicans are against the the equitable redistribution of wealth and power
Obama is for the equitable redistribution of wealth and power

Sociocultural
Republicans are for tradition
Obama is for change
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:26:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:21:39 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

I agree. Obama is merely a Republican who pretends to be a liberal; I am only going to vote for him because I do not want Romney to win.

lmfao; I think you are a bit confused.

10th Amendment
Republicans are for State rights
Obama is for a more centralized government

2nd Amendment
Republicans are for the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Obama is against the right of the people to keep and bear arms

Healthcare
Republicans are against Nationalizing the Healthcare industry
Obama is for Nationalizing the Healthcare industry

Tort reform
Republicans are for changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages.
Obama is against changes in the civil justice system that would reduce tort litigation or damages.

Leaissez faire vs Keynesianism
Republicans are against government intervention in commercial affairs
Obama is for government monetary and fiscal programs intended to stimulate business activity and increase employment

Capitalism vs State Socialism
Republicans are for an economic system based on private ownership of capital
Obama is for an economic system in which the government owns most means of production but some degree of private capitalism is allowed

Social Justice
Republicans are against the the equitable redistribution of wealth and power
Obama is for the equitable redistribution of wealth and power

Sociocultural
Republicans are for tradition
Obama is for change

No, you are confused. On a global scale, the Republicans and the Democrats are very close. We live in a fundamentally centrist nation.

http://www.npr.org...
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:26:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

lol
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:54:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Misinformation / You really think that I am basing this on something I saw online or heard from another.............Like I said, a clueless jerk off who thinks that the Earth is flat. Next please.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:09:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



oh is that the make belief part?
.. I am confused...
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:25:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:54:29 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Misinformation / You really think that I am basing this on something I saw online or heard from another.............

yes

Like I said, a clueless jerk off who thinks that the Earth is flat. Next please.

Never said the world was flat, I said the New World Order is based on a string of misinformation, attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 11:37:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:25:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:54:29 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Misinformation / You really think that I am basing this on something I saw online or heard from another.............

yes

Like I said, a clueless jerk off who thinks that the Earth is flat. Next please.

Never said the world was flat, I said the New World Order is based on a string of misinformation, attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wrong. I have seen how these forces of darkness operate. Get some real life experience first before making useless and idiotic pop culture claims about the New World Order.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 1:44:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:08:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.:

You're so f*cking stupid that it's comical.

*throws Inferno a box crayons*

Ha.

I wonder how many people it's going to take before someone else who's informed enough speaks up and can actually defend this rather accurate perspective by Inferno.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:04:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

So you claim.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

Seclorum = Secular

Secular Origin:
1250–1300; < ML "sécul&#257;ris," LL "saecul&#257;ris" worldly, temporal (opposed to eternal), L: of an age, equiv. to L "saecul"("um") long period of time + "-&#257;ris" -ar
1; r. ME "seculer" < OF < L, as above

http://m.dictionary.com...

Btw, even if it can only possibly be translated to New Order of the Ages, do you seriously think that it makes a difference to the conspiracy theorist? Indeed, it is a New Order of the Ages, this too is accurate. You think your little semantic quarral refutes NWO theories? Please, that is a weak and pitiful attempt.

The global elites use different words for it too, but most say "New World Order" such as Rockefeller, Kissinger, Gordon Brown, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, etc. Obama though has simply called it a "New Order." It really doesn't matter.

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Among other things:

Mundi:
Universe, heavens, world, mankind, ornament

http://www.latinphrasetranslation.com...

In the end, all you have is a red herring, no substantial criticism of NWO theories.

.
.

.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:34:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 1:44:51 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:08:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.:

You're so f*cking stupid that it's comical.

*throws Inferno a box crayons*

Ha.

I wonder how many people it's going to take before someone else who's informed enough speaks up and can actually defend this rather accurate perspective by Inferno.

There are those who ended up with a bullet inside of em for speaking out in public against certain members of the Illuminati. You wont hear it from me.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 2:35:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:37:05 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:25:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:54:29 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Misinformation / You really think that I am basing this on something I saw online or heard from another.............

yes

Like I said, a clueless jerk off who thinks that the Earth is flat. Next please.

Never said the world was flat, I said the New World Order is based on a string of misinformation, attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wrong. I have seen how these forces of darkness operate. Get some real life experience first before making useless and idiotic pop culture claims about the New World Order.

If you are so well versed in the ways of the NWO and the forces of darkness and you know exactly how the world works and who or what is running it...

Why do you spend your time trolling DDO?

...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 4:56:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are those who ended up with a bullet inside of em for speaking out in public against certain members of the Illuminati. You wont hear it from me.:

Is that what it's gonna take to get rid of you? Speak up! Speak out against teh evilz of teh Illuminati!
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2012 10:42:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:02:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

I agree. Obama is merely a Republican who pretends to be a liberal; I am only going to vote for him because I do not want Romney to win.

I think he is just a moderate who is doing what he thinks is best. I honestly believe that. He has to be in the middle to get anything passed through Congress.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 7:41:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Winope made an attempt to have a serious political discussion in the political thread. The topic is the reasonableness of one-issue voting. The thread was quickly torpedoed with irrelevancies.

As a starting point, I recommend reporting every insult to the site management. Every time any person is called "stupid" it ought to be reported. Arguments can be insulted, but not members. Maybe people will either shape up after some warnings or get booted. I'm thinking that possibly the site can be recovered by first restoring civility. Maybe not. Now reasonable discussion is not possible.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 7:44:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 7:41:08 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Winope made an attempt to have a serious political discussion in the political thread. The topic is the reasonableness of one-issue voting. The thread was quickly torpedoed with irrelevancies.

As a starting point, I recommend reporting every insult to the site management. Every time any person is called "stupid" it ought to be reported. Arguments can be insulted, but not members. Maybe people will either shape up after some warnings or get booted. I'm thinking that possibly the site can be recovered by first restoring civility. Maybe not. Now reasonable discussion is not possible.

This. Inferno and Geo turned this thread into a NWO drivel thread.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 7:45:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 10:42:32 PM, rogue wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:02:00 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

I agree. Obama is merely a Republican who pretends to be a liberal; I am only going to vote for him because I do not want Romney to win.

I think he is just a moderate who is doing what he thinks is best. I honestly believe that. He has to be in the middle to get anything passed through Congress.

The Repubs. are going to oppose him no matter what he does . . .
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 7:47:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 7:44:40 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 2/1/2012 7:41:08 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
Winope made an attempt to have a serious political discussion in the political thread. The topic is the reasonableness of one-issue voting. The thread was quickly torpedoed with irrelevancies.

As a starting point, I recommend reporting every insult to the site management. Every time any person is called "stupid" it ought to be reported. Arguments can be insulted, but not members. Maybe people will either shape up after some warnings or get booted. I'm thinking that possibly the site can be recovered by first restoring civility. Maybe not. Now reasonable discussion is not possible.

This. Inferno and Geo turned this thread into a NWO drivel thread.

/facepalm
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 8:04:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

Fine. As Roy said, no one is willing to offer any respectful discourse, no matter the direction of the conversation.

So, I'll bite.

I wonder where you're getting your interpretation. Obama threatened to veto NDAA because the military tried to take complete control over it, removing executive devices like the FBI from jurisdiction in protecting us from terrorism and espionage.

"The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror.

The Senate's version of the bill includes language effectively requiring that al-Qaida suspects captured overseas—and potentially at home—be transferred into military custody. The Pentagon opposes the provision, and many Democrats believe it would slow ongoing terror probes and remove skilled FBI interrogators from their work battling domestic threats."


As for ACTA:

"If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President's power," the EFF said. "On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October."

However, contentions such as these arose in response:

Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig, questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:

"The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2"

They explained that the reasons for this process, which is in a political uproar right now, is:

"Activists and netizens all around the world have woken up to the dangers of overbroad enforcement law proposals drafted by monopoly industry lobbyists, and rushed into law through strategic lobbying by the same corporate interests that backed SOPA and PIPA."

To this, I say that it is an ugly truth of the political world from which we cannot escape. This does, in my opinion as well, count heavily against Obama. Comparatively speaking, I maintain my support as well, but he's clearly not perfect.

Depending on the ramifications of this bill, it may prove to be a real disappointment, indeed.

But, you can guarantee that this is something of which every president is guilty, and this is precisely one of my complaints. Its these sort of political maneuvers that put society at a disadvantage at the behest of larger, more powerful, more affluent entities like corporations and their owners.

And, this is precisely the sort of contention I was referring to in the other thread with the political cartoon.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 3:08:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 8:04:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

Fine. As Roy said, no one is willing to offer any respectful discourse, no matter the direction of the conversation.

So, I'll bite.

I wonder where you're getting your interpretation. Obama threatened to veto NDAA because the military tried to take complete control over it, removing executive devices like the FBI from jurisdiction in protecting us from terrorism and espionage.

"The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror.

The Senate's version of the bill includes language effectively requiring that al-Qaida suspects captured overseas—and potentially at home—be transferred into military custody. The Pentagon opposes the provision, and many Democrats believe it would slow ongoing terror probes and remove skilled FBI interrogators from their work battling domestic threats."


As for ACTA:

"If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President's power," the EFF said. "On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October."

However, contentions such as these arose in response:

Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig, questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:

"The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2"

They explained that the reasons for this process, which is in a political uproar right now, is:

"Activists and netizens all around the world have woken up to the dangers of overbroad enforcement law proposals drafted by monopoly industry lobbyists, and rushed into law through strategic lobbying by the same corporate interests that backed SOPA and PIPA."

To this, I say that it is an ugly truth of the political world from which we cannot escape. This does, in my opinion as well, count heavily against Obama. Comparatively speaking, I maintain my support as well, but he's clearly not perfect.

Depending on the ramifications of this bill, it may prove to be a real disappointment, indeed.

But, you can guarantee that this is something of which every president is guilty, and this is precisely one of my complaints. Its these sort of political maneuvers that put society at a disadvantage at the behest of larger, more powerful, more affluent entities like corporations and their owners.

And, this is precisely the sort of contention I was referring to in the other thread with the political cartoon.

Oh, I could point to any given president and name something unconstitutional they've done (FDR, Lincoln, Adams, etc.).

This isn't a question of "he should have vetoed or shouldn't have vetoed."

He had the bill passed through committee changed SPECIFICALLY to allow the detentions. His administration used the veto threat to get that in there.

Then, instead of taking responsibility, he has a signing statement acting like its a big surprise.

As to ACTA, my biggest problem is what Lessig points out, the use of executive commands to ratify a treaty. The content of ACTA is bad, but how Obama did it is worse. There isn't even a debate as to whether that is constitutional. It's not like individual mandates where there is previous case law or recess appointments that skirt precedent.

It's even more unexcusable than when Scalia claimed in Heller that the English Bill of Rights supports an individual right to bear arms (FYI, English Bill of Rights is, in the words of several founders, inapplicable to the American Bill of Rights).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 3:10:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/1/2012 3:08:58 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/1/2012 8:04:19 AM, Ren wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

Fine. As Roy said, no one is willing to offer any respectful discourse, no matter the direction of the conversation.

So, I'll bite.

I wonder where you're getting your interpretation. Obama threatened to veto NDAA because the military tried to take complete control over it, removing executive devices like the FBI from jurisdiction in protecting us from terrorism and espionage.

"The Obama administration threatened to veto the major defense authorization bill because of language paving the way for many terror suspects to be put under military custody, a sharp escalation of its battle with Congress over the future course of the war on terror.

The Senate's version of the bill includes language effectively requiring that al-Qaida suspects captured overseas—and potentially at home—be transferred into military custody. The Pentagon opposes the provision, and many Democrats believe it would slow ongoing terror probes and remove skilled FBI interrogators from their work battling domestic threats."


As for ACTA:

"If ACTA were categorized as a treaty, it would have to be ratified by the Senate. But the USTR and the Administration have consistently maintained that ACTA is a sole executive agreement negotiated under the President's power," the EFF said. "On that theory, it does not need Congressional approval and thus ACTA already became binding on the US government when Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October."

However, contentions such as these arose in response:

Professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig, questioned the Constitutionality of the executive agreement classification in 2010:

"The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.2"

They explained that the reasons for this process, which is in a political uproar right now, is:

"Activists and netizens all around the world have woken up to the dangers of overbroad enforcement law proposals drafted by monopoly industry lobbyists, and rushed into law through strategic lobbying by the same corporate interests that backed SOPA and PIPA."

To this, I say that it is an ugly truth of the political world from which we cannot escape. This does, in my opinion as well, count heavily against Obama. Comparatively speaking, I maintain my support as well, but he's clearly not perfect.

Depending on the ramifications of this bill, it may prove to be a real disappointment, indeed.

But, you can guarantee that this is something of which every president is guilty, and this is precisely one of my complaints. Its these sort of political maneuvers that put society at a disadvantage at the behest of larger, more powerful, more affluent entities like corporations and their owners.

And, this is precisely the sort of contention I was referring to in the other thread with the political cartoon.

Oh, I could point to any given president and name something unconstitutional they've done (FDR, Lincoln, Adams, etc.).

This isn't a question of "he should have vetoed or shouldn't have vetoed."



He had the bill passed through committee changed SPECIFICALLY to allow the detentions. His administration used the veto threat to get that in there.

Then, instead of taking responsibility, he has a signing statement acting like its a big surprise.

As to ACTA, my biggest problem is what Lessig points out, the use of executive commands to ratify a treaty. The content of ACTA is bad, but how Obama did it is worse. There isn't even a debate as to whether that is constitutional. It's not like individual mandates where there is previous case law or recess appointments that skirt precedent.

It's even more unexcusable than when Scalia claimed in Heller that the English Bill of Rights supports an individual right to bear arms (FYI, English Bill of Rights is, in the words of several founders, inapplicable to the American Bill of Rights).

Also, there is only one American in Guantanamo, so the purpose of the clause wouldn't be to defend the status quo but to apply to future arrests and detainments.
Brain_crazy
Posts: 242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2012 8:51:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/31/2012 11:37:05 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 11:25:46 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:54:29 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:52:29 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:34:28 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 10:30:22 AM, DanT wrote:
At 1/31/2012 9:36:33 AM, inferno wrote:
At 1/31/2012 1:15:38 AM, Wnope wrote:
I agree with around 80% of Obama's choices (healthcare, economics, etc). I would prefer him over McCain or any Republican primary candidate, and I do not regret my choice to vote for Obama.

However, the combination of using an executive order to ratify ACTA and threatening to veto the NDAA if they didn't have the US detainee provision is inexcusable.

While I will vote for Obama next election compared to other candidates, including Ron Paul, in common conversation and debate I will no longer try to support Obama or his arguments unless I have independent reasons to support the choice (for instance, I am for Dodd-Frank, and Obama being for Dodd-Frank has no effect on that).

I generally like Obama. However, just like the Alien and Sedition Act and John Adams, no amount of good things can make up for what he has done.

To repeat, I would take him over any current Republican candidate as well as McCain.

This is not Obama's choice you idiot. It is the New World Order. They are the ones running the country into the ground. Too bad you brainwads cannot see this.

Why are so many people obsessed with taking down the make believe NWO?



Because we know that clueless jerk offs such are yourself have not seen them.
Thats why. =)

The NWO is completely based on misinformation.

For example, "Novus ordo seclorum" does not mean the New World Order, it means "the new order of the age", or "the New Order of the Generation".

"Novus Ordo Mundi" is Latin for "the New World Oder"

Misinformation / You really think that I am basing this on something I saw online or heard from another.............

yes

Like I said, a clueless jerk off who thinks that the Earth is flat. Next please.

Never said the world was flat, I said the New World Order is based on a string of misinformation, attempting to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Wrong. I have seen how these forces of darkness operate. Get some real life experience first before making useless and idiotic pop culture claims about the New World Order.

lol this is funny