Conspiriocracy

Flint • Feb 25, 2009 8:25 pm

We live in conspiriocracy; a conspiratorial, dictatorial, anti-inflammocracy.

[COLOR="White"]I thought I invented another word. Well, I googled it and only got three hits .[/COLOR]

TGRR • Feb 25, 2009 9:06 pm

Flint;538864 wrote:
We live in conspiriocracy; a conspiratorial, dictatorial, anti-inflammocracy.

[COLOR="White"]I thought I invented another word. Well, I googled it and only got three hits .[/COLOR]

Properly speaking, shouldn't it be conspirocracy?

In any case, this is obvious.

When people ask me why I hate America, I am honestly puzzled...until I realize that they are talking about The United States, which is a different - and far inferior thing - altogether. The United States is a collection of fat retards with an entitlement complex, who couldn't function in America to save their lives.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear: John Wayne and Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Reagan do not represent America. No, they represented the willfully ignorant know-nothings that took the United States and shat all over it, while the citizens of said shithole lapped it up and begged for more. No, if you want AMERICA, you have to look farther back, to freaks like Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin, who faced a noose for freedom and STILL had time to get their monkey on like HEROES.

And who, today, stands for America? Who, today, stands for really scary freedom and badfun? Do YOU? Have you puked blood and shat out intestines in pursuit of a good time? Have you stomped around like a madman while braying obscenities at people who tried to tell you that freedom is a magnetic sticky and the right to agree with the president in wartime or that if you disagree with a (supposedly) different president, you're a racist? Have you rejected the safety and warmth of the sty, and laughed at the piggies who stay inside and tell you to shut up and sit down like a GOOD American?

I was born for this shit. I was born for America, and I've about fucking had it with the jackasses that drag my dream around like a drugged date.

For fuck's sake.

lumberjim • Feb 25, 2009 9:11 pm

:: clap clap clap clap ::

TGRR • Feb 25, 2009 9:20 pm

lumberjim;538878 wrote:
:: clap clap clap clap ::

Roger's Tinfoil Axiom: 90% of all conspiracies are bullshit, but if only 5% of conspiracies are true, you're fucked.

TheMercenary • Feb 27, 2009 5:28 am

TGRR;538891 wrote:
Roger's Tinfoil Axiom: 90% of all conspiracies are bullshit, but if only 5% of conspiracies are true, you're fucked.

That is very good. Worth quoting. Congrats.

TGRR • Feb 28, 2009 3:28 am

TheMercenary;539254 wrote:
That is very good. Worth quoting. Congrats.

Thanks. I have a friend that got hooked on Alex Jones, and that came up during one of our coffee fueled rant-fests.

Kaliayev • Feb 28, 2009 12:07 pm

Iran-Contra, BCCI and Operation Gladio.

While I'm inclined to sneer at conspiracy theorists, its not because they're crazy in thinking governments get up to nasty shit, but because they pay attention to useless or false crap (like reptilian shapeshifters) while things like the above are actually going on.

TGRR • Feb 28, 2009 12:19 pm

Zhuge Liang;539552 wrote:
Iran-Contra, BCCI and Operation Gladio.

While I'm inclined to sneer at conspiracy theorists, its not because they're crazy in thinking governments get up to nasty shit, but because they pay attention to useless or false crap (like reptilian shapeshifters) while things like the above are actually going on.

Yep. Head over to goldismoney sometime. 200 morons blaming the JOOOOS for everything.

Too funny.

Kaliayev • Feb 28, 2009 12:31 pm

Ew. I do have an account there, but Jewish conspiracies are teh yawn.

I'm more than half inclined to believe that the better known conspiracy theorists exist purely to make anyone who looks into covert actions, government illegalities and black globalization like a raving loon. The rest just really are that stupid and bigoted.

sugarpop • Mar 1, 2009 12:11 am

TGRR;538873 wrote:
Properly speaking, shouldn't it be conspirocracy?

In any case, this is obvious.

When people ask me why I hate America, I am honestly puzzled...until I realize that they are talking about The United States, which is a different - and far inferior thing - altogether. The United States is a collection of fat retards with an entitlement complex, who couldn't function in America to save their lives.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear: John Wayne and Nancy Pelosi and Ronald Reagan do not represent America. No, they represented the willfully ignorant know-nothings that took the United States and shat all over it, while the citizens of said shithole lapped it up and begged for more. No, if you want AMERICA, you have to look farther back, to freaks like Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin, who faced a noose for freedom and STILL had time to get their monkey on like HEROES.

And who, today, stands for America? Who, today, stands for really scary freedom and badfun? Do YOU? Have you puked blood and shat out intestines in pursuit of a good time? Have you stomped around like a madman while braying obscenities at people who tried to tell you that freedom is a magnetic sticky and the right to agree with the president in wartime or that if you disagree with a (supposedly) different president, you're a racist? Have you rejected the safety and warmth of the sty, and laughed at the piggies who stay inside and tell you to shut up and sit down like a GOOD American?

I was born for this shit. I was born for America, and I've about fucking had it with the jackasses that drag my dream around like a drugged date.

For fuck's sake.

ummm, Ron Paul? :D

sugarpop • Mar 1, 2009 12:13 am

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you... :D

TGRR • Mar 1, 2009 12:47 am

sugarpop;539724 wrote:
ummm, Ron Paul? :D

He says.

In practice, he hauls pork home to Texas, just like the rest of them.

TGRR • Mar 1, 2009 12:47 am

sugarpop;539726 wrote:
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you... :D

There comes a point where paranoia becomes impossible, by its very definition.

sugarpop • Mar 1, 2009 1:15 am

TGRR;539737 wrote:
He says.

In practice, he hauls pork home to Texas, just like the rest of them.

What does that have to do with freedom? Ron Paul is against almost any kind of restrictions on freedom, isn't he? Granted I don't know a LOT about him, but every time I've heard him talk about it, he makes a lot of sense.

Kaliayev • Mar 1, 2009 8:51 am

sugarpop;539752 wrote:
What does that have to do with freedom? Ron Paul is against almost any kind of restrictions on freedom, isn't he? Granted I don't know a LOT about him, but every time I've heard him talk about it, he makes a lot of sense.

Oh dear. I'm going to have to burst a bubble here. I hate doing this.

Ron Paul is not for freedom, unless your definition of freedom is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with any definition of freedom anyone else uses. Or you are a corporation.

Here is an extensive list of Ron Paul's record in Congress http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

His ideological and personal links with the far right militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism can be found here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

He's against abortion, against the right to take discrimination claims to court (presumably the free market fairy will do away with racism), wants to remove the minimum wage, wants to undermine labour unions to the point of ineffectiveness, wants to repeal antitrust laws, hates Iranian students (for some bizarre reason), hates the 14th Ammendment, wants to gut environmental protections even more than Bush did, promotes the pointless offshore drilling plan, wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, wants a little imperial war to seize the Panama Canal again and wants to forbid Federal funding to any organization showing a level of tolerance towards homosexuality.

TGRR • Mar 1, 2009 11:18 am

sugarpop;539752 wrote:
What does that have to do with freedom? Ron Paul is against almost any kind of restrictions on freedom, isn't he?

Well, he isn't wild about your or my right to be a citizen without his approval (he wants to eliminate clause 1 of amendment XIV).

He also isn't happy with many other parts of the constitution (article I & article II) that deal with the creation and funding of departments in the executive branch (specifics upon request).

Bearing in mind that the constitution is a check on government that acts as an idirect - and only - guarantor of your rights, and here's a man who claims to be a "constitutionalist", but attacks the constitution in every speech, I think I can live without the good doctor as anything more than a hick representative from Texas.

TGRR • Mar 1, 2009 11:18 am

Zhuge Liang;539816 wrote:
Oh dear. I'm going to have to burst a bubble here. I hate doing this.

Ron Paul is not for freedom, unless your definition of freedom is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with any definition of freedom anyone else uses. Or you are a corporation.

Here is an extensive list of Ron Paul's record in Congress http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

His ideological and personal links with the far right militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism can be found here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

He's against abortion, against the right to take discrimination claims to court (presumably the free market fairy will do away with racism), wants to remove the minimum wage, wants to undermine labour unions to the point of ineffectiveness, wants to repeal antitrust laws, hates Iranian students (for some bizarre reason), hates the 14th Ammendment, wants to gut environmental protections even more than Bush did, promotes the pointless offshore drilling plan, wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, wants a little imperial war to seize the Panama Canal again and wants to forbid Federal funding to any organization showing a level of tolerance towards homosexuality.

What he said.

Flint • Mar 1, 2009 11:37 am

Update on Google search for the term Conspiriocracy: now leads off with two hits from The cellar.

sugarpop • Mar 2, 2009 6:44 pm

Zhuge Liang;539816 wrote:
Oh dear. I'm going to have to burst a bubble here. I hate doing this.

Ron Paul is not for freedom, unless your definition of freedom is narrowly defined and has nothing to do with any definition of freedom anyone else uses. Or you are a corporation.

Here is an extensive list of Ron Paul's record in Congress http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html

His ideological and personal links with the far right militia movement and Christian Reconstructionism can be found here http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html

He's against abortion, against the right to take discrimination claims to court (presumably the free market fairy will do away with racism), wants to remove the minimum wage, wants to undermine labour unions to the point of ineffectiveness, wants to repeal antitrust laws, hates Iranian students (for some bizarre reason), hates the 14th Ammendment, wants to gut environmental protections even more than Bush did, promotes the pointless offshore drilling plan, wants to withdraw from the ABM treaty, wants a little imperial war to seize the Panama Canal again and wants to forbid Federal funding to any organization showing a level of tolerance towards homosexuality.

Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom. They tend to believe less in personal freedom though. Although, he does talk about repealing drug laws and getting rid of the IRS. And I've heard him say we should get out of other countries and stop our imperialist tendencies around the world. I knew he was against abortion, but I didn't know he was against freedom for gays. I kinda thought he would be more about personal freedom as well, from the interviews I've seen with him. Like I said though, I don't know a lot about him. Thanks for the links. I will educate myself more.

TGRR • Mar 2, 2009 7:21 pm

sugarpop;540489 wrote:
Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom.

There is no such thing as corporate freedom.

sugarpop • Mar 2, 2009 8:31 pm

TGRR;540510 wrote:
There is no such thing as corporate freedom.

OK. No rules for corporations. No regulations. No government interference. Better?

TGRR • Mar 2, 2009 8:37 pm

sugarpop;540576 wrote:
OK. No rules for corporations. No regulations. No government interference. Better?

1. Other way around.

2. There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

sugarpop • Mar 2, 2009 9:16 pm

TGRR;540580 wrote:
1. Other way around.

2. There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

Not according to republicans...

TheMercenary • Mar 2, 2009 9:26 pm

TGRR;540580 wrote:
There ain't no such thing as government interference. This is a provable fact.

:eek:

TGRR • Mar 2, 2009 10:23 pm

sugarpop;540618 wrote:
Not according to republicans...

Yeah, but they still believe that rich people get that way through hard work and perseverance, that the military is defending America in Iraq, and that supply-side economics works.

TGRR • Mar 2, 2009 10:27 pm

TheMercenary;540626 wrote:
:eek:

It's true, and even more obvious today, what with the government buying up all these banks.

Interference means to disrupt a system from the outside. The government is, and always has been, an intrinsic part of the market, to some degree. The government regulates and taxes, and the market basically owns the government (again, just look at a recent newspaper, and tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya). Therefore it cannot interfere with the market any more than you can interfere with yourself.

DanaC • Mar 3, 2009 6:00 am

But merc interferes with himself a lot...

TheMercenary • Mar 3, 2009 6:04 am

TGRR;540667 wrote:
It's true, and even more obvious today, what with the government buying up all these banks.

Interference means to disrupt a system from the outside. The government is, and always has been, an intrinsic part of the market, to some degree. The government regulates and taxes, and the market basically owns the government (again, just look at a recent newspaper, and tell me I'm wrong. I dare ya). Therefore it cannot interfere with the market any more than you can interfere with yourself.

Looking at the newspaper....

You are wrong. Being and intrisic part of a process and regulation does not equate into control. Our government has moved into the area of control in the last 2 months.

Kaliayev • Mar 3, 2009 6:22 am

Markets don't work without states providing requisites. Laws, courts, monopolies on the use of force, stable mediums of exchange and various non-market goods, though of course people disagree about what they precisely are.

All of that strikes me as interference. The only way to have a truly free market is with anarchy, and, well....given the vast range of difference between Actually Existing Anarchy (Somalia, Afghanistan) and Anarchy as Imagined by 19th Century Philosophers, that does not seem an especially enticing idea.

Kaliayev • Mar 3, 2009 6:32 am

sugarpop;540489 wrote:
Well, I don't agree with his positions on any of those things, but he IS a Libertarian, and Libertarians (the ones on the conservative end of the spectrum, like him) are all about not restricting freedoms, especially corporate freedom. They tend to believe less in personal freedom though. Although, he does talk about repealing drug laws and getting rid of the IRS. And I've heard him say we should get out of other countries and stop our imperialist tendencies around the world. I knew he was against abortion, but I didn't know he was against freedom for gays. I kinda thought he would be more about personal freedom as well, from the interviews I've seen with him. Like I said though, I don't know a lot about him. Thanks for the links. I will educate myself more.

The thing is, if you are for corporate freedom, then you are de facto against personal freedom, due to the vast power disparities between the two. The relationship between corporate and individual interests is a zero-sum game and it is my opinion that the Vulgar Libertarianism of Ron Paul swings that relationship even further in favour of the already powerful corporate elements.

Ron Paul is actually somewhat creepier than the people who were in charge during the Bush admin. Sure, Cheney was an evil fuck...but he was pretty indiscriminate in who he is was being an evil fuck to. Ron Paul's associations with the militia movement is...disturbing, given the prevalence of fundamentalist Christian, sexist and racist sentiment amongst those organizations. He is close friends with Gary North, for example, who thinks America should be under Biblical law (such as stoning adulterers to death and barring public office from anyone insufficiently Christian - which amusingly includes most mainstream Christian groups). And there are disturbing themes in the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he either knew about or was too incompetent to check on, neither of which looks good.

TGRR • Mar 3, 2009 6:46 pm

TheMercenary;540792 wrote:
Looking at the newspaper....

You are wrong. Being and intrisic part of a process and regulation does not equate into control. Our government has moved into the area of control in the last 2 months.

I said nothing about control. I said "interference". Totally different thing.

TheMercenary • Mar 3, 2009 7:34 pm

TGRR;540989 wrote:
I said nothing about control. I said "interference". Totally different thing.

So in your mind control and interference are not the same thing when it comes to government intervention?

TGRR • Mar 3, 2009 7:44 pm

TheMercenary;541021 wrote:
So in your mind control and interference are not the same thing when it comes to government intervention?

There's plenty of government control. There is no government interference, for the reason stated above.

TheMercenary • Mar 3, 2009 7:46 pm

TGRR;541028 wrote:
There's plenty of government control. There is no government interference, for the reason stated above.

That is a matter of opinion, not fact. Care to back that up with some examples?

TGRR • Mar 3, 2009 8:02 pm

TheMercenary;541029 wrote:
That is a matter of opinion, not fact. Care to back that up with some examples?

Examples of a negative?

How does one do that?

classicman • Mar 3, 2009 9:29 pm

TheMercenary;541021 wrote:
So in your mind control ....

TGRR • Mar 3, 2009 9:44 pm

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
\

Flint • Mar 3, 2009 11:04 pm

He gone all caps. You'se done it now.

Aliantha • Mar 3, 2009 11:33 pm

Maybe his head will explode...

ZenGum • Mar 4, 2009 12:00 am

This all happened after I called him Tigger in chat. My fault. :(

classicman • Mar 4, 2009 12:07 am

lol - thats gonna stick! Tigger it is!

TGRR • Mar 4, 2009 6:42 pm

classicman;541156 wrote:
lol - thats gonna stick! Tigger it is!

My revenge will be a thing of legend! DO YUO HEAR ME? :mad2:

classicman • Mar 4, 2009 7:34 pm

The louder you yell, the less I listen.

Urbane Guerrilla • Mar 5, 2009 2:40 am

Has TGRR ever been well outside America's borders for any great length of time? I have, and that's why I say TGRR is full of it. Brown-eyed. Not yet endowed with indepth understanding.

sugarpop • Mar 5, 2009 8:14 am

Zhuge Liang;540799 wrote:
The thing is, if you are for corporate freedom, then you are de facto against personal freedom, due to the vast power disparities between the two. The relationship between corporate and individual interests is a zero-sum game and it is my opinion that the Vulgar Libertarianism of Ron Paul swings that relationship even further in favour of the already powerful corporate elements.

I have to agree with that. I don't really believe you can have both. I am in favor of personal freedom and regulated corporations, because corporations will not regulate or police themselves, regardless of what conservatives believe. They have proven that, over and over and over.

Ron Paul is actually somewhat creepier than the people who were in charge during the Bush admin. Sure, Cheney was an evil fuck...but he was pretty indiscriminate in who he is was being an evil fuck to. Ron Paul's associations with the militia movement is...disturbing, given the prevalence of fundamentalist Christian, sexist and racist sentiment amongst those organizations. He is close friends with Gary North, for example, who thinks America should be under Biblical law (such as stoning adulterers to death and barring public office from anyone insufficiently Christian - which amusingly includes most mainstream Christian groups). And there are disturbing themes in the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he either knew about or was too incompetent to check on, neither of which looks good.

Wow. I didn't know that. That's scary.

TGRR • Mar 5, 2009 9:21 pm

Urbane Guerrilla;541569 wrote:
Has TGRR ever been well outside America's borders for any great length of time? I have, and that's why I say TGRR is full of it. Brown-eyed. Not yet endowed with indepth understanding.

Yeah. 8 years in Canada (as a kid), 1 year in Europe (as a teenager), 2 years in Korea (the army), some time in Panama (again, army), total of 18 months in the Middle East (again, army).

So wrap that around your ad hominem bullshit and jam it up your 4th point of contact, hippie.

:)

Kaliayev • Mar 6, 2009 8:21 am

sugarpop;541596 wrote:
I have to agree with that. I don't really believe you can have both. I am in favor of personal freedom and regulated corporations, because corporations will not regulate or police themselves, regardless of what conservatives believe. They have proven that, over and over and over.

Wow. I didn't know that. That's scary.

Yeah. I first looked at Ron Paul and thought he was pretty good for a Republican, if a little kooky. But then, you look further in, and you realize the implications of his actions could be quite bad. How bad is a matter for debate, but the company he keeps suggests it wouldn't necessarily be any better than it was under Bush, only different.

Kaliayev • Mar 6, 2009 8:30 am

TGRR;541950 wrote:
Yeah. 8 years in Canada (as a kid), 1 year in Europe (as a teenager), 2 years in Korea (the army), some time in Panama (again, army), total of 18 months in the Middle East (again, army).

So wrap that around your ad hominem bullshit and jam it up your 4th point of contact, hippie.

:)

What does travel outside of the USA have to do with in depth understanding anyway?

Personally, I would have thought intelligence and education would lend themselves better to such things. I look at some of the idiots I backpacked around South America with...they'd travelled around half of Europe and were still as thick as two short planks. I remember one asking "do they take the electricity in by boat" when asking about the islands on Lake Titicaca.

glatt • Mar 6, 2009 12:06 pm

TGRR;541950 wrote:
So wrap that around your ad hominem bullshit and jam it up your 4th point of contact, hippie.

I get a kick out of this TGRR Roger dude.

Beest • Mar 6, 2009 12:57 pm

TGRR;538873 wrote:
Have you stomped around like a madman while braying obscenities at people ...

yes, PC LOAD LETTER, what does that even mean anyway.

TheMercenary • Mar 27, 2009 2:50 pm

What eva happened to Tigger?

TGRR • Mar 28, 2009 2:41 am

TheMercenary;550164 wrote:
What eva happened to Tigger?

Been busy.

Back to Forum | Back to Top