View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently January 22nd, 2019, 1:07 pm

Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
 To My Old Master 
Author Message
Post Re: To My Old Master
regularjoe12 wrote:
intersting.....i'll have to start payingh attention to majjor news and see what hints and undertones I can spot.

out of you know of other occurences liikem you've referenced off the top of your head that I can dig into? dont go through any trouble if ya just kinda curious what i've been missing.

i've always been the kinda guy to make decisions for myself so I tend to ignore the aganedas of whats being preached to me. it's kinda like an in head translator.

Religious freedom is a good one, and models the same path of the seat belt law. The effort hits on the same points, with the same motives - selfishness, the "need" to supplant this "right" for greed (to save money). The problem is, just like the seat belt law, it's fools gold. I believe all 50 states currently have the seat belt law, but I could be mistaken. I do know that Congress decides who gets what in terms of Federal highway funds by looking at which States comply with their ideas of drinking and driving laws (which is why we have 0.08 on our roads, and 0.10 on the water), and seat belt laws.

However, when we were voting on our seat belt law here it was wildly unpopular (hence, when it started out it couldn't be a primary offense - the reason you got pulled over). That was a huge retraction meant to pacify detractors, until they could sway public sentiment to further their agenda, which they did. The law still didn't have popular support, but the legislature passed it anyhow. Fast forward just 14 years and the "primary offense" part was removed, so now we can get pulled over for nothing more than no seat belt. Look just 4-5 years passed that and now people call you crazy for not wearing your seat belt. I rarely wear mine, and some people get uber offended by this, and some have even gone further by more or less asking me if I'm suicidal. It's crazy to have seen public sentiment change that much in 20 years, and it was all based on nonsense.

When the law was being passed there were states that had it and states that didn't, and there were virtually no differences in insurance rates among those states. We were sold a bill of goods that did nothing more than made insurance companies more profitable. Now most "sheeple" simply say "oh well, it's "safer" to wear your seat belt, that's a good thing, I don't really like the law, but if it makes people wear their seat belts, it's a good thing. Which, IMO, is complete bullsh!t.

Another current "trend" of public sentiment changing focuses on our foreign policy, whether or not we should be a police state (and whether our not we should support Isreal), and focuses on making the U.S. an apologist nation for virtually every aggression we've had since Vietnam. That trend will continue if Barack Obama is r-elected.

On the Republican side, affirmative acton was being labeled "reverse discrimination" and there was a huge assault against it under Bush. That has since reversed course under Obama and a resurgence in talks of reparations has taken hold.

Finally, the term "bailout" was an over used term and a bs "talking point" (fwiw, my definition of a talking point is a catchy phrase used to promote an idea that isn't realistically sound... People learn the phrase, repeat it, and can't get past it). They literally get the "talking point"stuck in their heads" and when they hear country arguments their eyes glaze over, and at the end of the debate they just repeat the same talking point. Anyone that actually believes that banks were "predators" and at fault for the current housing crisis has fallen victim to a "talking point" IMO. The term bailout had certain underlying, often false definitions attached to it, such as "helping" the economy. Anyone that didn't agree with any bailout was "against" the economy, regardless as to the soundness of their reasoning.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that these are your beliefs, but IMO these are generally commonly held beliefs that were influenced intentionally by the govt, and the media, and they do soften even the most hardened of us.

February 5th, 2012, 2:02 pm
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pm
Posts: 10408
Location: Where ever I'm at now
Post Re: To My Old Master
couple things about the seat belt law:

I agree, the public was sold a bill of goods by the politicians and insurance agencies. It was said that the passage of the law would help reduce road fatalities and thereby lower insurance premiums to the public. It did neither.

However, it has been proven that wearing your seatbelt greatly increases your chances of surviving a low to medium speed crash. Being in the auto industry, I've watched barrier testing, and have seen videos of what happens to the occupants in both belted and non-belted crashes as relatively low speeds (25-35 mph) and the differences are eye-opening.

I never used to wear my seat belt until I started to see some of this. And I'm not going to sit there and say that you have no chance of surviving even high speed crashes without wearing a seat belt (I have, twice). But the chances are much lower if you don't.

Also, in regards to the public being sold a bill of goods....remember when CDs were first introduced to the public? The recording industry PROMISED legislators that the per unit cost would be greatly reduced once compact discs caught on with the general public, thereby basically forcing the technology down our throats. Suddenly everybody is having to purchase CD players, get them in their cars, and replace their LP or cassette tape collections to get the better quality CDs. DID THE UNIT COST EVER GO DOWN? No. But the public and our politicians were promised this would happen, and it never did. It still hasn't.

I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

February 6th, 2012, 10:15 am
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 12534
Post Re: To My Old Master
slybri19 wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
slybri19 wrote:
I think I should clarify my earlier response a bit. I saw this article posted elsewhere a couple of days ago and it was presented in such a way to serve no other purpose than to racebait. Since then, it has been re-posted on other sites in much the same manner. I don't know what Wags' intention was when he posted it here, but the motives aren't honorable at most other places it has been found. I suspect that he found it at one of those sites though.
Found it on Twitter from someone I follow.

The amazing thing is that you are too naive to realize that you were used and manipulated via Twitter to further the race baiting agenda, whether you realize it or not. Like I said previously, there was an active campaign to get this story out there, and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully, you'll learn from your mistake.

slybri19 wrote:
More importantly, I thought Obama was supposed to bring people together and end the racial divisions in this country. Unfortunately, the exact opposite has happened, but not for the reasons that one might think. The libtard Democrats accuse anyone that disagrees with Obama of being racists. It began when the Tea Party sprung up and has continued to get worse ever since. Obama led the way by accusing white cops of being stupid for arresting a black professor. Then, Eric Holder dismissed the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation because the victims were white. He was just looking out for his people though. The lamestream media and various Democratic members of Congress have rolled with this meme ever since and it's getting worse.

More recently, calling Obama a "Food Stamp President" is considered racist. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that more whites are on food stamps than blacks to believe that nonsense. Also, Newt was accused of racism for calling Obama the "Entertainer In Chief" after he sang an Al Green song. If that isn't a reach, I don't know what is. To top it off, some idiot on MSNBC or CNN referred to the Florida panhandle as "Cracker Counties", but there's nothing racist about that. I feel as if the boy has cried wolf about a thousand times too many now.
Not sure where the letter says anything about Obama or the current state of politics, but, um...ok

Once again, you fail to see the agenda behind the circulation of a 140 year old letter at this particular time. Ignorance truly must be bliss.

slybri19 wrote:
The saddest part about all of this is that I used to be colorblind. I judged people by their character and who they were as a person, not by their race. The best example of this was the military, which was very diverse, and nearly everybody got along with everyone. Unfortunately, that isn't the case any longer. All of the racebaiting and accusations have taken their toll to where I now have resentment toward those accusing me of doing something that I didn't do. I now think lesser of black people for making false accusations or for supporting those that do so on their behalf. Instead of improving race relations, the libtards have somehow managed to make them worse. I just can't seem to figure out if this is one of their usual unintended consequences or if they are willingly inciting racial strife. Either possibility is plausible.
So, just to be clear, you lump everyone together just because a few may have given you pause or upset you?

So who exactly lumped everyone who disagreed with Obama into the racist category? That's right, it's the white elite libtards who are attempting to keep blacks on the Democratic plantation by making them dependent upon the government for their well-being. Just look at Detroit for a prime example. I still respect and admire patriotic, honest, pro constitution, conservative, black Americans like Allen West, Herman Cain, Thomas Sowell, Lloyd Marcus, and many more, but those same white liberal elites consider them racists too. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

With all due respect Sly, it seems as as though your tin foil hat is showing as the majority of the stuff you've been posting lately seems rather "Conspiracy Theory-ish." If you happen to have documented proof of your allegations, and care to share them, I would be happy to read them. However most of your content is opinion-based (or at least comes across that way), therefore I take it the same way I do other opinion-based content...with a large grain of salt. Of course I'm willing to admit the possibility that I may not be right, but I think the real question is are you? IMO a lot your recent posts sound quite similar to some of the religious threads we've been having in that you come across as a "believer" of your rhetoric.

Detroit vs. Everybody
Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right....

February 7th, 2012, 12:21 pm
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10989
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: To My Old Master
No tin foil hat here, Wags. Let me begin by asking you whether you remember Journolist, which was created by Erza Klein of the Washington Post? If you don't, it was a Listserv where libtards involved with the lamestream media, bloggers, think tanks, and some within the government developed talking points and decided how they were going to spin particular stories. Well, it was infiltrated by The Daily Caller who posted thousands of emails from the listserv in July 2010, showing how they conspired with stories. It was quickly shutdown, but many of them said they would form new, smaller, and more secure listservs to take it's place.

This brings us to the topic of this thread. It was posted on January 30th on an obscure blog, but spread like wildfire. Between January 31st and February 2nd, it appeared on libtard sites and blogs like Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Mother Jones, Democratic Underground, Little Green Footballs, Salon, and many, many more. Somehow, it only appeared on few (I only saw two) conservative or moderate blogs/sites during that same time frame. To their credit, the lamestream media didn't publish it (other than the Boston Globe to my knowledge) because it wasn't news. The story was over 140 years old and I have since found that it is also published in many history textbooks. If you don't believe me on any of this, feel free to google "To My Old Master" and start clicking on the results.

Now, one could say that that doesn't prove anything and you would be correct. However, based upon the Journolist history and the number of libtard sites and blogs that the story quickly spread too, it isn't difficult to put two and two together. Add in the libtard propensity to play the race card (especially recently) and it was a perfect storm. If you're too blind to see it, I don't know what else to tell you.


February 11th, 2012, 1:04 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 34 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.