Hannibal's guide to "Conservative Sources"

Started by Hannibal

This political chat room is for serious debate, where there will be ZERO tolerance for trolling. A ghost thread will be created in NHB that is open for all to participate in. To post in this forum, request to join the Profundum group in the User Control Panel.

PreviousNext
101 replies to this topic Sticky this thread

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 10:19 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.73



Log in or register to remove this ad..
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 8:46 am wrote:

Wow, further expression of your mental instability.


Go ahead, knock yourself out. Your fellow moonbats might fall for it. :\


Whatever Mr. Corporate sponsored. ;)
0
Things you should know about, for you own good please read about: Active Management Technology, Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing module, Secure Cryptoprocessor, Security Enhanced Linux . When these people talk about "Trust" and "Security" LOOK THE PHUCK OUT !!!!
Log in or register to remove this ad..

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 09 Jan 2014, 10:41 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Hannibal » 09 Jan 2014 9:19 am wrote:
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 8:46 am wrote:
Wow, further expression of your mental instability.


Go ahead, knock yourself out. Your fellow moonbats might fall for it. :\


Whatever Mr. Corporate sponsored. ;)


Chomsky works for a high salary for MIT.

MIT gets funding from THEM.

Therefore Chomsky is part of the System and advocates for THEM. :(

Isn't that kind of fallacious reasoning really silly? :rofl:
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 10:52 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.73



RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:41 am wrote:

Chomsky works for a high salary for MIT.

MIT gets funding from THEM.

Therefore Chomsky is part of the System and advocates for THEM. :(

Isn't that kind of fallacious reasoning really silly? :rofl:


What are you accusing me of ? What fallacious reasoning ? I didn't "defend" Chomsky. I explaind the nature of fiat currency and some economic points to the people in that thread that obviously didn't understand what they were talking about. You are reaching pretty far Clem, why not defend you government sources of propaganda some more ? Why change the subject ? I know why. :D
0
Things you should know about, for you own good please read about: Active Management Technology, Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing module, Secure Cryptoprocessor, Security Enhanced Linux . When these people talk about "Trust" and "Security" LOOK THE PHUCK OUT !!!!

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 09 Jan 2014, 10:55 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Hannibal » 09 Jan 2014 9:52 am wrote:
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:41 am wrote:
Chomsky works for a high salary for MIT.

MIT gets funding from THEM.

Therefore Chomsky is part of the System and advocates for THEM. :(

Isn't that kind of fallacious reasoning really silly? :rofl:


What are you accusing me of ? What fallacious reasoning ? I didn't "defend" Chomsky. I explaind the nature of fiat currency and some economic points to the people in that thread that obviously didn't understand what they were talking about. You are reaching pretty far Clem, why not defend you government sources of propaganda some more ? Why change the subject ? I know why. :D


Are you mentally impaired in some way?

You cited Chomsky for the value of what he said, just as I cite my sources for the value of what they say.

You didn't reject him because of his apparent connections to THEM, as you rejected every single one of mine.


Why not?
0

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 11:25 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.73



RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:55 am wrote:
You cited Chomsky for the value of what he said, just as I cite my sources for the value of what they say.

Nope, sure didn't I simply told the posters they were mistaken. I then explained why. I don't need to defend him. You are reaching. This is entirely irrelevant to the O.P. :hijacked: :spam:
Last edited by Hannibal on 09 Jan 2014, 11:30 am, edited 4 times in total.
0
Things you should know about, for you own good please read about: Active Management Technology, Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing module, Secure Cryptoprocessor, Security Enhanced Linux . When these people talk about "Trust" and "Security" LOOK THE PHUCK OUT !!!!

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 09 Jan 2014, 11:27 am

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.73



RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:55 am wrote:
You didn't reject him because of his apparent connections to THEM, as you rejected every single one of mine.
Why not?


He wasn't defending the actions of a governement administration HE WAS IN. You were citing members of the Bush administration in defence of..... THE BUSH ADMINISTARTION. You are getting pretty desperate glory hole. :LOL:
0
Things you should know about, for you own good please read about: Active Management Technology, Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing module, Secure Cryptoprocessor, Security Enhanced Linux . When these people talk about "Trust" and "Security" LOOK THE PHUCK OUT !!!!

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 09 Jan 2014, 11:56 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Hannibal » 09 Jan 2014 10:25 am wrote:
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:55 am wrote:
You cited Chomsky for the value of what he said, just as I cite my sources for the value of what they say.


Nope, sure didn't I simply told the posters they were mistaken. I then explained why. I don't need to defend him. You are reaching. This is entirely irrelevant to the O.P. :hijacked: :spam:


Thenwhy did you cite Chomsky?
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 09 Jan 2014, 11:57 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Hannibal » 09 Jan 2014 10:27 am wrote:
RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 9:55 am wrote:
You didn't reject him because of his apparent connections to THEM, as you rejected every single one of mine.
Why not?


He wasn't defending the actions of a governement administration HE WAS IN. You were citing members of the Bush administration in defence of..... THE BUSH ADMINISTARTION. You are getting pretty desperate glory hole. :LOL:


I have cited many other sources that were not part of the Bush administration who cited the same evidence and logic.

So what's the problem, other than that you're a paranoid psychotic?
0

Brattle Street's Photo
Posted by Brattle Street
  15,015 09 Jan 2014, 12:12 pm

Brattle Street       
      

Posts: 14,222
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 15,015.34



RichClem » 09 Jan 2014 10:57 am wrote:

I have cited many other sources that were not part of the Bush administration who cited the same evidence and logic.

So what's the problem, other than that you're a paranoid psychotic?


clemmy is now playing the Troll Circle game. this is one of his favorites. watch closely and you will see it too. It is designed to span over at least 8 or 10 posts in hopes that his critic doesn't recognize the circular nature of the game.
It often devolves into, "I gave you that evidence a long time ago, it is not my fault if you didn't see it." I can't be bothered to show you again!"
0
every drop onto a heart of stone helps erode the outer and approach the inner.

Well. how do you figure they were so frikken dumb to be slaves for centuries? sorta tells me their is some sort of genetic deficiency there. –– crimson gulf

Southern indep's Photo
Posted by Southern indep
  12,059 09 Jan 2014, 6:28 pm

Southern indep INVICTA REX
INVICTA REX

Posts: 7,575
Location: Somewhere near by
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: Independent
Gender: Male
Money: 12,059.48

Hey Hannibal,
I just requested a interview with Kim Holmes....
In the message I told him both parties are. Out of touch with the average citizen .I went on in detail how we are tired of deflections such as Roe vs Wade around election time...

Tired of policing the world with no gain back home, How career politicians Are ruining the country. I even made the comment that BBC reports American news more accurately than U.s baised media outlets...

Most likely will fall on deaf ears but w/e killed a few minutes
0
Words are not the defining of a man's character. Actions are the defining point of character. This is disclaimer for the words I use as to instill both a shock factor and urgency in the point made if any point is to be made.

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 10 Jan 2014, 9:20 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 3:55 pm wrote:
RichClem » 07 Jan 2014 12:14 pm wrote:
Which of the following sources aren't solid? WSJ oped page, IBD, National Review, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, American Spectator?


I thought that this was a rare instance of Clem asking a valid question. It inspired me to do a LITTLE research. What I found inspired me to do far more then a "Little" research. :shock: Below is a portion of what I have compiled and there is more on the way. What I found the "The fourth estate' has become nothing but a wing of the government, which was bought and paid for by the "Ownership class".


Oh my gosh! How horrifying, not. :rofl:

So what sources do you trust?
0

User avatar
Posted by Cannonpointer
  17,802 10 Jan 2014, 9:30 am

Cannonpointer Sacred Cow Tipper
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man

Posts: 57,220
Location: St. Pete, Baby!
Insurrectionist Insurrectionist political affiliation
Politics: Insurrectionist
Money: 17,802.45



RichClem » 10 Jan 2014 8:20 am wrote:

Oh my gosh! How horrifying, not. :rofl:

So what sources do you trust?


There are very few sources without an ax to grind, retard. That's how it is when 6 companies, thanks to reagan's deregulation, control the ENTIRE MSM.

But this much should be obvious to any honest poster: Quoting sources directly tied to the administration as if they were "neutral," while defending the administration, is dishonest. And you do that. And he proved it. And you're upset and butt hurt.

Walk it off, son. This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lightweight hack.
0
Every line you make, someone you love will stand in

Humanity's law of the jungle: survival of the tribe
Graphs aren't evidence, but organized iterations thereof

When your map disputes the territory, your map - not the territory - is wrong.
Where there's much sizzle, expect little steak
Honesty requires intentionality - dishonesty does not


Stereotypers are all the same
Nostalgia: a crime against what happened

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 10 Jan 2014, 9:36 am

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Cannonpointer » 10 Jan 2014 8:30 am wrote:
RichClem » 10 Jan 2014 8:20 am wrote:

Oh my gosh! How horrifying, not. :rofl:

So what sources do you trust?


There are very few sources without an ax to grind, retard. That's how it is when 6 companies, thanks to reagan's deregulation, control the ENTIRE MSM.


Ooooh, it's Reagan's fault!

Reagan's mere name sends psychotics into mental conniptions and convulsions. :clap:

Walk it off, son. This is not the first time you've been exposed as a lightweight hack.


I love psychotic moonbat humor. :rofl:


But this much should be obvious to any honest poster: Quoting sources directly tied to the administration as if they were "neutral," while defending the administration, is dishonest. And you do that. And he proved it. And you're upset and butt hurt.


It isn't dishonest at all, moonbat, if they have a track record of integrity.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 10 Jan 2014, 11:36 am

Skeptic Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 10 Jan 2014 8:36 am wrote:

1) Reagan's mere name sends psychotics into mental conniptions and convulsions. :clap:



2) I love psychotic moonbat humor. :rofl:




3) It isn't dishonest at all, moonbat, if they have a track record of integrity.


1) Is that how you lost your mind, Clem?

2) That probably exacerbates your condition. Try not telling yourself too many 'jokes.'

3) Which they don't.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 10 Jan 2014, 12:28 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Skeptic » 10 Jan 2014 10:36 am wrote:
1) Is that how you lost your mind, Clem?


Anyone who claims that Reagan's policies failed, but Obama's worked is hopelessly stupid or literally psychopathic.


Or a mixture of both.
0

Skeptic's Photo
Posted by Skeptic
  1,854 10 Jan 2014, 12:45 pm

Skeptic Moderator
Moderator

Posts: 3,095
Democratic Democratic political affiliation
Politics: Democratic
Money: 1,854.22

RichClem » 10 Jan 2014 11:28 am wrote:

Anyone who claims that Reagan's policies failed, but Obama's worked is hopelessly stupid or literally psychopathic.


Or a mixture of both.


There, there, clemmy. Saint Ronny watches over you as you sleep. Now take your Thorazine...

27 years of Reaganomics created the great melt-down and Obama has done pretty well cleaning up Saint Ronny's poopies with ZERO help from conservatives.
0

RichClem's Photo
Posted by RichClem
  18,450 10 Jan 2014, 12:50 pm

RichClem       
      

Posts: 17,321
Liberal Liberal political affiliation
Politics: Liberal
Money: 18,450.30

Skeptic » 10 Jan 2014 11:45 am wrote:
RichClem » 10 Jan 2014 11:28 am wrote:
Anyone who claims that Reagan's policies failed, but Obama's worked is hopelessly stupid or literally psychopathic.


Or a mixture of both.


27 years of Reaganomics created the great melt-down and Obama has done pretty well cleaning up Saint Ronny's poopies with ZERO help from conservatives.


:rofl:

Behold, the pride and joy of the liberal-left. :clap:
0

User avatar
Posted by Endoscopy
  6,635 10 Jan 2014, 1:17 pm

Endoscopy User avatar
     
     

Posts: 4,578
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Gender: Male
Money: 6,634.50

Hannibal » 08 Jan 2014 4:17 pm wrote:
golfboy » 08 Jan 2014 4:15 pm wrote:
Oh no! the CFR!!!
You need to loosen up the strap on your tinfoil hat, buddy.


Admit your "sources" are government supplied propaganda. Quit dodging it. :\

:die: :die: :die: :die: :die:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Who is in charge of the government? Oh that is right the Obama Administration. so now the Obama administration is spouting conservative rants. I love it.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT
Last edited by Endoscopy on 10 Jan 2014, 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
0
ANNOY A LIBERAL
TELL THEM FACTS

User avatar
Posted by Endoscopy
  6,635 10 Jan 2014, 1:17 pm

Endoscopy User avatar
     
     

Posts: 4,578
Conservative Conservative political affiliation
Politics: Conservative
Gender: Male
Money: 6,634.50

double post
0
ANNOY A LIBERAL
TELL THEM FACTS

User avatar
Posted by Hannibal
  29 10 Jan 2014, 1:27 pm

Hannibal User avatar
Telephone Bossman

Posts: 798
Independent Independent political affiliation
Politics: N/A
Money: 28.73



Endoscopy » 10 Jan 2014 12:17 pm wrote:
:die: :die: :die: :die: :die:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Who is in charge of the government? Oh that is right the Obama Administration. so now the Obama administration is spouting conservative rants. I love it.

YOU ARE AN IDIOT


Calling me a names isn't an argument, it's proof you have no valid address to the OP. I bet you didn't even read it. It seems that there is a "Certain crowd" that posts here that can't be bothered to read or review what they are PRETENDING to know about. This same crowd thinks that personal attacks in place of a rational argument somehow makes them look smart. Is it any coincidence that they enjoy each others company ? :rolleyes: Go ahead Endoscopy, lets see some proof that I am an Idiot. Seeing as how you obviously think your smarter I'm sure you have some evidence for your claims, ONLY AN IDIOT would rely on his opinion alone. ;)
0
Things you should know about, for you own good please read about: Active Management Technology, Trusted Computing Group, Trusted Computing module, Secure Cryptoprocessor, Security Enhanced Linux . When these people talk about "Trust" and "Security" LOOK THE PHUCK OUT !!!!


PreviousNext

Return to Profundum Disputatio

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

Who has visited this topic