A step towards world war three! True identity of Obama!

[SAND]

Listen to this video very very carefully.

[Dante]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mkZUBdtu5A

Listen to this video very very carefully.

[Tatar Khan]

Listen to this video very very carefully.

Interesting ideas are expressed however they all still involve manipulation and active involvement, that usually is not easy. It is much easier to let things happen and have plans for such events. The easiest would be the Georgia. They let Georgia do what it did without much encouragement or interference but were able to exploit the outcome immediately because they were ready  for that outcome.

The video simplifies things too much. Soviet Union did not collapse because of war in Afghanistan

[SandChigger]

Nice one, Dante. :)

SAND, do you believe just any old bullshit you find on the Internet? Has your education left you with so little in the way of BS detectors?

[SAND]

Sand to you naturally this stuff would look BS, I expected this reaction from you. And dante try reply me with an evidencee directly related to the topic. That is Elvis but this is War talk. If you dont have a reasonable evidence to prove me wrong then you simply dont have an answer to this. I know you would feel anything related against the west as bullshit but try to learn to adapt to reality, thats the way it was and will be friend.

Anyways everyday new evidences pop up against the west and no matter how much you try to hide it you just cant escape from it.

[Caid Ivik]

I guess the General board suits the thread more ;)

[Dragoon Knight]

SAND, Dante's point was that both videos are nonsense.  Both claim to have "damning evidence" that things are not what they seem.  Hell, even the "Short Change" 9/11 videos had more credence than this Obama hate-mongering.

Have you even looked into the issues this lunatic is addressing?  Have you formed your own opinions, or just echoed his?  Have you actually checked to see if anything he says makes sense?

If so, I call for you to provide some "evidence", because all I heard and saw was your standard crazy American rambling on about conspiracy theories.

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

Well... Obama IS a puppet of the finance capital... (Although I've only listened to the first minute of the video so far)

[Dragoon Knight]

Well... Obama IS a puppet of the finance capital... (Although I've only listened to the first minute of the video so far)

What do you mean by that?  Cite examples, with evidence, and explain how you came to that conclusion.  Can you do that?

Because if you can't, then all you're doing is parrotting a detrimental view / conspiracy theory.  It's no better than going around saying "Microsoft are evil!  Bill Gates is trying to own everything!"

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

What do you mean by that?  Cite examples, with evidence, and explain how you came to that conclusion.  Can you do that?

Because if you can't, then all you're doing is parrotting a detrimental view / conspiracy theory.  It's no better than going around saying "Microsoft are evil!  Bill Gates is trying to own everything!"

I'm not saying Sand is right (or wrong) so I am not supporting any conspiracy theory. I only listened to 40 seconds of the video, so I don't even know about any conspiracy theory that I am accused of supporting without evidence.

However, I DID say that Obama is a puppet of capitalist finance. My evidence for that lies in the people he as selected to serve various positions in government (I don't know their names but I think they are "famed" {infamed?) for their dealing with earlier economic crisis' that severely worsened things) who are often considered to be capitalistic wa**ers. Almost every choice indicates that he wishes to pursue capitalist policy and that he is probably trying to benefit the corps. as much as possible. You would expect this, considering all the "campaign donations" he received from such. After all, with his overwhelming donations he was able to dominate advertising and that might have tipped things in his favor.

Perhaps you should complain about and accuse me of things that I have said instead of things that I haven't?

explain how you came to that conclusion

Requesting this is of me would only make sense if you assumed I had come to such a conclusion just in case. I READ you're post to make fairly sure of you're claim about what I'm claiming first before commenting. (Or rather, don't assume ridiculous amounts of things that I haven't said anything about)

Even asking If I can and explaining that I'm parroting a view if I'm not also seems to suggest that you assumed that I would not be able to explain that which I never mentioned with no apparent reason for said assumption. However, I will NOT assume from this non-certain point that that is what you assumed.

[Dragoon Knight]

I asked if you were capable of backing up your detrimental view that Obama was a puppet.  I suggested that if you couldn't do this, you would be parrotting.  That is all - no assumption, no accusation.  I asked you to provide said evidence because you made a detrimental statement regarding Obama (i.e. that he is a puppet).

Where, exactly, are the "ridiculous amounts of things" that I'm assuming?  Your little .GIF seems to apply to you, sir, not I.

Also, your last two sentences are a mess, but from what I can gather, I think you're saying that I didn't think you'd be able to back up your arguments with original thoughts; that you would simply echo what others have said on the matter.  You're right - I didn't.  But I also believe that you didn't write your last post yourself, so my position remains the same. ;)

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

v (emphasis on "conspiracy theory") v

Because if you can't, then all you're doing is parrotting a detrimental view / CONSPIRACY THEORY.  It's no better than going around saying "Microsoft are evil!  Bill Gates is trying to own everything!"

The quote does not lie.

Where, exactly, are the "ridiculous amounts of things" that I'm assuming?  Your little .GIF seems to apply to you, sir, not I.

Read above and below.

But I also believe that you didn't write your last post yourself, so my position remains the same. ;)

Meh, if you say so. *shrug*

Although, whether I wrote it or not shouldn't change your opinion.

Also, your last two sentences are a mess

I admit, I did use "you're", it was supposed to be "your", but I'm afraid I can't notice anything else that's wrong with it.

Evidently, the meaning was obvious enough to "translate".

[Dragoon Knight]

The "/" means "or"; to be more precise, it shows the contrast between calling someone a puppet and believing that they're part of a conspiracy.  You stated that Obama was a puppet, so your view clearly falls into the former category.  No assumption, no accusation.  Don't edit my words in quotes to include capitals where there were none.

That clarification, coupled with the fact that you claimed I was assuming "ridiculous amounts of things" before I made my second post, makes it clear that you were the one making assumptions.

Meh, if you say so. *shrug*

Although, whether I wrote it or not shouldn't change your opinion.

I'd say it should drastically alter my opinion.  If you didn't write it, then you're doing worse than parrotting: you're getting someone else to say things for you. ::)

...but I'm afraid I can't notice anything else that's wrong with it.

Evidently, the meaning was obvious enough to "translate".

My complaint is that it was long winded and overly complex.  It could have done with being several sentences, with a full retinue of commas and parentheses.  Forgive my fondness for proper grammar.

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

The "/" means "or"; to be more precise, it shows the contrast between calling someone a puppet and believing that they're part of a conspiracy.  You stated that Obama was a puppet, so your view clearly falls into the former category.  No assumption, no accusation.  Don't edit my words in quotes to include capitals where there were none.

One would imagine the "parroting" you're referring to is either the parroting of the video or the parroting of sand's view on the video (that I've only seen 40 seconds of) that he only mentioned. If you're not referring to parroting of either of those views, then what are you talking about? Are you speaking about me parroting views that are not related to this thread? I don't think any normal person would think it was the latter case, since it'd be random. Also, the rude tone suggests this as well.

Can you honestly say that you thought I didn't watch the video and support some crazy ideas? Chances are as soon as you saw my post, you thought: Oh, there's that naive guy who would just buy into things without thinking first and from that feeling all this arised.

But I also believe that you didn't write your last post yourself, so my position remains the same.  ;)

Ridiculous assumption located, my position remains the same on your ridiculous assumptions.

Did you see what I did thar?

My complaint is that it was long winded and overly complex.  It could have done with being several sentences, with a full retinue of commas and parentheses.  Forgive my fondness for proper grammar.

Well I certainly don't really care that much.

I just wanted to make it clear that I don't support any conspiracy theory and that I thought that people thought that.

[Dragoon Knight]

The parrotting I refer to is that of echoing others' views in general.  As I outlined in my first response to you, I asked if you could prove that your views were the result of original thought, rather than adopting another person or persons' view.

Ridiculous assumption located, my position remains the same on your ridiculous assumptions.

Did you see what I did thar?

No, sorry, I don't see what you did.  Since you claimed that I was making ridiculous assumptions before that quote.  To clarify:

...(Or rather, don't assume ridiculous amounts of things that I haven't said anything about)

But I also believe that you didn't write your last post yourself, so my position remains the same. ;)

Note the timestamps.  All other points I have raised have proven to be rational deductions - as I've stated twice before: no assumptions, no accusations.  Even ignoring this, your comment is still rendered invalid, because the belief that you had help writing your post is not a ridiculous assumption, given your past posting history.

[Dante]

Can you honestly say that you thought I didn't watch the video and support some crazy ideas? Chances are as soon as you saw my post, you thought: Oh, there's that naive guy who would just buy into things without thinking first and from that feeling all this arised.

Actually I thought "Oh Christ, this is going to be painful to read." And you did not disappoint. :)

Now, SAND, let me explain to you how an argument works. Person 1 puts forth a point of view, and supports it with evidence. Person 2 can then either attempt to refute this evidence, usually with counter-evidence, or they may change the point to argue something else that supports a point of their own.

This is not an argument because person 1, yourself, has produced no evidence. You have presented a point of view delivered by a fat man in a suit with some rather poor backing music. Have you any documents or witness reports of documents purporting to show a planned invasion of Sudan, for example? Troop movements that seem designed to invade Pakistan from Afgahnistan? The 'Polish missile crisis,' when is that supposed to happen, what kind of preparations suggest that it is likely to come about? Most pertinent to the topic at hand, how is Obama linked to the people said to be responsible for this plan?

Don't tell us to provide evidence of our point. We don't need to, for two reasons:

1) You have provided no evidence that requires counter-evidence to refute,

2) You are the one making the argument. How are we supposed to provide evidence that nothing is happening, which is ours?

Shouting conspiracy theories does not make them true, which is why I posted the video about Elvis. It was a subtle point which seems to have passed you by, suggesting that each conspiracy theory was as ridiculous as the other. I dislike explaining myself, and next time I won't be so considerate.

Now there was one other point I wanted to make, what was it... Oh yes.

I know you would feel anything related against the west as bullshit but try to learn to adapt to reality, thats the way it was and will be friend.

Don't call me friend. I don't befriend paranoid cerebral vegetables, as Kirby will attest.

Here's the thing: I don't believe this video is true because there is no supporting evidence and it is, frankly, ridiculous. However, if it is true, the USA and Britain have a plan to ensure global domination for the next century. Living in Britain, I would actually benefit if this video was true. So even though it is actually in my interests to believe in this video, I don't. Chew on that.

Anyways everyday new evidences pop up against the west and no matter how much you try to hide it you just cant escape from it.

This is a pithy, empty statement with no support. Also, I don't really need to hide from any such theories. If they aren't true, nothing changes. If they are true, my homeland will ride on the coattails of the USA into a century of global dominance.

We call this a win-win situation.

[Kirby Gotenks absorbed]

I love reporting flamers a lot.

[Dante]

And I get a little thrill of joy every time I insult you, you dribbling little moron.  :)

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

[SandChigger]

I also believe that you didn't write your last post yourself

That was rather my impression as well. :D

(Oh, and SAND? Boogah boogah boogah!  ::) )