User Controls
Ajit Pai
-
2017-12-26 at 6:40 AM UTClol, okThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-12-26 at 12:59 PM UTC
-
2017-12-27 at 8:09 AM UTC
-
2017-12-27 at 12:27 PM UTC
-
2017-12-27 at 2:08 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny No, nowhere did I say that. But if a setback happens there's typically a reason for it, and here I see none. So I'm asking for one.
Very often you know something happened without knowing the reason why.It seems like if there's a single thing the "NWO" should be able to do, it would be to influence the decision of an unelected official on a highly contentious issue like net neutrality. Like what do you think happened here? Did the NWO just happen to sleep in on decision day?
When I think of "NWO" I think of something that's probably way different than what you think.
But the thing about the successful conspiracies is that they play the long game. For instance why not let this unpopular decision happen, make some noise about it, then overturn it in 10 years and come out looking like the hero, rather than waste a bunch of political capital fighting it out.
Originally posted by Lanny What? Is that an anology? If so the public would seem to be the pervy stalker dude. But what exactly do the man, woman, and not-having-sex represent?
The point is that from the government's point of view the public are unwanted viewers.
The story doesn't represent anything, except that if you're watching decisions being taken in a group you are usually coming from a position of incomplete information.
For instance when Ajit Pai leaves the FCC he will probably walk into a highly paid position as a "consultant" at one of the companies that has benefited from his decisions. No one knows where or why, even him. It's the sort of implicit thing that happens.
Post last edited by Issue313 at 2017-12-27T14:14:01.624991+00:00 -
2017-12-27 at 3:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 Ajit Pai leaves the FCC he will probably walk into a highly paid position as a "consultant" at one of the companies that has benefited from his decisions. No one knows where or why, even him. It's the sort of implicit thing that happens.
Post last edited by Issue313 at 2017-12-27T14:14:01.624991+00:00
i dont think this is true.
everybody knows all democratically elected government offices are rotating doors to capital feudalists offices.
the only thing is whether they admit it or not.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-12-27 at 9:26 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 But the thing about the successful conspiracies is that they play the long game. For instance why not let this unpopular decision happen, make some noise about it, then overturn it in 10 years and come out looking like the hero, rather than waste a bunch of political capital fighting it out.
This seems like an unfalsifiable hypothesis then. If net neutrality remains intact then the NWO has orchestrated it to be so. If it's repealed then it's the NWO playing the long game. The outcome is totally irrelevant, literally anything could happen and it would reaffirm Speedy Cummer's unshakable confidence that net neutrality is an NWO plot (somehow for reasons that haven't been explained).
I could assign literally any political position I didn't like to liserd people and explain any political outcome in terms of liserd people conspiracies using this strategy. -
2017-12-27 at 9:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This seems like an unfalsifiable hypothesis then. If net neutrality remains intact then the NWO has orchestrated it to be so. If it's repealed then it's the NWO playing the long game. The outcome is totally irrelevant, literally anything could happen and it would reaffirm Speedy Cummer's unshakable confidence that net neutrality is an NWO plot (somehow for reasons that haven't been explained).
I could assign literally any political position I didn't like to liserd people and explain any political outcome in terms of liserd people conspiracies using this strategy.
don't forget that it absolutely proves determinismThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-12-27 at 10:13 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny This seems like an unfalsifiable hypothesis then. If net neutrality remains intact then the NWO has orchestrated it to be so. If it's repealed then it's the NWO playing the long game. The outcome is totally irrelevant, literally anything could happen and it would reaffirm Speedy Cummer's unshakable confidence that net neutrality is an NWO plot (somehow for reasons that haven't been explained).
I could assign literally any political position I didn't like to liserd people and explain any political outcome in terms of liserd people conspiracies using this strategy.
You can usually tell what the "NWO" want by the narrative the controlled media put out there, and also by what the EU do. It's not grass roots based (ie. when talking with normal people you won't find any demand for NWO policies, like mass immigration). Politics isn't a hard science where you get to worry about formal logic.
When you're talking about the likes of George Soros and Jean Claude Juncker liserd people conspiracies would make more sense than reality. -
2017-12-27 at 10:16 PM UTCfevering bring
-
2017-12-27 at 10:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 You can usually tell what the "NWO" want by the narrative the controlled media put out there, and also by what the EU do. It's not grass roots based (ie. when talking with normal people you won't find any demand for NWO policies, like mass immigration). Politics isn't a hard science where you get to worry about formal logic.
When you're talking about the likes of George Soros and Jean Claude Juncker liserd people conspiracies would make more sense than reality.
How do you distinguish between an NWO supported narrative and just normal reporting?
You say "it's not a hard science" but something not being a hard science doesn't mean we should just throw all criticality to the wind. From where I'm standing it looks a lot like people make a snap decision about if they like a thing or not (usually influenced by whether or not people they personally dislike think about it) and then assign said thing to either the "NWO agenda" or "Trump" bucket. Like I've yet to see any reason to believe "NWO plot" means anything more than "thing I don't like" so far in this thread. -
2017-12-27 at 10:57 PM UTCThis is the most retarded argument I've seen in my life.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2017-12-28 at 1:34 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How do you distinguish between an NWO supported narrative and just normal reporting?
You read the article, consider who wrote it, where it was picked up, and if there is any video or other evidence.
That news is fit into a narrative isn't some conspiracy theory, it's standard practice at all news sources which I am aware of.
Most people who get written about in the mainstream media wind up remarking how different reality and what was written are. In general the media only makes you dumber and more confused about reality, and it's worth ignoring until the book comes out a few years later.
Post last edited by Issue313 at 2017-12-28T01:38:24.163633+00:00 -
2017-12-28 at 2:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 You read the article, consider who wrote it, where it was picked up, and if there is any video or other evidence.
Ok, so who's been writing pro net neutrality articles, where have they been picked up, what evidence exists in those articles, and how do these things tie together to support the notion the net neutrality is an NWO plot? -
2017-12-28 at 3:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Ok, so who's been writing pro net neutrality articles, where have they been picked up, what evidence exists in those articles, and how do these things tie together to support the notion the net neutrality is an NWO plot?
I don't know, but I'll research this for you for $20 an hour paid in cryptocurrency of your choice. -
2017-12-28 at 6:01 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny How do you distinguish between an NWO supported narrative and just normal reporting?
You say "it's not a hard science" but something not being a hard science doesn't mean we should just throw all criticality to the wind. From where I'm standing it looks a lot like people make a snap decision about if they like a thing or not (usually influenced by whether or not people they personally dislike think about it) and then assign said thing to either the "NWO agenda" or "Trump" bucket. Like I've yet to see any reason to believe "NWO plot" means anything more than "thing I don't like" so far in this thread.
Trump -
2017-12-28 at 8:11 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Ok, so who's been writing pro net neutrality articles[1], where have they been picked up[2], what evidence exists in those articles[3], and how do these things tie together to support the notion the net neutrality is an NWO plot[4]?
[1] jedis
[2] jedi run establishments
[3] glaring promotion of jediry
[4] net neutrality promotes neo-zionalism -
2017-12-28 at 9:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by Issue313 I don't know, but I'll research this for you for $20 an hour paid in cryptocurrency of your choice.
You don't know. Then I assume you'd agree with me that that there's no reason to believe that net neutrality is an NWO plot? If not then your NWO plot demarcation criteria would seem to have an immediate gaping hole in it.
Originally posted by Speedy Parker Trump
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, American political discourse! -
2017-12-28 at 12:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny You don't know. Then I assume you'd agree with me that that there's no reason to believe that net neutrality is an NWO plot? If not then your NWO plot demarcation criteria would seem to have an immediate gaping hole in it.
Trump
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, American political discourse!
