We Are Change Boycotts the Superbowl

Dave Rogers said:
I think boycotts are a valuable new direction for WAC. Now, if we can just get them to boycott everything...

Dave
Click to expand...

There seems to be some element of right-wing nob trying to imitate left-wing tactics. WAC acts just like some sort of left-wing rights group, it's just they all support extreme right-wing paleolibertarian candiates. First they're out posting on the Net that they're anti-US imperialism. Now we get them calling for boycotts. It's like that idiot who did the ACORN expose. The only thing these kids seem to know how to do is pretend they're 1960's left-wing radicals.

We should have a pool and bet on what kind of silly thing we predict they'll do next.
 
Interestingly, the Taliban also banned sport especially for women, but also for men. They banned music, and all kinds of populat activities. WAC might say they have different reasons for doing this. I don't know why really why WAC feels so strongly about activities like sport (and presume music), since they don't come here and talk to me. But I can say they share many of the same ideas about what people should and shouldn't be doing. Is it any coincidence they also share a simialr description of history and world affairs? I think not.

I found this rather comprehensive list of all the things banned under the Taliban. How many do think WAC agrees with? This is off the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.

I hope this doesn't offend anybody. After all, I'm just asking questions.
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
Interestingly, the Taliban also banned sport especially for women, but also for men. They banned music, and all kinds of populat activities. WAC might say they have different reasons for doing this. I don't know why really why WAC feels so strongly about activities like sport (and presume music), since they don't come here and talk to me. But I can say they share many of the same ideas about what people should and shouldn't be doing. Is it any coincidence they also share a simialr description of history and world affairs? I think not.

I found this rather comprehensive list list of all the things banned under the Taliban. How many do think WAC agrees with? This is off the site of the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan.

I hope this doesn't offend anybody. After all, I'm just asking questions.
Click to expand...

Heh...swing by any of their videos and point out somme nonsense. you'll findout they are not fans of any form of dissent. question everything, except them of course.
 
I am sure this has been covered, but isn't it a little more than humorously ironic that the very Superbowl the truthers ask people to boycott becomes the most viewed television show in television history.

What powers of presuasion. Any chance I could get them to start publishing stock tips? I have an idea....
 
switchpoint said:
I am sure this has been covered, but isn't it a little more than humorously ironic that the very Superbowl the truthers ask people to boycott becomes the most viewed television show in television history.

What powers of presuasion. Any chance I could get them to start publishing stock tips? I have an idea....
Click to expand...

Of course ! Most excellent idea. We'll make a fortune !
Sell their longs, buy their shorts !
Go get'em they're cash starved and delirious.
 
Last edited:
scott.in.taiwan said:
There seems to be some element of right-wing nob trying to imitate left-wing tactics. WAC acts just like some sort of left-wing rights group, it's just they all support extreme right-wing paleolibertarian candiates. First they're out posting on the Net that they're anti-US imperialism. Now we get them calling for boycotts. It's like that idiot who did the ACORN expose. The only thing these kids seem to know how to do is pretend they're 1960's left-wing radicals.

We should have a pool and bet on what kind of silly thing we predict they'll do next.
Click to expand...


WAC draws kooks from all over the political spectrum. To try to classify them as Left or Right is a waste of time.
 
scott.in.taiwan said:
So there's still hope for you? Or is it that there's no hope for We Are Change?
Click to expand...

The New World Order is real. There is plenty of credible evidence that dynastic banking families rule the world under the pretense of democratic governments. As for We Are Change, I'm not prepared to judge the entire organization for one ridiculous video, as far as I know it's a grass roots movement. I think they were trying to portray the Superbowl as the modern equivalent of the Roman "bread and circuses", and while there may be some truth to that, attempting to convince the average Chicagoan why it should be boycotted doesn't make much sense, and doesn't serve to raise any awareness.
 
Tippit said:
The New World Order is real. There is plenty of credible evidence that dynastic banking families rule the world under the pretense of democratic governments. As for We Are Change, I'm not prepared to judge the entire organization for one ridiculous video, as far as I know it's a grass roots movement. I think they were trying to portray the Superbowl as the modern equivalent of the Roman "bread and circuses", and while there may be some truth to that, attempting to convince the average Chicagoan why it should be boycotted doesn't make much sense, and doesn't serve to raise any awareness.
Click to expand...

The only World Order is the No World Order. The "world" is a chaotic accident driven by the underlying desires of 6 billion individuals all competing for a very limited piece of the pie. The idea that any rational adult can look at the world today and even in recent history and come to the conclusion that any order is acheived, let alone mandated is mind-boggling.
 
Tippit said:
The New World Order is real. There is plenty of credible evidence that dynastic banking families rule the world under the pretense of democratic governments. As for We Are Change, I'm not prepared to judge the entire organization for one ridiculous video, as far as I know it's a grass roots movement. I think they were trying to portray the Superbowl as the modern equivalent of the Roman "bread and circuses", and while there may be some truth to that, attempting to convince the average Chicagoan why it should be boycotted doesn't make much sense, and doesn't serve to raise any awareness.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right and that's just what they're thinking. 'Kind of reminds me of the Taliban and why they banned music and sports and many, many other things.

Why do you think they needed to raise awareness? I'm told over and over that huge numbers of Americans already believe that 911 was an inside job. Aren't we told constantly that huge numbers of architcts and engineers already support AE911 because they know this. Isn't it true that schools of civil engineering are all busy discussing the controlled demolition of the WTC on 911? Aren't there demonstrations in the streets? Isn't 911 Truth simply the most divisive issue of our time? So why would a bunch of high school kids need to "raise awareness"?
 
I've seen that guy around.

He is one hell of a smug douchebag.

I still can't believe that there are truther morons around here.
 
switchpoint said:
The only World Order is the No World Order. The "world" is a chaotic accident driven by the underlying desires of 6 billion individuals all competing for a very limited piece of the pie. The idea that any rational adult can look at the world today and even in recent history and come to the conclusion that any order is acheived, let alone mandated is mind-boggling.
Click to expand...

The philosophical "order vs. chaos" debate notwithstanding, it should be apparent that there is a political order which is manifested as paradigm of control. I'm only contending that the democratic paradigm is subservient to the monetary one, and the illusion of the former is required for the latter to exist. True enduring political power must necessarily remain anonymous, and must exist more or less in the context of perceived freedom with a number of false choices.

But the existence of the New World Order isn't evident from philosophical insight, it's evident from the opaque history of those responsible for it, and by the corrupt nature of the world's money and banking systems. Neither of these are subject to wild speculation to anyone who has studied them.
 
The fancy words you are using to attempt to convince others of something don't achieve that result.
 
Tippit said:
But the existence of the New World Order isn't evident from philosophical insight, it's evident from the opaque history of those responsible for it, and by the corrupt nature of the world's money and banking systems.
Click to expand...
I'm just curious, what definition of opaque are you using which makes your conclusion evident?
 
DavidJames said:
I'm just curious, what definition of opaque are you using which makes your conclusion evident?
Click to expand...

Tippit said:
.

But the existence of the New World Order isn't evident from philosophical insight, it's evident from the opaque history of those responsible for it, and by the corrupt nature of the world's money and banking systems. Neither of these are subject to wild speculation to anyone who has studied them.
Click to expand...

opaque:
- not transparent or translucent: impervious to light, so that images cannot be seen through it
- not shiny: dull and without luster
- hard to understand: obscure and unintelligible in meaning

So the existance of the NWO is evident partially because of the fact that a history of the NWO cannot be seen or is unintelligible?
 
Last edited:
Are the voices in your head bothering you?

Tippit said:
The philosophical "order vs. chaos" debate notwithstanding, it should be apparent that there is a political order which is manifested as paradigm of control. I'm only contending that the democratic paradigm is subservient to the monetary one, and the illusion of the former is required for the latter to exist. True enduring political power must necessarily remain anonymous, and must exist more or less in the context of perceived freedom with a number of false choices.

But the existence of the New World Order isn't evident from philosophical insight, it's evident from the opaque history of those responsible for it, and by the corrupt nature of the world's money and banking systems. Neither of these are subject to wild speculation to anyone who has studied them.
Click to expand...

Any Citation? or just conjecture?
fallacy by bald assertion. Argue by prestigious jargon much? Just claiming bogeymen exist doesn't make it so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom