Conquer Club

Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues. Your bias is clear and obvious, all the time. The fact that you're so brutal to those who disagree with your ridiculous, reasonless, and so often not fact based politics comes as no surprise.

You really should do one or the other, be a mod, or be a political pundit. Both at the same time lead to all of the abuses you regularly commit, and even if you can live in denial of that, it objectively completely compromises your position as a moderator.

Is this baiting?

I think it is baiting. I think Night Strike does bait people.

Nightstrike, if you wish to (1) care about what pimpdave says and/or (2) do something in response, you can probably find some volunteer to make these posts instead of you. That way, pimpdave might be mollified. In fact, I'll volunteer to post anything you want to post that involves fiscal conservatism. I'll stay away from social conservatism.

Night Strike wrote:Two huge stories are taking place by and for the Obama administration.

1) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26240.html
The first case deals with David Axelrod. He is currently receiving a severage package from an advertising company that heavily advertises for democratic causes. They are currently producing ads costing $12 million to help support the health care reform. Not only did Axelrod found the organization, his son also works with the group. Any similarities with Cheney's relationship with Haliburton? Sounds somewhat similar to me, so is there outrage?

2) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/20/loan-brazilian-oil-company-riles-conservatives-favor-offshore-drilling/?test=latestnews
This one is huge on two fronts. First is the issue that Obama and most democrats are staunchly opposed to drilling off the shores of the US, but apparently they will extend credit to companies that wish to drill off the coast of Brazil. So instead of spending our credit and tax dollars here in the US where we can create jobs and bring in tax revenue, we have to send the money to another country. I'm pretty sure drilling there has the same global warming emissions as drilling here, so why can we not get the benefits?
The second issue in this, and where the allies are getting paid off, has to do with certain shareholders of the company receiving the credit. George Soros, the insanely rich guy who lives and breathes liberalism, is a shareholder of the company. The largest holding for his hedge-fund firm is this company. Fishy much?

When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

comic boy wrote:When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

So, it's okay to financially take care of your supporters with government funds and/or drilling offshore when Americans are in need of jobs which you have promised?

Let me put it another way - It's okay to be critical of both presidents in this regard. I sure am.

Let me put it yet another way - It's ridiculously hypocritical to be critical of one president and excuse the other for essentially the same actions.

Finally, if something comes out that President Obama continued to prosecute the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and certain of his political allies profit, will you be the first to criticize him? Or will you be the first to defend him?

comic boy wrote:When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Actually, to be honest, I don't know much about the Haliburton controversy. I am aware of the basics, but most of the specifics came out before I was very interested in politics. I just know that there are some similarities.

pimpdave wrote:I think it is baiting. I think Night Strike does bait people.

Sorry that you think every conservative point of view is baiting you. Maybe you should be more open minded.

pimpdave wrote:It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues. Your bias is clear and obvious, all the time. The fact that you're so brutal to those who disagree with your ridiculous, reasonless, and so often not fact based politics comes as no surprise.

You really should do one or the other, be a mod, or be a political pundit. Both at the same time lead to all of the abuses you regularly commit, and even if you can live in denial of that, it objectively completely compromises your position as a moderator.

Last time I checked, this site was about a World Domination game, not about politics. I suppose if this site were about politics, I would have to be a moderator who doesn't publicly post his views. But since it's not, and the fact that I neither moderate this forum nor contribute to banning people, I am free to express my political views. I am glad that you now realize that I have not been "removed and disgraced" as a Team CC member, and if I'm supposedly living in denial of abusive bias, you should present facts that support it. Blind accusations are at best spam and at worst flames.

Now, let's discuss the actual topic of this thread. Feel free to complain about me in the C&A forum or a PM to Optimus Prime.

Night Strike wrote:
Last time I checked, this site was about a World Domination game, not about politics. I suppose if this site were about politics, I would have to be a moderator who doesn't publicly post his views. But since it's not, and the fact that I neither moderate this forum nor contribute to banning people, I am free to express my political views.

Right, but at one time you were in charge of such things and you flagrantly abused your power while also making a great show of your political affiliation. All that's changed is that you've been removed from a position wherein you can ban people for disagreeing with you. Can those decisions be overturned? Would you, in a spirit of giving and acceptance of your removal from a position of power that you couldn't handle actually advocate that since you were compromised in carrying out your duties, your judgments should be overturned?

Also, last time I checked, 80% of the threads in this forum are about politics, not world domination. So your argument doesn't work in the slightest, because this off-topics forum is what you were supposed to be moderating, but you were actually just acting as a partisan. So, seeing as it's time for everyone to pay off their allies, why don't you hold yourself to the same standard you demand of the federal government and also of all of us in here? How would you respond if the same was done to you that you have done to many of us?

pimpdave wrote:

Night Strike wrote:
Last time I checked, this site was about a World Domination game, not about politics. I suppose if this site were about politics, I would have to be a moderator who doesn't publicly post his views. But since it's not, and the fact that I neither moderate this forum nor contribute to banning people, I am free to express my political views.

This is true only when you do not let your political views bias your implementation of rules. Even I, though I have not faced censor from you, have definitely seen a bias there, sorry.

Also, I don't think anyone really has an issue with ANY ideas you might express. We will disagree, but agree that you have the right to express them. However, you have posted a bit more than a few posts that cite absolutely uncredible sites, etc. And yes, you have used your position as moderator to curtail ideas YOU dislike. That is the bit to which we object, not that you express ideas that differ with ours.

pimpdave wrote:It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues.

Why? Is Night Strike targeting liberals posting on this site by giving them vacations? Is he giving vacations to a significantly higher percentage of liberals than conservatives? What is your basis for this? This seems as much personal dislike of Night Strike on your part as anything else, to me.

notyou2 wrote:Is this baiting?

What about it do you consider to be baiting?

Night Strike wrote:

comic boy wrote:When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Actually, to be honest, I don't know much about the Haliburton controversy. I am aware of the basics, but most of the specifics came out before I was very interested in politics. I just know that there are some similarities.

And this is a classic. You start a whole thread of attack and yet, you say "you don't know much about this". If you don't know, you don't know.

As a point in fact, there were far more differences than similarities. However, if you cannot be bothered to find that out, why should I do the research for you? You were the one making the assertions.

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues. [/quite]

Why? Is Night Strike targeting liberals posting on this site by giving them vacations? Is he giving vacations to a significantly higher percentage of liberals than conservatives? What is your basis for this?

notyou2 wrote:Is this baiting?

What about it do you consider to be baiting?

I have seen more than one thread shut down for what I could only feel was too much disagreement with Night Strike. I was warned that I might face reprecussions if I continued in a certain vein on more than one occasion. (though I always pulled back and never did face any penalties). But, this thread is getting pretty far off topic. I have said what I wanted to say and do not intend to belabor the point.

Not to defend nightstrike here, but you guys always accuse him of shit and I've never seen any actual evidence of anything. All I see are veiled remarks about him shutting down threads or threatening you. Post the goddamn things already!!! I want to read them if only because it might be entertaining.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

comic boy wrote:When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Actually, to be honest, I don't know much about the Haliburton controversy. I am aware of the basics, but most of the specifics came out before I was very interested in politics. I just know that there are some similarities.

And this is a classic. You start a whole thread of attack and yet, you say "you don't know much about this". If you don't know, you don't know.

As a point in fact, there were far more differences than similarities. However, if you cannot be bothered to find that out, why should I do the research for you? You were the one making the assertions.

Well I did ask about the relationship in the form of a question. It probably came off as a rhetorical attack though. I heard a pundit (don't remember who) bring up the comparison, but I wasn't focusing on the conversation. It was meant more as a debate starter rather than an attack.

Back on topic....

Duh! Did you think they contributed to his campaign because they agreed with his ideology? This is American politics we're talking about here. This is simply a return on an investment.

And you guys thought he was a socialist....

comic boy wrote: When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Funny, I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, comic.

For others, you can read for yourself why these left-wing conspiracy theories over Dubya's collusion with Halliburton are nonsense.

I know it's not as reputable a source as ihaterepublicanpresidents.com or Farenheit 9/11, but you'll just have to deal with it.

luns101 wrote:

comic boy wrote: When Obama starts/ extends / influences a war to directly financialy benefit himself and his cronies then I will accept that his actions are as much of a disgrace as those of Cheyney. Good to see you accepting that Haliburton are the unacceptable face of Capitalism though, you agree of course that prosecutions were/are in order for those Texan bloodsuckers ?

Funny, I never took you for a conspiracy theorist, comic.

For others, you can read for yourself why these left-wing conspiracy theories over Dubya's collusion with Halliburton are nonsense.

I know it's not as reputable a source as ihaterepublicanpresidents.com or Farenheit 9/11, but you'll just have to deal with it.

Typical right-wing misinformation.

CHENEY was very, very tight with Haliburton.

Bush listened to/was tight with Cheney.

Its as simple as that.

Furthermore, the question is not so much whether Haliburton was the biggest contractor, the issue is that Haliburton was corrupt, cost WAY too much money and was not competetive, had little or no oversight.

I forgot cheneywasveryveryverytightwithhalliburton.com or classenvyagainstcorporations.com

Woodruff wrote:

pimpdave wrote:It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues.

Why? Is Night Strike targeting liberals posting on this site by giving them vacations? Is he giving vacations to a significantly higher percentage of liberals than conservatives? What is your basis for this? This seems as much personal dislike of Night Strike on your part as anything else, to me.

notyou2 wrote:Is this baiting?

What about it do you consider to be baiting?

Flame baiting (or just baiting) is the intentional attempt to get someone else to flame.

hide: Baiting Specifics

* Just because you didn't directly attack another user does not make your post a meaningful contribution. If your post's intent was to provoke another user into an emotional response, to get under their skin or to otherwise piss them off, you're baiting them. Hopefully the user doesn't take the bait, but you'll probably get a warning from a mod.

When in position of authority do you think it appropriate for the MODERATOR (and I use that term loosely) to start controversial topics such as politics, especially in light of what is occurring in the US and around our global community? I believe that this thread is intentional baiting to get specific members to publicly voice their opinions and perhaps in the heat of the moment state something they may regret later with the ultimate goal of the OP to get them banned.

There is a reason politics is a taboo topic in bars.

If the OP were not a MODERATOR, who by the way are to exhibit MODERATION, thus the name, I would not take issue with the thread.

luns101 wrote:I forgot cheneywasveryveryverytightwithhalliburton.com or classenvyagainstcorporations.com

I see, so you deny that Cheney was tied to Haliburton?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

luns101 wrote:I forgot cheneywasveryveryverytightwithhalliburton.com or classenvyagainstcorporations.com

I see, so you deny that Cheney was tied to Haliburton?

Yes, I do

Haliburton is an international Food Ingredients Corporation

Halliburton, on the other hand, is the energy company which Dick Cheney stepped down from in July of 2000 before ever assuming the vice-presidency. Halliburton is the energy company which had its cost-plus fixed fee contract renewed by the defense department because it was originally approved by the administration of Bill Clinton.

But hey! Al Gore was very very tight with Bill Clinton...Bill Clinton was very very tight with Monica Lewinsky. Therefore, we can conclude that Al Gore supports adultery.

See how that works

Please don't confuse these fora with facts luns... we only listen to baseless accusations, soundbites, and rambling posts that go nowhere.

@ player: just so you don't think I'm being mean about the spelling, I am guilty of one of the biggest typos in CC history.

I was arguing with somebody over condom distribution and the pope's stance against it (I think it was in Africa) and said something like:

"it's not full-proof" instead of "it's not fool-proof"

.....not exactly the best typo to make when discussing condoms

pimpdave wrote:It's really inappropriate that you constantly post about political issues and then also weigh in on site management issues. Your bias is clear and obvious, all the time. The fact that you're so brutal to those who disagree with your ridiculous, reasonless, and so often not fact based politics comes as no surprise.

You really should do one or the other, be a mod, or be a political pundit. Both at the same time lead to all of the abuses you regularly commit, and even if you can live in denial of that, it objectively completely compromises your position as a moderator.

everything he said there was a well worded opinion based on facts. and you you can't see something as simple or admit "politics AS USUAL", then you are truly the one with a blinder on, 100% of sight, blocked. dont bother posting back, cuz I wont be able to see them anyways. Completely dismissed. Ta!