Lol OBAMA and his "liberal" democrats securing tyranny
- Thread starter DutchJazzer
- Start date
slice it.... good one.
Jonah
Well-Known Member
At the very least it could get you on the no fly list if the NSA happens to be watching. If he lived in the U.S. maybe a visit from the Secret Service.
Nobody could track who he is. Dutchjazzer is a handle, and the encryption here is unbreakable.
He's safe.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Jonah
Well-Known Member
Actually, when you think about, with the NSA opening up their big new data center in Bluffdale, Utah, it's almost probable that dozens of their employees read JazzFanz on the regular, not necessarily as part of their job, but just as fans. Once they decide to target him it's easy enough to track down the person posting as DutchJazzer. They probably already know what he had for breakfast.
The Dutchrudder character posts are identical to stuff you read in the FoxNews.com comments sections. This character is real, although difficult to understand due to all the fart noises mixed into the message.
Cappy_Smurf
Well-Known Member
Probably poop, cuz anyone that full of **** has to be eating it 3 times a day.
I'd take Obama's move in this as disingenuous at best. Always gotta get out in front of the mobs somehow. That's the new leadership. Obama is actually sending all kinds of signals to fuel the "class warfare" and "race warfare", doing nothing to project national unity and respect for our institutions for justice and other social needs. Some have asked why I can say Obama is a Marxist. Well, his whole life as a "community organizer" and extreme leftwing hack. . . his association with his church, his chosen "worship", and his mentors throughout his life, and while he is willing to lick the boots of Goldman Sachs and other uber-corporates, it's his idea of things to break down our constitutional tradition.
Some of the appeal of various movements towards what is perceived to be social justice, empowerment of ordinary folks, and such is the implied limitations on corporate interests. I know Obama believes what he working for will move us towards the next phase of the dialectical process, but what he, and many of you, do not realize is that those corporate interests are the ones who are positioned to prevail under these changes. If you are big enough to be "too big to fail", you will benefit from the coming increase in government. Competition will be smothered by the "interests" with the most connections with and control over our government.
Folks, anyone who supports this is not really a communist or a communist dupe, but a fascist or a fascist dupe. It's not about Democrats or Republicans anymore, it's about totalitarianism shutting down the equal protection under constitutional law we once paid lip service to. It's about the actual obliteration of human rights.
Last edited:
He could cure cancer, and you'd find him disingenuous.
I've said it's probably worthy of an infraction in JF forum, like calling other people "silly" is.
He's not an American, is probably being monitored by some intelligence agency and perhaps being considered for a "promotion" as a willing dupe of some psy-op project. I make it a policy to ignore the people who seem to be so bold as call for actual violence. I consider them probable assets for the tool chests of all kinds of riffraff who want power and are willing to pursue it with violence. But then you don't believe evil people exist, do you?
It's irrelevant if it is a crime unless some law enforcement personnel with legal jurisdiction are willing to spend the time of day on it.
Well crap. Didn't know denying police bayonets was a human rights violation.
So you're disingenuous, as well? So the fact is the Federal agencies have been asking local governments to "gear up". It might be just a sales pitch by some politicians with big campaign support from equipment manufacturers. Another fact is Federal recommendations for police training being implemented locally. Some have brought out facts of this, terming it "police militarization". I've seen it in the swagger some police have in places like Las Vegas, where arguably there is some kind of need for this, I suppose.
I said nothing about "denying police bayonets" either being a human right or a human rights violation. Human rights exist in another level of concept, which I think you lack the ability to comprehend. For those of our readers who do have some comprehension, a gun or a bayonet can be used to protect your individual rights just as well as to deny your rights. Police can protect you, and that is what their equipment is for.
I know your a cool hipster mod, and maybe a moderate republican or whatever. I welcome your comments as grist for my mill, but I would appreciate it if you could up your game a bit.
Most of my comment was about Obama's particular views. I call it disingenuous for him, after some government actions on his watch, like selling guns to drug cartels in Mexico, and stocking up our federal agencies with surplus weaponry on an unprecedented scale, to come out and talk like he's talking now. I understand there is a sort of apparent alienation of police from citizenry that is being evoked in media coverage, and it is a smart politician to put a finger to the wind and get positioned "right" with media. That's why I use the word "disingenuous" in his case. I think the word means saying things that could have a deceitful intent, or maybe it goes to just not being a genius somehow. Maybe believing something inconsistent with a lot of your other values.
might be some fine distinctions in what is silly, or thought-provoking. Or "humorous", or maybe a vain attempt to characterize some extant belief somehow. Would take a good look at the facts to know the difference.
cancer is a big bucket of specific medical conditions which share one generalized negative outcome, that being a runaway tissue growth depleting nutritional reserves and damaging vital organ or tissue functions incompatible with life. I wouldn't call him disingenuous if he did something he actually believed in doing, for principles he actually supports, and gained his intended objective. I think it takes a certain habit of indirectness to be "disingenuous".
Some folks complain that he actually did so some things he promised to do, others find some huge issues where he did the opposite of what he promised.
According Marxist principles, any deception that furthers "the cause" is justifiable, in terms defined by supporters of "the cause", or the belief system. A lot of adherents have made liberal use of this priority in values.
lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness :
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disingenuous