Jump to content

Infidel Dog

Senior Member
  • Posts

    5,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Infidel Dog last won the day on February 13 2023

Infidel Dog had the most liked content!

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

11,929 profile views

Infidel Dog's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator
  • First Post
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter

Recent Badges

1.6k

Reputation

Single Status Update

See all updates by Infidel Dog

  1. Here's a difference between what I'll call Progs and what I'll call non-progs.

    A prog will link you to an article and it's like they're hoping you won't actually click the link and read it because it rarely says what they insinuate is in there.

    A non-prog, on the other hand, wants you to watch or read the source they're linking to. 

    Watch I'll give you an example of what happens though...

    Below is a link to a Conservative YouTuber named Daisy Cousens. I post it because I'd like people to consider what she's saying. She's going to imagine what a world under the great reset would look like.

    Now if a Prog were to respond to that and you had watched the video, you'd be able to tell within two sentences that they didn't actually watch it. But they'd be spewing their expertise on what they imagine is in there and they'd be raging against the person who dared to say or think what they were imagining was said or thought.

    You can actually use this to your advantage if you find yourselves in an argument with one of them.

    If it's an information link where arguments are imagined and addressed . The inevitable attack of the Proggery is easy-peasy to slap back. The reply to whatever they say is already in the source. Copy, paste, or simply quote and chuckle in response to their lame arguments because they didn't read or watch the article or video. 

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Boges

      Boges

      BTW I did watch this silly video. The last four minutes were a slog. 

      1) The Great Reset is straight communism. I don't support it, nor do I know anyone that does.  

      2) If you are to assume corporate entities are looking to take control of people's freedom, then we should support governments preventing companies like Google, Facebook, Amazon getting so powerful. But regulations like that would be Socialism. Catch 22?

      Imagine governments not allowing such a dramatic percentage of the world's wealth being held by a few hundred people? Would you support that?  

      3) If you believe COVID-19 was used to force people into giving up their freedom, why such an investment in a vaccine to get us back to normal ASAP? Like in historic time. Messenger rNA vaccines available in 10 months. Private and Public partnership at its best. 

      4) Wouldn't Gas and Oil companies fall under the same large corporatist agenda? Coal companies clearly influence politics in Australia.

    3. Infidel Dog

      Infidel Dog

      First of all why are you assuming I'm calling you personally a "Prog?" Guilty conscience?

      Is the Great Reset "straight Communism?" That would be interesting because it appears to be Corporates, Globalists, Money Managers and such behind it. The hard left appears to be more just the shills, stooges and the thug arm at present. Beaver Fever tells me there's no such thing as a Corporate left so you'll have to fight it out with him as to how much of the reset is Communist. I'm on your side there's a hard socialist even commie arm but when the dust clears I don't expect to see them in charge. But that's my opinion.

      I'm hearing from Fauci and other voices of the PTB not to be too optimistic about expecting vaccines to bring things back to normal. But I don't think it's just the Chi-Comm virus that's being used as a tool to bring about the Great Reset. Before there was Wuhan there was Gore and the inconceivable truth or whatever it was called. That was where the idea first came from that disasters would have to be invented to nudge people towards the idea of a global government. That's where I first heard it, anyway. Ever heard of Agenda 21? It's called something else now. 2030, I think.

      At first when you mentioned Australia, I was like, Huhhh??? What's he talking about? Then I remembered Daisy is from Australia. OK, you got me. I didn't watch all the way to the end. I was saving it for later. I'll watch it now.

    4. Boges

      Boges

      So you're admitting you didn't watch the whole video? 

      She praises Australia for being bought and sold by the Coal industry. They'll be the only bastion of freedom when the rest of the world runs on Green Energy. 

      It misses the point of preserving finite resources. Running out of Oil, Gas and even Coal would be far worse than moving away from it for a vast majority of our energy needs. 

      My only question about the "corporatist" agenda is that controlling it flies in the face of Free Market freedoms. It's the conservatives that cry when governments try to regulate corporations amassing such power and wealth. Should we break up the likes of Facebook, Google and Amazon. Should governments not let them get so powerful? Because I'm sure if any government tried, they'd be labelled as socialist and opposed to successful businesses. 

      What's the ideal outcome here? 

    5. Show next comments  3 more
×
×
  • Create New...