Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[quote=DressageGirl;12264795]I don't believe that it is all a big conspiracy. Are there corrupt people, absolutely but especially today, it would just be too difficult to manage such a big conspiracy.
One thing both parties do well is they are both in agreement,the people who talk about the CFR and the new world order are referred to as "extreme right wing conspiracy whakos.The parties rarely agree on anything but both parrot the party line on this subject.
On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook.
The above was penned by Chuck Baldwin the constitution nominee in 2008,of course most Americans do not get to hear Baldwin since he is conveniently left out of the major debates.Below is one of Baldwins defences in proving the New World Order and ask he ask a very interesting question:
[LEFT]Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."
Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."
What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?
Does anyone in the forum want to say that old man Bush was hallucinating?We have never known Bush to be into drugs so to say that he was is really the conspiracy.The well written OP by Baldwin gives some other quotes from leaders and it is doubtful that all were hallucinating. Chuck Baldwin -- A Very Real New World Order
[/LEFT]
I don't believe that it is all a big conspiracy. Are there corrupt people, absolutely but especially today, it would just be too difficult to manage such a big conspiracy.
One thing both parties do well is they are both in agreement,the people who talk about the CFR and the new world order are referred to as "extreme right wing conspiracy whakos.The parties rarely agree on anything but both parrot the party line on this subject.
On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook.
The above was penned by Chuck Baldwin the constitution nominee in 2008,of course most Americans do not get to hear Baldwin since he is conveniently left out of the major debates.Below is one of Baldwins defences in proving the New World Order and ask he ask a very interesting question:
[LEFT]Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."
Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."
What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?
Does anyone in the forum want to say that old man Bush was hallucinating?We have never known Bush to be into drugs so to say that he was is really the conspiracy.The well written OP by Baldwin gives some other quotes from leaders and it is doubtful that all were hallucinating. Chuck Baldwin -- A Very Real New World Order
[/LEFT]
Your post hurts my eyes. I'm not going to read it.
I don't believe that it is all a big conspiracy. Are there corrupt people, absolutely but especially today, it would just be too difficult to manage such a big conspiracy.
One thing both parties do well is they are both in agreement,the people who talk about the CFR and the new world order are referred to as "extreme right wing conspiracy whakos.The parties rarely agree on anything but both parrot the party line on this subject.
On one hand, it is understandable that so many Americans would be ignorant of the emerging New World Order. After all, the mainstream media refuses to report, or even acknowledge, the NWO. Even "conservative" commentators and talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, or Joe Scarborough refuse to discuss it. And when listeners call these respective programs, these "conservative" hosts usually resort to insulting the caller as being some kind of "conspiracy kook.
The above was penned by Chuck Baldwin the constitution nominee in 2008,of course most Americans do not get to hear Baldwin since he is conveniently left out of the major debates.Below is one of Baldwins defences in proving the New World Order and ask he ask a very interesting question:
[LEFT]Many of us recall President George Herbert Walker Bush talking much about an emerging New World Order. For example, in 1989, Bush told the students of Texas A&M University, "Perhaps the world order of the future will truly be a family of nations."
Later, Bush, Sr. said, "We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order . . .. When we are successful, and we will be, we have a real chance at this new world order, an order in which a credible United Nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the U.N.'s founders."
Bush, Sr. also said, "What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea--a new world order."
Bush, Sr. further said, "The world can therefore seize the opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order . . ."
What was President G.H.W. Bush talking about, if there is no such thing as an emerging New World Order? Was he talking out of his mind? Was he hallucinating?
Does anyone in the forum want to say that old man Bush was hallucinating?We have never known Bush to be into drugs so to say that he was is really the conspiracy.The well written OP by Baldwin gives some other quotes from leaders and it is doubtful that all were hallucinating. Chuck Baldwin -- A Very Real New World Order
[/LEFT]
System was designed to maintain stability while small changes are made.
Problem is only a small per cent of citizens vote. The level of comprehension of many that do vote is diminished. Critical thinking has been replaced by party devotion, self interest and one issue agendas.
The representatives of the people have made lucrative careers out of their elected office and are nourished by lobbyists representing trial lawyers and energy producers, etc.
The news media has abandoned the people and no longer provide archival or accumulated information of current topics. Events considered to be news these days rivals unabashed entertainment show features. The NY Times used to be the gold standard for including background information of daily news events. It is no surprise that the print media is being buried by on-line news sources and opinion. News print and on-line information both suffer from inaccuracies and need to be tempered by the viewer's critical evaluation.
Currently the voters are disenfranchised and have no power to affect political change except by coordinated activism. Unfortunately co-ordinated activism works as well for small minority opinion groups especially those that fall under the protection of current political correctness.
We are faced with a complex system that has evolved in the selection of behaviors and personalities who best promote the survival of the current political system. Voting a given individual in or out of office does little to make the sweeping changes most folks would like.
It is impossible to 'prosecute' the most baldfaced lie when dealing with the herd of lawyers that populate most political offices. Bill Clinton is the poster boy with his famous denial, "I did not have sex with that woman".
"What he really meant to say..."
"He was taken out of context..."
Then there is alway the legal defintion of "is". Which brings up another critical point that forms the bars of the cage which contain the electorate.
Every document is written in a strange language foreign to the very folks that need to understand the content and downstream implications of pending bills and laws. That language conveniently is only understood by lawyers who then constantly challenge the wording so the intent of the law may be changed to an interpretation not imagined when passed into law. Imagiine how the citizens feel when one of their representatives goes unchallenged in his admission of that 'no one reads those bills......"
You have to ask what we are buying $$$ when we provide the livelyhood to men and women who reside in congress and senate and live at ease with the medical benefits and business contacts they acquire.
The system will work just fine with a power washing followed by disinfectant and some elective surgery. We have an appointment in Nov of 2010....we all better show up.
Here is a couple from Kessinger,this one here is recent :
[LEFT]Still not convinced? Just a few days ago, when asked by a reporter what he thought the most important thing was that Barack Obama could accomplish, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said, "I think his task will be develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a New World Order can be created. It's a great opportunity; it isn't just a crisis."
This is the same Henry Kissinger, you will recall, who said back in 1991, "Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow, they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there were [sic] an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the World Government."[/LEFT]
When the media conglomerate is heavily consolidated by Time Warner, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, and GE. Do you really think people actually have an independent opinion of the candidates they are voting for? Of course not.
Manipulation of democracy is easy when you have control of information flow. Since democracy is manipulated, it isn't democracy, but as long as people think that their single vote matters, that's all it counts. Simple math and stats can tell you, a single vote does not matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Goldman Sachs determines who runs the Fed and Treasury IMHO.
No, the biggest investment bank in Manhattan decides who runs the Treasury, GS just happens to be the biggest investment bank currently. Fed is privately owned, the owners gets to pick who runs the Fed, and they're not going to open their books and they answer to no one. The joy of owning a nation's currency, it's the biggest perk out there.
When the media conglomerate is heavily consolidated by Time Warner, News Corp, Disney, Viacom, and GE. Do you really think people actually have an independent opinion of the candidates they are voting for? Of course not.
Manipulation of democracy is easy when you have control of information flow. Since democracy is manipulated, it isn't democracy, but as long as people think that their single vote matters, that's all it counts. Simple math and stats can tell you, a single vote does not matter.
No, the biggest investment bank in Manhattan decides who runs the Treasury, GS just happens to be the biggest investment bank currently. Fed is privately owned, the owners gets to pick who runs the Fed, and they're not going to open their books and they answer to no one. The joy of owning a nation's currency, it's the biggest perk out there.
Very well said. Thank GOD there are still a few of us educated Americans out there trying to wake up the flock. Unfortunately most people are bred to follow.
Anybody here believe that the American political/electoral system is just a sham?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zekester
Sometimes I think that our electoral process is just an elaborate interactive theatre show cleverly designed to foster the illusion of citizen participation in government. Do we really have a voice?
Every politician does and says whatever he/she needs to in order to get elected and once in office just does the bidding of the lobbyists and special interest groups public be damned. Ever wonder why these people fight so hard for what are relatively low paying jobs and yet they either already are, or end up becoming very wealthy?
And if you think about it we don’t really vote a new administration in, we vote the old one out because we are so sick of it. And so every four years we get our little “revolution” and we actually believe that this new bunch will be different. What a farce.
When an administration is in office we are too close to the trees to see the forest, but when you get a little perspective a few years afterwards and study the legislation that they passed it seems that they all follow the same basic agenda. The only thing that really changes besides party affiliation is the political rhetoric and the demographic being pandered to.
Bottom line, I sometimes think that there is an over-arcing agenda in place that will be followed regardless of who is in office. Every year politicians, world leaders, and money men get together at places like the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tri-lateral Commission, and the Bilderberg Group to discuss the course of world affairs and there is never any reporting of what gets said in these meetings. I don’t think they’re just playing bingo.
Anyway… what do you think?
I think the undue influence of corporate interests perverts the system.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
stability
