for the skeptics....(nwo)

Not spreading fear. Chicken Lttle spread his fears. Smokers smoke and they are well aware of the risks. I don't think a society that forces everyone to follow laws made up to the benefit of huge conglomerates benefit anyone. Spend you money on bird flu vaccine companies, spend extra dollars on light bulbs that make certain constituents rich, without questioning whether or not that they will work in your fixtures. I believe in being vocal and voting. Don't lump me with Rat, I do agree with some of his arguments, much as I agree with some of yours Skip.

There is a better solution out there it's one that follows our constitution and allows individuals to have control over their own lives. Not one based on mitigating insurance costs.


Sell an expensive vaccine to young girls that aren't sexually active, because it might be a preventive for them getting cervical cancer, but then according to their advertisements, it just might NOT. But's let's legislate it....let's make a law that all eleven year old girls should get it...I don't think so.

I never follow anyone blindly. I don't buy into any marketing blindly.

And I am sorry Gore's film didn't strike a note with me.

 

I personally don't see greenhouse emissions as the biggest evil in the world right now. I've worked in greenhouses for years, I've worked outside and with plants for years. I've lived and worked with mother nature for years. I've been cold, I've been warm, I've had to give plants extra water, or less water. What I see as the greatest evil in the world right now is dropping bombs and killing innocent people.

Mother nature doesn't drop bombs, she adapts herself to try and purge the atmosphere from what man does to her. And she does such a great job of it most scientists don't even understand her.

 

Gore isn't a scientist! As far as I can see he's being used as a market flunky.

 

You do understand greenhouse emissions don't actually come from greenhouses , right?

 

No, Skip, I don't think overbloated bureaucracies and unelected bodies which encroach upon people's freedoms and national sovereignty is good for anyone. I believe in people's natural right to live free, and not to be the slaves of big government and the corporations they're intertwined with and work for. Who do you think is behind the EU anyway, and what makes you believe their intentions are pure? I would really like to hear you answer this question without attacking me and resorting to your usual insults. I have studied the history of the EU in detail, so I already know. What do YOU know about the history of the EU and the people that were behind its creation... other than what the media has told you to believe?

There are people who have this naive belief that somehow the government cares and wants to keep them safe and basically be their daddy -- a good shepherd, persay. It's not about helping the people, it's about CONTROLLING and MANAGING the people. THAT IS WHAT SOCIALISM IS! Governments have always been parasitic by nature, and the bigger the bureaucracies are, the more totalitarian they become. History proves this, and only a person who is unaware of history could deny this.

You think the ban on public smoking (which now is being implemented in the US on behalf of the UN) is a good thing because you think the government somehow cares about the people's health -- while they sell us genetically modified food, put mercury and live cancer viruses in our vaccines, put fluoride in our water, and spray our skies with heavy metals -- but it's all about controlling people and creating uniformity. They're already talking about banning smoking in cars and private residences, and it's only a matter of time before we have officers going door to door to make sure people aren't smoking in their own homes. Why do you think Hitler lead a massive anti-smoking campaign in the 1930's? Was it because he cared about the people or because he felt the need to control people?

It's no different today, and it's funny I should mention Hitler because what we now call the EU was a dream of his. In his book, which was aptly titled The New World Order, he talks about a world divided into three trading blocs -- a European trading bloc, a Pacific trading bloc, and a North American trading bloc. This mirrors what Karl Marx (an agent of the Rothschilds) stated earlier in his book, Das Kapital. The same people who funded Hitler and his war machine (ever heard of IG Farben?) and gave us the United Nations and European Community (later the EU), are now working on creating a North American Union. Like the EU, the NAU is all about the same thing, and that's the consolidation of power through the elimination of sovereignty and the creation of global governance. This is why it's being done behind the public's back, without their knowledge and informed consent.

You falsely accuse me of not being able to realize alternative systems. I do, but I don't think more control by psychopathic government bureaucrats and unelected bodies over people results in anything other than enslavement. Of course it must be sold to the people in a way that seems to be of benefit to them, so the people will initially accept it, but the ends are never what they appear at face value. This is how socialism works, and socialism is the con game created by the same people who gave us capitalism. I am neither socialist nor capitalist, as I understand that the money system in general is a very inhumane system, where the few profit over the anguish of the many. I envision a completely different system that most people would never had considered, because all they know is what this system has conditioned them to know since birth. Most people could never accept a reality other than one that resembles the one they were born into, which they believe to be real.

The European Union, like the United Nations, was given to us by the same power elitists who gave us the first two world wars, the war in Vietnam, and the wars in the Middle East. These are the same people who funded the rise of both communism and nazism, resulting in the deaths of countless millions of people. The same people are directing the current foreign policy of the United States through the Council on Foreign Relations, and have been for quite some time. These same people have also called for a drastic reduction in the world's population... to save the earth, of course. Perhaps if you understood how these people see you (as cattle), you wouldn't so adamantly defend them.

People can choose to ignore these facts and brush them off as conspiracy theories, or they can step outside of their comfort zones and look at what is in their faces and visible to anyone who truly wants to see. Conspiracy theories are just that: theories. I go based on what can be proven, and much of the things I talk about have been admitted by the conspirators themselves. You can attack me all you want, Skip, but how many books have you read that were written by insiders who openly admit the agenda? Have you read anything by Carroll Quigley -- a former historian of the CFR and mentor to Bill Clinton at Georgetown, who picked Clinton for the Rhodes scholarship in 1968 -- who openly admits in his epic 1966 book, Tragedy and Hope, the very same things I have mentioned in this post?

 

envision a completely different system that most people would never had considered, because all they know is what this system has conditioned them to know since birth. Most people could never accept a reality other than one that resembles the one they were born into, what is this alternative system that you envision?

 

As long as people believe they need the government, its control over the people will only increase. The relationship between people and their government is a bit like the relationship between an abusive husband and his wife. No matter how much the wife is slapped across the face and beaten, she will remain with the abuser because she feels that she depends on him. It's no different with people and government, where the people will accept whatever abuse the government dishes out against them, as long as they feel there is something in it for them, whether it's the notion of protection, health care, social security... whatever. Governments cannot exist without the guise of either public service or the use of non-existent boogeymen to legitimize these governments, so the people feel they need the government to survive and that it's their only hope. If the government cannot maintain legitimacy in the eyes of the public, their system collapses. There is no good party or good politicians because one group of people control the entire thing for their own ends, and as long they can trick us into going to the polls and voting in elections that are rigged and don't count anyway, their enslavement over the people will continue.

For any change to occur, people need to wake up to how the system works and realize that it's corrupt from the top down and that there is no saving it. I have my own ideas about how things might be, but I don't wish to impose those ideas on anyone. If otherwise was the case, then I'd be guilty of the same things I denounce. It's up to enough people to wake up and put their heads together to bring about a real change that isn't centered around the system that is fueled by money and human suffering.

 

I am going to have to call you out on this one. Can you back this claim up please.

 

The CIA put him into power, so they could have just as easily removed him. Instead they funded him and provided him with biological and chemical weapons.

Besides that, we now know that Saddam was willing to leave Iraq prior to the US invasion, but they didn't go for this. They chose to instead go ahead and murder 100,000+ Iraqi men, women and children.

The US murdered far more people than Saddam did by invading the country, yet all we hear about is what an evil man Saddam was. And I agree he was evil, but no more so than those that allowed him to rise to power, then deliberately kept him in power after the 1991 invasion.... after telling him to invade Kuwait.

 

Let's look at a hypothetical situation for a moment. Let's say that an entity put a dictator in power. Why would that same entity conduct failed covert operations to take out this dictator? Covert operations that only this entity would know about? Operations that would have absolutely no propaganda value because they would never be known publicly.

 

Probably more than you Skip I live in cow country.

 

Because maybe like Noriega and others after a period of time they felt powerful enough to question those that put them in power.

 

Pete Townsend's The Punk & Godfather on the The Who / Quadrophenia album is a terrific themesong for the events mentioned above.

 

In response to Stewert asking, "So were not a free market then?"...
Greenspan "that is not a free market and most people would call it regulation"

 

edit-content removed

 

Wacky(wacki),
While I do not believe that the US handpicked and put Saddam in power, I do believe that our actions helped put him there.
As for your hypothetical question, remember this is the US government we are talking about. The fact that an action makes no sense does not mean some idiot in charge didn't think it was a good idea. (Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs, etc)

 

I know that in your struggle to score points you are willing to be extremely argumentative (as if you even believe there is an NWO anyway!), but that's just stupid.

Greenspan did not "admit" that there is "no free market" in the US, he said that the Federal Reserve system was an examply of government regulation. I am not talking about a theoretical utopia where the economy exists without the slightest interference from government in any way, I am talking about reality.

What's interesting is that you are so anxious to make some cheap argumentative point yet you turn a blind eye to any lie Rat says. Lets count how many you skipped over:

Lie. Saddam put himself in power. He was a CIA contact but the CIA did not control him or dictate his actions.

Lie. There is no basis for this assumption.

The US was a comparatively minor supporter of Saddam. His biggest supporters were other Gulf states that were more afraid of Iran than they were of him.

NOBODY provided Saddam with chemical or biological weapons. He developed his own chem and bio weapons.

The Iraqi resistance and Iranian backed Shiite militia are doing the vast majority of the killing in Iraq. This is a consequence of the US invasion, but who is actually doing the killing is still a relevant fact.

Utterly false. Not even close.

Ridiculous lie. Rat is making excuses for Saddam that Saddam wouldn't even make for himself.

 

You are known in these forums for your lies, but you have stooped to an all new low.

Saddam developed his own chemical and biological weapons? The same idiots who believe that are the ones who believe WMD's were found in Iraq, and that Iraq attacked us on 9/11. (Because they hate us for our freedom, of course.)

OK, so who SUPPLIED Saddam with the bio and chemical agents to build the weapons? (Or are you going to try and weasle your way around that one as well?)

 

Project 922. The Germans. Also...

Eine österreichische Firma gab der Irak Calutrons für das Anreichern des Urans. Die Nation stellte auch Wärmeaustauscher, Behälter, Kondensatore und Spalten für die irakische chemische Waffeinfrastruktur, 16% der internationalen Verkäufe zur Verfügung. Singapur gab 4.515 Tonnen Vorläufer für VX, sarin, tabun und Senfgase nach den Irak. Die Holländer gaben 4.261 Tonnen Vorläufer für sarin, tabun, Senf und Tränengase nach den Irak. Ägypten gab 2.400 Tonnen tabun und sarin Vorläufer nach den Irak und 28.500 Tonnen Waffen, die für das Tragen der chemischen Munitions bestimmt waren. Indien gab 2.343 Tonnen Vorläufer bis VX, tabun, Sarin und Senfgase. Luxemburg gab dem Irak 650 Tonnen Senfgasvorläufer. Spanien gab dem Irak 57.500 Munitions, die für das Tragen der chemischen Waffen bestimmt waren. Zusätzlich stellten sie Reaktoren, Kondensatore, Spalten und Behälter für des Iraks Programm der chemischen Kriegsführung, 4.4% der internationalen Verkäufe zur Verfügung. China stellte 45.000 Munitions zur Verfügung, die für chemische Kriegsführung entworfen waren. Portugal zur Verfügung gestellter Yellowcake zwischen 1980 und 1982. Niger zur Verfügung gestellter Yellowcake 1981.