Originally posted by KharmaDog
You would make a crappy lawyer. It is not proof that the government would attack its own people. It was a course of action put forth for consideration that was rejected. It proves nothing and definately has no bearing on the current administration.
you are truely gone.
they considered it you say? well if they considered it then its not impossible they woudnt do it.
9/11 proves they would
Originally posted by Deanospeaking of lawyers, the founder of CIA is the father of the Bush family's lawyer, and the CIA was open when GHWB left Yale in search for a job, and the next 10 years after that seems to be a few blank pages. Then he suddenly became leader of CIA, the Vice-president, and now his son is the president of the US.
you are truely gone.they considered it you say? well if they considered it then its not impossible they woudnt do it.
9/11 proves they would
And speaking of Yale, aren't all those people in the Skull and Bones?
There are two main levels of control - the plotters and the enforcers. The plotters are those you never see who manipulate events and changes in society towards a long-projected outcome. The enforcers are those in uniform and pseudo-authority, like politicians, government officials and teachers, who impose the will of the plotters.
The key point is that the enforcers are, overwhelmingly, not aware that the plotters exist. They just ‘follow orders'. It is important to know this if we are to understand the real background to what has become known as ‘political correctness' or ‘PC'. On one level (enforcers) it seems like a bunch of brain-donor idiots imposing stupid rules and regulations; but on the other (plotters) it is a coldly calculated agenda for human control.'
stay tuned for the full article come this sunday
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You just bet? Where is your proof though?Once again, do you have evidence that the CIA was behind the Kennedy assasination? If you have hard evidence, then why is it that you are the only one who does? I admit that there is circumstantial evidence, but nothing concrete.
So basically your world views and political awareness has been garnered from rense.com, infowars and Oliver Stone movies...'nuff said.
err yes.If you ever bothered to do research on the subject you would come into contact with researchers on this case that have far more knowledge on it than i do,I learned from them that when the house select committe on assassinations was winding down their investigation,a couple of CIA officers came forward and said-we did this,where do you want to go with this? of course they never had any intention of finding out the the real truth and they never pursued that lead and came to the conclusion that there was a probability that there was a conspiracy but had no idea who was involved. and of course they said that because they didnt want to admit the truth that the CIA was behind it because then they would have to admit it was treason that took place,and they;ll never admit that.Im hardly the only one that does, 🙄 there are books out there if you bother to read,you would see for yourself. oliver stone,infowars,and rense AGAIN report REAL news,they dont consider oj simpson REAL news like the CIA controlled press does. 🙄 nuff said.
Originally posted by KharmaDog
You would make a crappy lawyer. It is not proof that the government would attack its own people. It was a course of action put forth for consideration that was rejected. It proves nothing and definately has no bearing on the current administration.
actually in a honest government with an honest system,Bush would have been behind bars a long time ago with the evidence there is out there that he wanted the attacks to happen.He is business partners wit Osama Bin Laden and his family.You would be an even far worse lawyer.
Originally posted by Deano
they considered it you say? well if they considered it then its not impossible they woudnt do it.
First of all, you have a double negative there. Was that intentional? Second, every avenue is always presented to the president, some are pretty ridiculous, some are scarey as hell, some are just irrational, no matter, many suggestions are just that, not answers, but just people throwing sh*t at the wall to see what sticks. To see it otherwise is reading too much into the process.
Originally posted by Deano
9/11 proves they would
WHAT A FRICKEN (AND BASELESS) JUMP IN LOGIC THAT IS!!!!
Until you have irrevocable proof, you cannot say that, unless you are just speaking out of your *ss.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
err yes.If you ever bothered to do research on the subject you would come into contact with researchers on this case that have far more knowledge on it than i do,I learned from them that when the house select committe on assassinations was winding down their investigation,a couple of CIA officers came forward and said-we did this,where do you want to go with this? of course they never had any intention of finding out the the real truth and they never pursued that lead and came to the conclusion that there was a probability that there was a conspiracy but had no idea who was involved. and of course they said that because they didnt want to admit the truth that the CIA was behind it because then they would have to admit it was treason that took place,and they;ll never admit that.Im hardly the only one that does, 🙄 there are books out there if you bother to read,you would see for yourself. oliver stone,infowars,and rense AGAIN report REAL news,they dont consider oj simpson REAL news like the CIA controlled press does. 🙄 nuff said.
Once again you are basing your research on Rense.com and infowars. Your points are moot. As for taking what Oliver Stone has to say for gospel, that makes you an idiot. He is a director, not a historian. On many of his movies he admits to embelishing or taking liberties with information for dramatic effect. Alexander, for instance, is a historical monstrosity.
To see the liberties that Stone took in JFK visit this site:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jfkmovie.htm
Don't criticise any research that you think I may or may not have done when you believe hollywood as fact. You make yourelf look silly.
Originally posted by Mr Parker
You would be an even far worse lawyer.
Actually, I would not try to advance my case with circumstantial evidence and heresay. The more you type, the more ridiculous you make yourself seem.
“The CIA controlled press… ”
Right! Every single reporter, journalist and writer who disagrees with conspiracy theories is controlled by the CIA. Strange that not a single one of them has had the guts to publish that fact… or …
Will the conspiracy-writers somehow manage NOT to be controlled by the CIA and alone know the truth…
This is why modern conspiracy theories are like religions.
the govenment constantly pay off the media to run there propaganda
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/06/27/tedlang.htm
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article621189.ece
bush planted fake news stories
You seem so sure, don't you 😆
And we quote:
THIRD WORLD TRAVELER puts up articles and book excerpts
that offer an alternative view to the mainstream media about the state of democracy in America,
and about the impact of the policies of the United States' government,
transnational corporations, international financial institutions, and the corporate media,
on democracy, free speech, social and economic justice, human rights, and war and peace,
in the Third World, and in the United States.
THIRD WORLD TRAVELER also provides information and links
to aid international travelers.
Visitors are encouraged to buy the books and subscribe to the magazines that appear on this website,
to ask their libraries to put them on their shelves and their bookstores to stock them,
and to tell others about the wealth of information that they provide.
Oh, it gets better:
---
" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "
a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.
--
WHO??? What was the name of this correspondant?
DEANO> WHERE on those pages does it prove that the CIA controls the media???
the bush administration has paid off media conglomerates in the u.s. to play propaganda in the form of news both in the u.s. and in iraq.
i'll look for the article, but he actually paid a network(s?) to air a commercial endoring his medic bill, but during the news, and also disguised to seem like a legit report.
in fact they will buy any advertising at the public's expence, like so:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-06-williams-whitehouse_x.htm
:edit: found it
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/01/politics/01educ.html?ex=1285819200&en=55a295038c3630e7&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
however, this does not change the fact that deano is full of it.
Originally posted by Deano
There are two main levels of control - the plotters and the enforcers. The plotters are those you never see who manipulate events and changes in society towards a long-projected outcome. The enforcers are those in uniform and pseudo-authority, like politicians, government officials and teachers, who impose the will of the plotters.
The key point is that the enforcers are, overwhelmingly, not aware that the plotters exist. They just ‘follow orders'. It is important to know this if we are to understand the real background to what has become known as ‘political correctness' or ‘PC'. On one level (enforcers) it seems like a bunch of brain-donor idiots imposing stupid rules and regulations; but on the other (plotters) it is a coldly calculated agenda for human control.'stay tuned for the full article come this sunday
I find the inclusion of teachers in the "enforcer" catagory odd. What your describing, one would expect to see all these aspects pulling in the same direction for a common goal - yet teachers at the various education levels are some of the least likely to agree with political stances and the like just for the sake of it.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Bah. Even if it were true, I don't see any problem if it were to occur. There have been plenty of examples throughout history where a number if disparate states have been merged (Roman Empire, USSR etc) and not a single one of them have led to a NWO. I mean, even Australia - each state a separate colony, then we had our federation and became a single nation - and it was good, and at the same time it wasn't somehow a conspiracy to craft the whole of the Asia-Pacific into a single state.
Your comparing the merger of states to the merger of countries.... okay...
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
[B
Still, there is a lot to be said for things like that happening. There are plenty of benefits. And how would this North American block work, considering the US already controls most of N. America? [/B]
There would be no united states just, the north American union.
Originally posted by The Omega
No, they don't.
Try reading a news paper once in a while.