6+6+6 = 18
Invoke the mystic 5 to achieve 23
Also 2/3=0.666
6x6x6 = 216
216/18 = 12...no apparent correlation
I'm lost
6+6+6 = 18
Invoke the mystic 5 to achieve 23
Also 2/3=0.666
6x6x6 = 216
216/18 = 12...no apparent correlation
I'm lost
12 = 6 + 6
We're waiting on obama to finish it off
Ah, good work PS!
[QUOTE=Grun7y;1174796]Sorry, you see, I've been brainwashed to believe that our government should actually tell the truth. Crazy, right?[quote]
Hey moron. Names need to be confidential. I know your a child who doesn't understand how covert ops works..
Blah blah blah.. Anyone can write a book.Quote:
You're right. People are corrupt and the government is good. Maybe it's a good thing that Holdren will be our science czar. They'll be less evil, corrupt people around (or at least they won't be able to plop out any babies who'll become over-consuming pigs, or worse....Republicans)
And I'm illustrating the distinct possibility of you believing anything you read online.Quote:
I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was merely trying to illustrate the distinct possibility of martial law.
And a lot of them are sponsored and or run by fox news or some other corporation involved in health care!Quote:
Those "psychos" are people who are truly frightened by Obama's agenda. Many of them have never attended any political rally in their life.
See in AMERICA, when someone gets elected in they have the power to make decisions. Keep whining and crying, McCain lost.
Blah whine, Republican Disdain. REPUBLICANS LOST THE ELECTION, DEAL WITH IT. We all know how Republicans treated people over the last 8 years, as psychotic un-Americans for not supporting the war in Iraq...Quote:
Expressing your right to petition the government is psycho. In fact, most of our freedoms are overrated. But don't you worry; our freedoms will be gone soon. Then you won't have to worry about psycho tea baggers storming the streets of Washington and threatening her highness Pelosi.
You got the tea baggers part right. It's funny how no one made a big deal about taxes or our huge deficit until Obama.. It's easy to see through the guise, otherwise tea baggers would have been up in arms with the most unconservative conservative ever elected.
Incorrect. You're all brainwashed. You listen to these retards and actually believe them. 9/12 ROFL.Quote:
Yep, you've figured out the highly guarded, golden secret of conspiracy theorists...We're all working for Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
Trying to make me out to be one of your nut cases.. is funny to watch.Quote:
At first, I thought we'd get away with it, but nothing gets by you my friend, does it?
Not really. All you care about is anti-obama rhetoric. I know socialism.. too bad most of Europe has the kind of care we are moving towards.. yet they aren't socialists... Caring about our country is hardly what conspiracy theorists are doing, caring involves getting involved in real issues not whining and crying because your candidate lost. AND OBAMA IS A SOCIALIST!!! ROFL Crack fiends.Quote:
You're right. The average American sits in front of the T.V. eating Oreos and Twinkies while watching American Idol. Most could care less about our country and that's the problem. We're a group of people who actually care about our country and its course.
Because this is no longer the 18th century. And bringing guns to a health care debate is cynical, and makes you look unstable.Quote:
And so what? If the guy had a permit for his guns, who cares? He's expressing his second amendment rights.
People are generally brainwashed into believing your guns are going away.. it's typical Republican propaganda.. and you all eat it up. Guns aren't going anywhere, you'll still be able to get them in 8 years. And all your fear mongering and whining is just that.Quote:
Oh, and did anyone get killed or shot because of him? People know it's only a matter of time before our second amendment rights get trampled over (the fact that Cass Sunstein is our regulatory czar is a foreshadowing of that). People are genuinely afraid.
Sure sunshine. Reality is really that new of a thing to you? That would be all politicians in general.. so I guess we are just screwed.. They tend to all make it their career..Quote:
No, it isn't. But it shows how addicted to power these cretins are.
The fear for something that isn't happening is quite hilarious, I know.. someone online told you.Quote:
Yes sir! (snapping off a salute)
Tell me about it, we had 8 years of Bush/Cheney.Quote:
No, it's just the hypocrisy that just makes me crazy (and believe me, I don't need any more crazy).
Good luck changing humanity.... roflQuote:
I thought it was by and for the people? I think that every government official should care about its citizens and not engage in such blatant hypocrisy.
Fuck racists. Homosexuals don't harm other people, you really are just a brainwashed Republican..Quote:
Wait, I'm confused. It sounds like you're saying that being a racist is a bad thing. But I thought people were born racist. Newsweek even did an article on it. How can some poor innocent person help it if they were born racist? We don't say the same thing about homosexuals, do we? Besides, that still doesn't give our government leaders the right to insult the very people who got them their power in the first place. By and for the people, remember.
A few screws loose? People aren't born racist btw, they are taught racism.
Your sarcasm is quite obnoxious. After all you can't really deny anything I've said.Quote:
I know. It usually works on the more dimwitted among us, but yet again you prove your superiority to us.
If people have abortions, might as well not waste. Look at the populations of the world, the real issues are coming from third world countries.. we can only sustain so much.Quote:
That's a human being you’re talking about, you know? But that's o.k, because we are "headed for overpopulation", as you say.
Oh, and by the way, I know the difference between the types of stem cells (surprising, I know). Adult stem cells are fine by me; it's the fetal stem cells that disgust me.
An unworking system, and death panels.. are two different things.Quote:
Dangerous and mentally unstable, hmm? What's dangerous and unstable is not seeing the dangers of a nationalized health care system.
One is a real possibility and one is propaganda. European countries run systems similar to what we are trying with far better health care systems.. Get over it.
Just like the bailouts Bush startedQuote:
But don't fret, there's little these unstable people can do, Congress will just ram it down our throats, just like the bailouts.
The ones who fall for Fox news pundits, are generally psychos.Quote:
After all, if we are just a bunch of psychos, we don't really know what's good for us.
I really don't care about those people, I'm worried about those who really can't afford health care. Or those who get turned away for having pre-existing conditions.Quote:
It's just another reason why we need to get nationalized health care - to help these poor psycho tea baggers. Most of them can't even afford the medicine to make them stop being psycho. We need to help the poor souls out.
That sounds more accurate to your movement!Quote:
I've never written a book or read John Holdren's book (I'm far too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh and Coast to Coast. Oh, and Glenn Beck and Alex Jones are pretty cool too. Seriously, my day's pretty full right now; I do have to sleep, even if the shadow people stare at me. I could fit it into my schedule if only I didn't have to make so many damn tinfoil hats so the reptilians can't read my mind).
An opinion is simply an opinion. And you don't know he is a proponent, you only know he mentioned it in a book.. you dunce. The GOVERNMENT should not allow people who can't handle the ones they have to have more.. honestly... Enough Abortions or abused or abandoned children.Quote:
But, I know Holdren is a proponent of using sterilants. For that reason alone, he should not be allowed any position of power. The government has no business deciding who can or can't have children.
Wouldn't doubt it.Quote:
Sorry, I have to go now; I'm late for a clan meeting. Sieg Heil!
I'd like to point out that there isn't really any relation between Switzerland males having lots of guns and the fact that they haven't been to war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Sorry, but you made no attempt at all at providing any kind of logical link between 'Switzerland has militia' and 'Switzerland hasn't been to war'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
Who the heck ever said we liked mccain? LOL hes a NWO douchebag too like Obama.
I hate repubs, I hate dems...they are all bought.
And fox, is not NEWS...it should be called the Fox Circus network...just like CNN (communist network news) and
msnbc (Moderately Satanic Nutjobs Broadcasting Crap)
A good explanation i found...
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/TargetSwitzerland.htm
Quote:
Target Switzerland includes the maps of the evolving Germans invasion plans for "Case Switzerland." Yet although the Germans several times massed troops on the Swiss border for an invasion, the invasion never went forward. With so many reasons to invade Switzerland, why did the Nazis desist?
The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland, but at a fearful price. The Wehrmacht expected 200,000 German casualties; it would have taken a very long time to remove the Swiss military from the Alpine “Reduit” to which they planned to make a stand. And by the time the Swiss were defeated, every bridge and train track and everything else of value to the conquerors would have been destroyed.
The reason that Switzerland was too difficult to invade—in contrast to all the other nations which Hitler conquered in a matter of weeks—was the Swiss militia system. Unlike all the other nations of Europe, which relied on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a universal militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. The Swiss militiaman was under orders to fight to the last bullet, and after that, with his bayonet, and after that, with his bare hands. Rather than having to defeat an army, Hitler would have had to defeat a whole people.
Conversely, the Swiss citizen militia, with its extensive network of fortifications, had no offensive capability. The Swiss militia was not going to sweep into Berlin; modern Swiss-bashers who condemn the nation for not declaring war fail to understand that by keeping the Axis out of Switzerland, the Swiss were already doing everything they could for the Allied cause.
From the Anschluss of Austria to the Fall of France, Hitler swallowed nation after nation where cowardly ruling elites surrendered the country to the Nazis—either before the shooting began, or a few weeks afterward. But such a surrender would have been impossible in Switzerland, explains Halbrook. The Swiss governmental system was decentralized, with the separate 26 cantons, not the federal government, having the authority. The federal government did notify the Swiss people that in case of a German invasion, any claim that there had been a Swiss surrender should be disregarded as Nazi propaganda. And because the military power was in the hands of every Swiss man, the federal government would have been unable to surrender had it ever wanted to. Nothing could stop the Swiss militiamen from fighting to the very end.
Quote:
The Nazis could have eventually have conquered Switzerland,
Quote:
Conversely, the Swiss citizen militia, with its extensive network of fortifications, had no offensive capability.
It seems logical to aim your crosshairs at the aggressors, then stomp out any remaining pockets of resistance in the lands you wish to conquer.Quote:
Nazi maps showed that the Third Reich would eventually include Switzerland,
In WWII, and every other war in the past 200 years aside from the war of 1812, the enemy did not invade the U.S. and did not make war on its citizens in a direct manner (Civil war doesn't count). Even if the government passed out M-guns to its citizens it wouldn't have had any bearing on whether or not America entered wars. Thus, this
doesn't make a dime of sense.Quote:
And do you understand WHY they havent been to war for hundreds of years? Because every male citizen is required to posess an automatic rifle, and train with it every year. The entire country is one gigantic militia, and gun crime is very low there. The US used to be like that, before Brady and the Assault Weapons ban, and sniveling little twits ratting on their neighbors for posessing perfectly legal weapons.
Edit* Im not implying anything against females, its just the law there
Guerilla, Hard Wired and Hurcuflea....
I think you guys might be right.
Check this video. All this stuff is for real!
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e35...ated&rel_pos=1
Yeah and as you've probably guessed by now I am actually opposed to the fact that we ever participated in any of those wars, and the other "wars." The fact that Switzerland has been responsibly neutral in its foreign policy coupled with the fact that it has a formidable citizen militia IS the main reason why it hasn't been attacked. No agressor is willing to attack a large country with millions of armed men and women, without at least thinking twice. Switzerland, unlike the US, doesnt go prancing around trying to police the entire world, meddling in the domestic affairs of other nations, hence the lack of animosity towards Switzerland by hardly anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Eagle
And on the wars you talked about...
Civil War: a war which the federal government utilized as a means to expand its own power. A more proper name for it would be the War for Federal Supremacy. The idea that an entity that voluntarily enters into an agreement can also voluntarily exit the agreement was completely scrapped in the United States in 1865, and the United States essentially became the United State. Granted, the South did make some mistakes, the biggest one being the fact that they fired the first shot. But, if the North was so interested in freeing the slaves, and if that was the REAL cause for the war, then the more logical way of resolving the situation would have been for the North to buy the slaves, and free them. Instead of spending billions of dollars, causing the deaths of 600,000 men, and murdering and raping and pillaging and burning an entire region of the Continental US, they could have simply spent much less money and resolved the problem with much less hardship. But slavery was not the actual reason for the war.
WW1: A failed attempt by the international elite to set up a supra-national governing body known as the League of Nations. Fortunately the American citizens of the time still had a sense of sovereignty and rationality, and responsibility, so the legislature decided to opt out of the agreement, essentially nullifying it. Our entry into the war was based on lies. The Lusitania was a ship that was carrying munitions for a banking elitist known as JP Morgan, among others. Not only was it illegal for the passengers to be on a ship carrying munitions to a warring nation, but the passengers were foewarned to enter at their own risk, as the Germans were obviously torpedoing ships in the Atlantic that were known to be carrying munitions to their enemies. If the bankers and financiers who were trading those munitions were willing to take the risk of their assets being lost, it was their business. It should not have caused the United States to intervene in a European war.
WW2: The Japanese attacked us, ill give you that. But the more responsible way of handling that would not have been to obliterate parts of their country and subsequently enter into another European War, but to take down the attacking army/air force/ships, and to force compensation for the damages. WW2, for the United States, should only have been between the US and Japan, we had no business fighting Italy, Germany, or any of the other Axis powers.
I could go on, but i dont really feel like it.
Surely if the NWO was even remotely possible in the manner you suggest it would have been enacted before the invention of mass instant communication...?
Why would that be?
Because instant communication means that the second something happens, everyone knows about it. If this NWO were to happen, it would fail almost immediately as it would be combated quickly. That's what revolutions are.
Just my opinion though.
I dont think so. The people that own the mainstream media outlets are all pushing for the same thing, socialism. They dont have any problem with the sovereignty of the United States and other nations being given up to an international governing body. Even Fox is only a fake version of conservatism. But your argument does hold some weight and I agree with you to an extent, because the alternative media, radio, the internet are mostly unregulated media and are having a significant impact at exposing the NWO.
If the NWO happened, and no one is affected, did it really happen?
There is not one point in time where the NWO just "happens." It has been a steady buildup over 200-300 years, since before the French Revolution.
“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery.”--Thomas Jefferson
Whatever you say, guy.
'New world order'... the vast amount of change to the order of the world that has seen over the last few centuries is down simply to scientists and engineers.
Who are you to say that no one has been affected? Are you sure you would recognize the effects if you saw them for yourself?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Hercueflea... wow...
Actually we dropped two tiny Atom bombs.. their country was not obliterated.. they refused to surrender and instead of losing more and more men... we had no choice. They wouldn't have surrendered if we didn't drop the a-bombs.Quote:
WW2: The Japanese attacked us, ill give you that. But the more responsible way of handling that would not have been to obliterate their entire country and subsequently enter into another European War, but to take down the attacking army/air force/ships, and to force compensation for the damages. WW2, for the United States, should only have been between the US and Japan, we had no business fighting Italy, Germany, or any of the other Axis powers.
And honestly you are missing a few screws if you think we should have left Germany and the Nazi's to continue their conquest of Europe... What kind of misinformed person are you? Yeah let them keep conquering and killing people in camps for as long as they want... you ... than we could have dealt with an even bigger invasion force in the future!
I'm GLAD YOU WEREN'T IN CHARGE DURING WWII!
To be honest the Americans were actively passive about Europe. The whole continent had fallen except for Britain who was holding out for as long as she could. It's only when somebody bombed the Americans themselves that they declared themselves pissed off, and even then, it was the Russians who liberated Europe, not the Americans.
I was merely pointing out that the correlation you made between the United States and the fact that Switzerland has not been to war in hundreds of years was completely fallacious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hercuflea
I have no idea why you included those paragraphs about wars. They have absolutely no meaning in the face of my point. But I might as well comment on the one above.Quote:
Civil War: a war which the federal government utilized as a means to expand its own power. A more proper name for it would be the War for Federal Supremacy. The idea that an entity that voluntarily enters into an agreement can also voluntarily exit the agreement was completely scrapped in the United States in 1865, and the United States essentially became the United State. Granted, the South did make some mistakes, the biggest one being the fact that they fired the first shot. But, if the North was so interested in freeing the slaves, and if that was the REAL cause for the war, then the more logical way of resolving the situation would have been for the North to buy the slaves, and free them. Instead of spending billions of dollars, causing the deaths of 600,000 men, and murdering and raping and pillaging and burning an entire region of the Continental US, they could have simply spent much less money and resolved the problem with much less hardship. But slavery was not the actual reason for the war.
Personally, I thought it was common knowledge that the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, but was a byproduct of the war itself. The war was fought to keep the states united. Abraham Lincoln did not necessarily believe in freedom for slaves when going into the war, but he did strongly believe in preserving the union.
You say the North could have bought the slaves. That's completely ludicrous. It's not like all of the slaves were for sale all of the time. If they were, the South would not have allowed such to happen as slavery was "part of the southern lifestyle".
This illustrates an interesting point. When leaders mentioned a "New world order" it probably did not carry such a negative connotation that our modern-day conspiracy theorists have given it. And if it did, they probably wouldn't have used the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I've heard this before. Is it not possible that the Germans would have defeated the Russians if not for American troops dealing blows to the Germans stationed on the Western front?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
America was very late to enter the game.. but do you think things would have gone so well without us?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It's hard to say really. You didn't accomplish much in Japan and the red army had just declared war on it as you nuked it. The red army would also no doubt have liberated the rest of Europe if we had not invaded from the West. The sticky part of course is that this 'liberation' would have forced the communist ideology on an entire continent instead of just half of it, so I think clearly overall it was good that the Americans became involved; although the only point I was trying to make really is that they didn't particularly care about justice for the Europeans. Some even supported Hitler before Pearl Harbour.
You also later demanded that Britain should pay for all of the American aid and artillery we recieved which left the entire country in a crushing debt which we never really recovered from. So yeah, morality wasn't really that high up America's list. It was just self-preservation, as usual.