ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
Nettles;2496978 said:
Well then leave the speculation about American Politics to people who know what the **** they're talking about.
-
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
This New World Order stuff
- Thread starter Nettles
- Start date
Well then leave the speculation about American Politics to people who know what the **** they're talking about.
::shinji::
Min
Nettles, you still want your account deleted or what?
Áļéאָ
Fan Favourite
you askin him or everyone else? 
this article might 'interest' you. They're actually havin a strike or somethin about it.
http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/26336
http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/26336
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
Jesus Christ, you are full blown stupid.
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
You're posting from sources who are reliable as those nuts who go "there's no law that says you have to pay income tax, it's entirely voluntary!" Okay, good luck with that retards.
yah, I'd always pay taxes, I'm afraid of the law. But I bet even you're pissed off at how taxes are or aren't spent on things and sometimes who the money goes to.
Speakin of which, why does it say it's 12 something AM on the time on this, it's 9:07, I keep forgettin to change it.
Speakin of which, why does it say it's 12 something AM on the time on this, it's 9:07, I keep forgettin to change it.
ShiftyPowers
Make America Great Again
Nettles;2497360 said:
Like a war? Yes, I get mad where taxes go, but I'm not some moron who wants to abolish the income tax and dissolve into a state which does not acknowledge any obligation on its part to help its citizens. I'm not some douchey Reaganite who thinks "the government that governs best is the one that governs least." That's code for "let the government allow me to abuse the working class and establish a monopoly!"
Maybe it's a conspiracy!
man I really need some proof or something, some sites to tell me that this whole thing is made up...and no calling the people who've researched it as a bunch of Kooks and lunatics does not count as proof. It's a bit too complex this one compared to all the other smaller ****.
I mean given the internal functioning of the American Polity, in which its sovereignty rests, it does seem quite difficult for them to be clamouring for a global governance project. I think it's this whole lack of transparency that's a big issue, whether in the UN or other transnational organizations like the WTO or IMF. If it's not open to the populace it's meant to represent/assist how can it be really good for them (ie humanity as a whole)? So then do we just have big organization who point their finger and tell everyone around them: "We know what's best for you!" ?
Don't get what you said completely Robbie. But I like this thing:
Two thousand years ago a Roman senator suggested that all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them.
“No,” said a wiser Senator. “If they see how many of them there are, they may revolt.”
I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with America going for global whatever. People think of America as a whole functioning unit sorta thing. That's not what this whole theory's about. It says that this sorta society is global and run by people part of countries. To them there isn't so much an America...the American government as a whole isn't the 'evil guy' I guess. There's always good honest politicians. It's just that the ones who're in charge I guess you could say are 'appointed' or work for someone possibly.
Then again, there's not necessarily any truth to it, for me it's a hypothetical/what if thing for now. It's hard to distinguish all the bs "lunatics" talk from the real meaningful stuff that has truth behind it.
btw, how'd the Toronto exchange go? Back in Australia now?
Two thousand years ago a Roman senator suggested that all slaves wear white armbands to better identify them.
“No,” said a wiser Senator. “If they see how many of them there are, they may revolt.”
I don't think it has ANYTHING to do with America going for global whatever. People think of America as a whole functioning unit sorta thing. That's not what this whole theory's about. It says that this sorta society is global and run by people part of countries. To them there isn't so much an America...the American government as a whole isn't the 'evil guy' I guess. There's always good honest politicians. It's just that the ones who're in charge I guess you could say are 'appointed' or work for someone possibly.
Then again, there's not necessarily any truth to it, for me it's a hypothetical/what if thing for now. It's hard to distinguish all the bs "lunatics" talk from the real meaningful stuff that has truth behind it.
btw, how'd the Toronto exchange go? Back in Australia now?
aw ffs I spent a bunch of time finding stuff that says those 911 rumours are lies...'debunking' the myths you could say and then I see this. Sorta amazing, I still don't believe it but...
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
Nettles;2497421 said:
Do you know how many news stations reported the collapse of WTC 7 before it even collapsed? How come that article makes no mention of CNN incorrectly reporting the collapse an hour early based on "eyewitness accounts" of disillusioned New Yorkers and misinformation in a day of chaos? Do you know how many factual errors news stations reported on 9/11 as it was unfolding because of the sheer amount of utter confusion on that day? You'd be surprised.
If you listen carefully, the female reporter even says the details were sketchy. Also, since the site was closed off to anyone, including reporters, no one from the BBC was actually down there to confirm the collapse themselves, so their information was from a secondary source and not a primary one. BBC probably just made an erroneous report based on accounts of the people down on Ground Zero who had believed WTC 7 had collapsed, when in fact it didn't. In that youtube clip it shows the feed die, I would think it is BBC realizing that they made an error in reporting so they cut off the feed themselves. How nobody at BBC noticed WTC 7 was still in the background in that clip, I don't know, probably stupidity. I would bet a lot money those two BBC reporters in the clip didn't even know what WTC 7 looked like and probably couldn't recognize it was still in the background.
What amazes me is how conspiracy theorists can take a reporting error That BBC has admitted to and use it as a basis for an alleged government conspiracy.
lol that's true. Ok cheers that makes me feel better.
9/11 isn't the main thing for me. It's just something that they'd benefit by and we all know they have. It's the 'key' event. I think it was terrorist that pulled it off, probably not Jewish Zionists like they say but it was sorta like their pearl harbour to enter a war.
Oh I should post up some of the better wacko talk. I mean the really crazy psychotic talk stuff with dragonflys, toothpastes/water, butterfly tattoos on celebs, vaccines, would make you lolz.
9/11 isn't the main thing for me. It's just something that they'd benefit by and we all know they have. It's the 'key' event. I think it was terrorist that pulled it off, probably not Jewish Zionists like they say but it was sorta like their pearl harbour to enter a war.
Oh I should post up some of the better wacko talk. I mean the really crazy psychotic talk stuff with dragonflys, toothpastes/water, butterfly tattoos on celebs, vaccines, would make you lolz.
Parra Power
Manager
But you act like America wouldn't destroy two buildings
In a country that was sponsoring bombs dropped on our children
I was watching the towers and although I wasn't the closest
I saw them crumble to the Earth like they were full of explosives
And they thought nobody noticed the news report that they did
About the bombs planted on the George Washington Bridge
Four non-Arabs arrested during the emergency
And then it disappeared from the news permanently
They dubbed a tape of Osama and said it was proof
Jealous of our freedom - I can't believe you bought that excuse
Rocking a mother******* flag don't make you a hero
Word to ground zero
The devil crept into heaven
God overslept on the 7th
The new world order was born on September 11
In a country that was sponsoring bombs dropped on our children
I was watching the towers and although I wasn't the closest
I saw them crumble to the Earth like they were full of explosives
And they thought nobody noticed the news report that they did
About the bombs planted on the George Washington Bridge
Four non-Arabs arrested during the emergency
And then it disappeared from the news permanently
They dubbed a tape of Osama and said it was proof
Jealous of our freedom - I can't believe you bought that excuse
Rocking a mother******* flag don't make you a hero
Word to ground zero
The devil crept into heaven
God overslept on the 7th
The new world order was born on September 11
Forget the conspiracy stuff for a bit, I'm more focused on the fact stuff. Read up on 'chemtrails' and 'ddt population control'. More factual stuff that's sorta outrageous. This article's good http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/ddt.htm and this one:
Is the DDT ban intended to control global population?
The number of malaria cases in Sri Lanka plummeted from 2.8 million in 1948 to just 17 in 1963, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. In India, deaths from malaria fell from 750,000 per year to 1,500 a year over that period.
The reason? Widespread use of the insecticide DDT.
In 1972, though, the Environmental Protection Agency banned all uses of DDT in the United States and in any nation receiving U.S. aid. Within just six years, 800 million cases of malaria and 8.2 million malaria deaths per year were reported in countries affected by EPA's ban.
New drugs and pesticides have reduced the death toll to 2.7 million a year. The tens of millions who suffer from, but are not killed by, this brutal, debilitating disease experience relapses for years, draining not only their strength but their nations' medical and economic resources as well.
In response, many countries are turning once again to DDT, prompting the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups to demand a permanent, inflexible, global ban on this life-saving pesticide. At best, their campaign suggests a painfully callous indifference to the devastating impact the ban would have on our world's most destitute, most disease-ridden people.
No alternative as effective
The anti-DDT environmentalists claim countries with malaria problems can just use other pesticides. But the alternatives are far more expensive, and far less effective. As Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, and other countries have learned from bitter experience, DDT is the only chemical that really works.
Malaria rates soared when Brazil and Peru stopped using DDT in the 1990s. (Peru is the same country that banned chlorinated drinking water, at EPA's suggestion, only to suffer thousands of deaths from cholera.) Ecuador slashed its malaria rate by expanding its own DDT program during the same period. The disease reached epidemic proportions in South Africa; when it reversed its anti-DDT policy, it reversed that trend.
Environmental impact minimal
Contrary to what the WWF claims (and many journalists report), DDT's environmental effects are minimal. No longer is the chemical sprayed over vast areas; simply spraying small amounts on the indoor walls of homes not only kills, but actually repels, malaria-bearing mosquitoes. All of the homes in an entire tropical country can be treated with the amount of DDT that once might have been used on a single farm.
Studies have also shown that, properly used, DDT does not pose serious health risks to humans. It breaks down under natural environmental conditions much more quickly than was once thought.
For healthy, wealthy countries like Europe and the United States, banning DDT has few detrimental effects--even if we still go into panic mode over a half-dozen deaths from the West Nile virus. But as PERC environmental policy expert Indur Goklany notes, a one-size-fits-all global policy makes absolutely no sense for countries where malaria is still epidemic.
One way to control population
Indeed, the proposed DDT ban would be a disastrous example of eco-imperialism at its lethal worst. It calls to mind Britain's serial killer known as Dr. Death, who killed over 200 patients, because (in the words of the prosecuting attorney) it reinforced his "godlike belief that he had power over life and death."
Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked if he thought a ban on DDT might result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied, "Probably--so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any."
His views are hardly atypical. According to Earthbound, a collection of essays on so-called environmental ethics, "Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species' duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers."
Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber famously remarked, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS," reads a 1989 Earth First! newsletter. "It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crisis."
Lung diseases affect some 30 million people in developing nations every year, according to the World Health Organization; water-borne diseases like dysentery kill 10 million annually, half of them infants and children. These diseases are readily preventable, and unheard-of here in the West. They are due to the virtual absence of electricity and clean water--problems readily addressed by the construction of hydroelectric dams.
But radical environmentalists adamantly oppose this. Lisa Jordan, director of London's Bank Information Centre, says dams "change the path of rivers and kill little creatures along their banks." Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, dismisses concerns about human deaths by saying "dams serve only greed," and people in developing countries "simply cannot expect to have the material lifestyle of the average American."
Recall too that these same environmental interest groups rail constantly about how global warming will cause an increase in malaria--itself a specious argument. For them to demand that DDT be banned is simply disingenuous and hypocritical.
Time for accountability
Earth First! founder David Foreman once offered this suggestion for dealing with famines in Ethiopia: "The worst thing we could do is to give aid . . . the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve."
Have such misanthropic views ever been condemned, repudiated, criticized, or even questioned by Foreman's environmentalist colleagues?
The time has come for the environmental interest groups to be subjected to the same public scrutiny and accountability they demand from industry and private citizens.
..banned DDT in 1968...the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, wrote: Since the EPA banned DDT in agriculture, countless studies have been conducted into the potential impact of DDT on human health, yet none of them have been able to find concrete evidence of human harm. DDT is remarkably non-toxic to humans: people have tried to commit suicide by eating it and failed miserably. DDT is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, but it is the same classification given to coffee and many other foodstuffs in our daily diet.
Is the DDT ban intended to control global population?
The number of malaria cases in Sri Lanka plummeted from 2.8 million in 1948 to just 17 in 1963, according to the U.S. Agency for International Development. In India, deaths from malaria fell from 750,000 per year to 1,500 a year over that period.
The reason? Widespread use of the insecticide DDT.
In 1972, though, the Environmental Protection Agency banned all uses of DDT in the United States and in any nation receiving U.S. aid. Within just six years, 800 million cases of malaria and 8.2 million malaria deaths per year were reported in countries affected by EPA's ban.
New drugs and pesticides have reduced the death toll to 2.7 million a year. The tens of millions who suffer from, but are not killed by, this brutal, debilitating disease experience relapses for years, draining not only their strength but their nations' medical and economic resources as well.
In response, many countries are turning once again to DDT, prompting the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental groups to demand a permanent, inflexible, global ban on this life-saving pesticide. At best, their campaign suggests a painfully callous indifference to the devastating impact the ban would have on our world's most destitute, most disease-ridden people.
No alternative as effective
The anti-DDT environmentalists claim countries with malaria problems can just use other pesticides. But the alternatives are far more expensive, and far less effective. As Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, South Africa, and other countries have learned from bitter experience, DDT is the only chemical that really works.
Malaria rates soared when Brazil and Peru stopped using DDT in the 1990s. (Peru is the same country that banned chlorinated drinking water, at EPA's suggestion, only to suffer thousands of deaths from cholera.) Ecuador slashed its malaria rate by expanding its own DDT program during the same period. The disease reached epidemic proportions in South Africa; when it reversed its anti-DDT policy, it reversed that trend.
Environmental impact minimal
Contrary to what the WWF claims (and many journalists report), DDT's environmental effects are minimal. No longer is the chemical sprayed over vast areas; simply spraying small amounts on the indoor walls of homes not only kills, but actually repels, malaria-bearing mosquitoes. All of the homes in an entire tropical country can be treated with the amount of DDT that once might have been used on a single farm.
Studies have also shown that, properly used, DDT does not pose serious health risks to humans. It breaks down under natural environmental conditions much more quickly than was once thought.
For healthy, wealthy countries like Europe and the United States, banning DDT has few detrimental effects--even if we still go into panic mode over a half-dozen deaths from the West Nile virus. But as PERC environmental policy expert Indur Goklany notes, a one-size-fits-all global policy makes absolutely no sense for countries where malaria is still epidemic.
One way to control population
Indeed, the proposed DDT ban would be a disastrous example of eco-imperialism at its lethal worst. It calls to mind Britain's serial killer known as Dr. Death, who killed over 200 patients, because (in the words of the prosecuting attorney) it reinforced his "godlike belief that he had power over life and death."
Dr. Charles Wurster, former chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, was once asked if he thought a ban on DDT might result in the use of more dangerous chemicals and more malaria cases in Sri Lanka. He replied, "Probably--so what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them, and this is as good a way as any."
His views are hardly atypical. According to Earthbound, a collection of essays on so-called environmental ethics, "Massive human diebacks would be good. It is our duty to cause them. It is our species' duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 percent of our numbers."
Former National Park Service research biologist David Graber famously remarked, "We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
"If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS," reads a 1989 Earth First! newsletter. "It has the potential to end industrialism, which is the main force behind the environmental crisis."
Lung diseases affect some 30 million people in developing nations every year, according to the World Health Organization; water-borne diseases like dysentery kill 10 million annually, half of them infants and children. These diseases are readily preventable, and unheard-of here in the West. They are due to the virtual absence of electricity and clean water--problems readily addressed by the construction of hydroelectric dams.
But radical environmentalists adamantly oppose this. Lisa Jordan, director of London's Bank Information Centre, says dams "change the path of rivers and kill little creatures along their banks." Brent Blackwelder, president of Friends of the Earth, dismisses concerns about human deaths by saying "dams serve only greed," and people in developing countries "simply cannot expect to have the material lifestyle of the average American."
Recall too that these same environmental interest groups rail constantly about how global warming will cause an increase in malaria--itself a specious argument. For them to demand that DDT be banned is simply disingenuous and hypocritical.
Time for accountability
Earth First! founder David Foreman once offered this suggestion for dealing with famines in Ethiopia: "The worst thing we could do is to give aid . . . the best thing would be to just let nature seek its own balance, to let the people there just starve."
Have such misanthropic views ever been condemned, repudiated, criticized, or even questioned by Foreman's environmentalist colleagues?
The time has come for the environmental interest groups to be subjected to the same public scrutiny and accountability they demand from industry and private citizens.
..banned DDT in 1968...the director of Africa Fighting Malaria, wrote: Since the EPA banned DDT in agriculture, countless studies have been conducted into the potential impact of DDT on human health, yet none of them have been able to find concrete evidence of human harm. DDT is remarkably non-toxic to humans: people have tried to commit suicide by eating it and failed miserably. DDT is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, but it is the same classification given to coffee and many other foodstuffs in our daily diet.
I think the Idea of the EU, is, for us, as Europeans, to NOT GIVE A DAMN F*CK ABOUT ANY OF THIS SH*T! 
er...you do realize that it's the opposite? The European Union is part of this goal if you believe in it...along with the North American Union several people are trying to create (and this NAU isn't a conspiracy, it's a fact). Here's something, I didn't write it
National sovereignty is being lost and its shocking how so many people don't realize it.
Before we know it, the nation's capitals are moved, new constitutions and laws pop up, new trade and economic restrictions, etc.
... all without the taxpayers, congress or voters in general having a say in whether or not we want such a union.
They just sneak it in. Look at those European countries! The ones that voted against it were still pushed in. Their money has been replaced by Euros, and the dollar is being purposely crashed (they can save it if they want, but they're doing the opposite, dang Federal Reserve) and devalued and soon a North American currency will pop up.
They called you a crazy conspiracy theorist for bringing up the plans for a European Union before it happened, and even after it happened and you said, "I hate to say I told you so, but..." AND THEY STILL CALL YOU A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!???
Stop the North American Union.
few more good European Union articles
http://www.nwo101.com/2007/09/nwo-european-union-courts-may-sanction.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/180607terrorists.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/261006targetsbloggers.htm
National sovereignty is being lost and its shocking how so many people don't realize it.
Before we know it, the nation's capitals are moved, new constitutions and laws pop up, new trade and economic restrictions, etc.
... all without the taxpayers, congress or voters in general having a say in whether or not we want such a union.
They just sneak it in. Look at those European countries! The ones that voted against it were still pushed in. Their money has been replaced by Euros, and the dollar is being purposely crashed (they can save it if they want, but they're doing the opposite, dang Federal Reserve) and devalued and soon a North American currency will pop up.
They called you a crazy conspiracy theorist for bringing up the plans for a European Union before it happened, and even after it happened and you said, "I hate to say I told you so, but..." AND THEY STILL CALL YOU A CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!???
Stop the North American Union.
few more good European Union articles
http://www.nwo101.com/2007/09/nwo-european-union-courts-may-sanction.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/180607terrorists.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2006/261006targetsbloggers.htm