Freedom Watch. On FOX!? [Archive]

View Full Version : Freedom Watch. On FOX!?

Fatstogey

03-22-2009, 08:15 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMdA06xbcU

Granted its an internet show. But im really shocked that FOX is airing this. To have such credible guest talking about what they are talking about. Man FOX is not paying attention or something? lol After how far up Bushes ass they were they seem to be taking a more objective stance now a days.

Aside from that, this is a good show. Good information. From credible people. The shows an hour long though. But should check it out.

vgrippa

03-22-2009, 08:56 PM

Remember fatstogey you live in America where credible people are considered completely wrong if they question the beliefs of the nation based on the argument that they are un-american. Besides logic and reason have no place in American arguments because they demonstrate the real truth not the truth we are told to believe.

I have never seen this show but I have heard about it and after watching this video I have to admit that I gained some respect for Fox News. Granted it is not very much respect it is still respect nonetheless. Maybe they just could not take feeding bullshit to the American people anymore because they do not want to whore themselves out to Wall Street anymore. God only in a perfect world.

Damn you Logical and Rational people! Stop using common sense to protect your rights as an American Citizen and just pull your pants down and grab your ankles like the rest of America!

Marrow Rivengristel

03-22-2009, 10:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZMdA06xbcU From credible people.

Jesus I hope you are not referring to Alex Jones as credible b/c that would be absolutely incredible.:amazed:

On topic everything fox news is a fucking suckfest this included it's is just an attempt to bring right wing radicals/liberatarians in line with the rest of the neocon flock; to feign decent in the Republicrat party; to divide and subvert.

Fatstogey

03-22-2009, 11:58 PM

Jesus I hope you are not referring to Alex Jones as credible b/c that would be absolutely incredible.:amazed:

On topic everything fox news is a fucking suckfest this included it's is just an attempt to bring right wing radicals/liberatarians in line with the rest of the neocon flock; to feign decent in the Republicrat party; to divide and subvert.

Did you watch the video? Because if you made your opinion without watching the video and being informed about it, it would be awfully FOX of you. lol

Also Alex Jones. These other people share his views. However they speak more delicately. You can see Ron Paul has cleverly tryed to stay away from some of their views. Becaues Alex Jones just flat out makes these accusations. The other people know they are true. But they know they will be discredited if the are as crazy sounding as Alex jones.

But they do it delicately. Alex Jones dumbs it down for the layman. And he tries to employ the same fear the government trys to employ. You have to negotiate the issues carefully. so as not to sound like a conspiracy theory kook. LOL Alex Jones just dove right in there. And they all respect him for it. But they arent gonna join him. LOL

However we should be afraid. Signs are pointing towards some shitty ass roads. If you just think very simply about it. We have recession so we start spending trillions more? That is it right there.

Hey i maxed out my credit card. Ill just go get another and keep spending. That is what we are doing now.

TW501

03-23-2009, 04:29 AM

Yadomaru

03-23-2009, 05:41 AM

Calling Alex Jones a credible news source is like calling Dan Brown a religious historian.
Saw it. Still the same old shit, but with a shiny new wrapper.

...And this is why I don't get my news from cable anymore.

Fatstogey

03-23-2009, 09:36 AM

That was no different than the usual FOX News. It was the same unsubstantiated claims and fringe viewpoints, the same treating of Obama as an evil tyrant bent on taking over the world, the same use of speculation and flimsy evidence to support their argument. The only difference is that they switched from a conservative/republican viewpoint to a Libertarian/Anarchist viewpoint with conspiracy theorist overtones. This guy still uses all of FOX's methods and practices, just in a way that happens to align with your views.

I don't see how this video could in any way be considered credible. The first thing he does is espouse a bunch of ludicrous claims about a North American Union and New World Order conspiracy theories (and apparently the most prominent part of the NWO will be that they make you pay carbon taxes for 'the phony global warming'). He pretty much lists off his insane conspiracy claims (along with 'evidence' that the people who speak out against it are being systematically oppressed) while making claims with little to no evidence and relying heavily on speculation.

Also, I really must question your perception of reality if you think that Alex Jones is a credible person. He's pretty much universally considered a conspiracy theorist.
http://web.archive.org/web/19990508133342/www.infowars.com/alex_article.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/print?oid=77891
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=77932
The other guy is a bit more credible, but not much. He's just one of a number of radio hosts that make unsubstantiated claims like that.

Yea hes a nut job. However hes conspiracy theories make more and more sense as time goes on.

And just as you are sick of him. IM sick of people who blindly follow Obama. Dude is a snake oil salesmen. People follow him blindly becaues they are stupid. Conspiracy theories or not. What Obama is doing now is likely to collapse our dollar. That just common sense. WE are broke. Lets take out a loan. How is that gonna help us? Its not. Its gonna collapse the dollar.

And again. YOU DID NOT WATCH THE VIDEO! Alex Jones is not the lone nut job anymore. More and more people are starting to see what is being done.

But as I said. Alex jones gives info you should hear. But he acts to fanatical. However just because hes all wacky doesnt mean what hes saying isnt true. And more credible news sources are starting to follow the stories.

I mean we sit here and bitch about BUSH. Obama has spent more in 2 months than GWB spent and we are still blindly following.

So whether or not Obama is doing good. Lets first learn from our mistakes and not blindly follow a president. Like we did before. And like we are doing now.

And again. Watch the video in its entirety. There are 6 videos. Yes Alex Jones is a conspiracy theory kook.(that doesnt mean hes wrong) But teh others on the show are not. We got a Judge, Credible economists, and Ron Paul on there too.

Whether or not your hold their views doesnt matter. What they say makes sense. Its perfectly logical. And its less and less conspiracy than before.
One of them made the comment that the FED at least used to try to hide its nefarious activities. NOw they are out and out providing wellfair straight to these companies and banks. Rigth in front of us.
And at our expense.

The bail out bil? HOw do you think Obama made this 1000+page bill so fast? Cause it was already made before he was president. By who? Good question.

And they talk about how the bonus scandal with AIG is simply to distract us from the real issues. Which again. Makes perfect sense.

Just watch the shit before you start tlaking shit about it. Just because Alex jones is on for the first 8 min of the show doesnt mean the show is wrong.

vgrippa

03-23-2009, 11:01 AM

The bail out bil? HOw do you think Obama made this 1000+page bill so fast? Cause it was already made before he was president. By who? Good question.

And they talk about how the bonus scandal with AIG is simply to distract us from the real issues. Which again. Makes perfect sense.

Thank you so much fatstogey to using basic common sense and logic to develop an argument instead of doing what a "good American would" and blindly follow what you are told like the religious sheep. Blindly following government is no different than blindly following religion. Neither of them have anymore credibly than you or I but because we are told "these are the experts" except no one stops and says wait these are the same "experts" that put us in this situation in the first place, after all that is un-american to question your government. The AIG bonus scandal is a COMPLETE JOKE people who are pissed off about it or focus on it at all need to go back to freshmen year of high school and remember when they were taught probability and basic logic. Do any of you know what percent of the bailout money these CEOs are getting? They are getting ONE TENTH OF A PERCENT that means for every penny we gave them the CEOs are getting one tenth of that. That is literally next to nothing. This is essentially the same thing a baby photographer does when he holds a squeaky doll next to the camera to get a baby to look at him. Don't mind the camera and giant lights little baby just focus on this squeaky bunny.

"The great Oz has spoken! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful Wizard of Oz!"

This is one of the most powerful lines in the metaphor fairytale called The Wonderful Wizard are Oz which is NOT a children's fairytale it a metaphor for the Central Bank and how it controls the government from behind the scenes. If you want to know what the real story is read the very first chapter from Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt it can be found here: http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/chapter-1.php

Barrack Obama is a complete and utter joke. His blatant disregard for Americans well-being is a clear display of his true character and the fact that he has changed NOTHING in America only supports this claim. John McCain would have done the EXACT same thing so do not say he would have been better. They are both in the pocket of big Wall Street money and just as the old saying goes "do not bite the hand that feeds you." Both democrats and republicans are just elaborate puppets put in from of us to dance to whatever tune Federal Reserve plays. To deny this is to deny the truth and to deny the truth is deny reality.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Fatstogey

03-23-2009, 12:46 PM

Thank you so much fatstogey to using basic common sense and logic to develop an argument instead of doing what a "good American would" and blindly follow what you are told like the religious sheep. Blindly following government is no different than blindly following religion. Neither of them have anymore credibly than you or I but because we are told "these are the experts" except no one stops and says wait these are the same "experts" that put us in this situation in the first place, after all that is un-american to question your government. The AIG bonus scandal is a COMPLETE JOKE people who are pissed off about it or focus on it at all need to go back to freshmen year of high school and remember when they were taught probability and basic logic. Do any of you know what percent of the bailout money these CEOs are getting? They are getting ONE TENTH OF A PERCENT that means for every penny we gave them the CEOs are getting one tenth of that. That is literally next to nothing. This is essentially the same thing a baby photographer does when he holds a squeaky doll next to the camera to get a baby to look at him. Don't mind the camera and giant lights little baby just focus on this squeaky bunny.

"The great Oz has spoken! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful Wizard of Oz!"

This is one of the most powerful lines in the metaphor fairytale called The Wonderful Wizard are Oz which is NOT a children's fairytale it a metaphor for the Central Bank and how it controls the government from behind the scenes. If you want to know what the real story is read the very first chapter from Ellen Brown's book Web of Debt it can be found here: http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/chapter-1.php

Barrack Obama is a complete and utter joke. His blatant disregard for Americans well-being is a clear display of his true character and the fact that he has changed NOTHING in America only supports this claim. John McCain would have done the EXACT same thing so do not say he would have been better. They are both in the pocket of big Wall Street money and just as the old saying goes "do not bite the hand that feeds you." Both democrats and republicans are just elaborate puppets put in from of us to dance to whatever tune Federal Reserve plays. To deny this is to deny the truth and to deny the truth is deny reality.

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

YES. WAKE THE FUCK UP PEOPLE. MCCAIN, OBAMA, BUSH THEY ARE ALL THE SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You may say "obama isnt doing what bush did." Isnt he? More troops in Afganistan. TO FIGHT TERRORISTS THAT DONT EXIST, AND IF THEY DID THEY HAVE EFFECTED .00000001% OF OUR POPULATION. YET THE FEAR OF THEM HAS ALLOWED UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION TO PASS THAT AFFECTS 100% OF US.

Anyways. Yes Obama is stage 2 of the same Bush agenda. And the fact that they used a black man also leads me to believe their most nefarious plans will occur during his administration. They saw the popularity loss with Bush. So they figure for this next, and far worst, stage of the plan lets use a black guy. Its sad to say. But if I was in the shoes of those actually in control its the same thing i would do. And look how many people are blindly following Obama like hes jesus. The proof is in the pudding. The strategy worked very well.

However people will say things are better. Well to that i say wait until his next term. They are propping up the economy to try and make it live for another 4 years. So he can get re-elected. Then in his second and final term is when your gonna see the shit really hit the fan. Same thing with Bush. During his second term is when his popularity really fell.

And im not saying its gonna happen. But if there is another terrorist attack i will be paying a lot more attention than i was on 9/11. Because now, being amonday morning quarter back, i look back at what was broadcast live and think "how fucking stupid was I to buy into it." I reacted just like we were supposed to. Kill those damn bastards. When infact I have never actually been affected by or seen any of thees so called terrorist.

Remain objective. Our government, our politicians, dont have your best interest in mind. They have 2 things in mind. Making money and getting re-elected. There are a very small handful of people in government who should be there. We need to lamb baste these fuckers. There needs to be a public trail. These people need to be brought into the light. They are causing us great misfortune and lining their pockets with gold while they do it.

Its so cliche to say "wake up america." But holy fucking shit. WAKE UP AMERICA. lol

TW501

03-23-2009, 01:26 PM

Yea hes a nut job. However hes conspiracy theories make more and more sense as time goes on.

1And just as you are sick of him. IM sick of people who blindly follow Obama. Dude is a snake oil salesmen. People follow him blindly becaues they are stupid. Conspiracy theories or not.
2What Obama is doing now is likely to collapse our dollar. That just common sense. WE are broke. Lets take out a loan. How is that gonna help us? Its not. Its gonna collapse the dollar.

3And again. YOU DID NOT WATCH THE VIDEO! Alex Jones is not the lone nut job anymore. More and more people are starting to see what is being done.

And again. Watch the video in its entirety. There are 6 videos. Yes Alex Jones is a conspiracy theory kook.(that doesnt mean hes wrong) But teh others on the show are not. We got a Judge, Credible economists, and Ron Paul on there too.

First, I am also sick of people who blindly follow Obama, just as I am sick of those who blindly follow McCain, Palin, Clinton, Bush, and Ron Paul. Those people are in the minority though (although the crazies are more prominent on the internet). There is a difference between being a supporter and blindly following someone. Forget for a moment that you think every politician other than Ron Paul is a corrupt sleazebag plotting to take over the world via banks as I ask you this question: is it entirely impossible that most Obama supporters have genuine reasons for supporting him? I know that personally, as someone who holds strong liberal/progressive views, I find him to be a brilliant politician with great ideas and the ability to improve the nation. That doesn't mean I blindly follow him. I've met few people who would claim that they'd support him whatever he does under any circumstances. The man is a brilliant speaker and extremely popular, and while I imagine that is frustrating for people who don't agree with him, it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Second, I would contest that. I imagine there are a lot of people predicting doom and gloom for his ideas, but there are plenty of others who would disagree. I wouldn't say that what he's doing is perfect, but it's not nearly as bad as what some are making it out to be. It's a matter of perspective and speculation as to what will happen.

I actually did watch the video, how else would I have known what he said? I'll watch the other ones later, but I don't expect to be impressed. There are thousands of economists in the world, many with different viewpoints. As for Ron Paul, I don't consider him any more credible than the other 434 Congressmen currently in office. If I asked Bart Stupak, the congressman representing Northern Michigan, if this stuff was true and he said no, would that convince you? No, of course it wouldn't (Stupak is probably one of those evil people conspiring with the banks to take over the world, right?). There are different people in this world with different viewpoints, some of which will be fringe viewpoints. In all cases, there will be people who absolutely accept it as the truth.

vgrippa

03-23-2009, 02:31 PM

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
James Warburg Council on Foreign Relations and architect of the Federal Reserve System
Source: Mr. Warburg's address to the United States Senate February 17, 1950

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
Thomas Jefferson

"An elective despotism was not the government we fought for, but one which should not only be founded on true free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among general bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."
Thomas Jefferson

"We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds... [we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for [another ]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression."
Thomas Jefferson

"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
Thomas Jefferson

"The system of banking [is] a blot left in all our Constitutions, which, if not covered, will end in their destruction... I sincerely believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity... is but swindling futurity on a large scale."
Thomas Jefferson
Source: stated in 1811 when President Jefferson refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States (the 2nd central bank chartered by Congress in 1791)

Good thing we didn't listen to this idiot Thomas Jefferson. Who is he to tell us how to run a country? I mean it is not like he founded it or anything.:suspicious:

If you want more reason why American's are fucking stupid go to this site:

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/thomas+jefferson

TW501

03-23-2009, 04:13 PM

That is not a valid argument (or even an argument at all). What you're doing is called quote mining; that is, taking statements made or attributed to famous people and using that to push forward your viewpoint. Fundamentalists do it all the time, taking quotes from founding fathers to prove that the US was meant to be a christian theocracy with no effort to find context for the statement or ascertain its accuracy. I also have doubts about some of those quotes, as the one in your signature is definitely false.

The alleged Woodrow Wilson quote says
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." - President Woodrow Wilson (9/25/1919)
On the date of this alleged quote, September 25, 1919, Woodrow Wilson was giving a speech promoting the League of Nations
One of President Woodrow Wilson's
Final Addresses in Support of the
League of Nations,
25 September 1919, Pueblo, CO.

Mr. Chairman and fellow countrymen: It is with a great deal of genuine pleasure that I find myself in Pueblo, and I feel it a compliment in this beautiful hall. One of the advantages of this hall, as I look about, is that you are not too far away from me, because there is nothing so reassuring to men who are trying to express the public sentiment as getting into real personal contact with their fellow citizens.

I have gained a renewed impression as I have crossed the continent this time of the homogeneity of this great people to whom we belong. 'They come from many stocks, but they arc all of one kind. They come from many origins, but they are all shot through with the same principles and desire the same righteous and honest things. I have received a more inspiring impression this time of the public opinion of the United States than it was ever my privilege to receive before.

The chief pleasure of my trip has been that it has nothing to do with my personal fortunes, that it has nothing to do with my personal reputation, that it has nothing to do with anything except great principles uttered by Americans of all sorts and of all parties which we are now trying to realize at this crisis of the affairs of the world.

But there have been unpleasant impressions as well as pleasant impressions, my fellow citizens, as I have crossed the continent. I have perceived more and more that men have been busy creating an absolutely false impression of what the treaty of peace and the Covenant of the League of Nations contain and mean.

I find, moreover, that there is an organized propaganda against the League of Nations and against the treaty proceeding from exactly the same sources that the organized propaganda proceeded from which threatened this country here and there with disloyalty, and I want to say-I cannot say too often-any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.

If I can catch any man with a hyphen in this great contest I will know that I have got an enemy of the Republic. My fellow citizens, it is only certain bodies of foreign sympathies, certain bodies of sympathy with foreign nations that are organized against this great document which the American representatives have brought back from Paris.

Therefore, in order to clear away the mists, in order to remove the impressions, in order to check the falsehoods that have clustered around this great subject, I want to tell you a few very simple things about the treaty and the covenant.

Do not think of this treaty of peace as merely a settlement with Germany. It is that. It is a very severe settlement with Germany, but there is not anything in it that she did not earn. Indeed, she earned more than she can ever be able to pay for, and the punishment exacted of her is not a punishment greater than she can bear, and it is absolutely necessary in order that no other nation may ever plot such a thing against humanity and civilization.

But the treaty is so much more than that. It is not merely a settlement with Germany; it is a readjustment of those great injustices which underlie the whole structure of European and Asiatic society. This is only the first of several treaties. They are all constructed upon the same plan. The Austrian treaty follows the same lines. The treaty with Hungary follows the same lines.

The treaty with Bulgaria follows the same lines. The treaty with Turkey, when it is formulated, will follow the same lines. What are those lines? They are based upon the purpose to see that every government dealt with in this great settlement is put in the hands of the people and taken out of the hands of coteries and of sovereigns who had no right to rule over the people.

It is a people's treaty, that accomplishes by a great sweep of practical justice the liberation of men who never could have liberated themselves, and the power of the most powerful nations has been devoted not to their aggrandizement but to the liberation of people whom they could have put under their control if they had chosen to do so.

Not one foot of territory is demanded by the conquerors, not one single item of submission to their authority is demanded by them. The men who sat around that table in Paris knew that the time had come when the people were no longer going to consent to live under masters, but were going to live the lives that they chose themselves, to live under such governments as they chose themselves to erect. That is the fundamental principle of this great settlement.

And we did not stop with that. We added a great international charter for the rights of labour. Reject this treaty, impair it, and this is the consequence of the labouring en of the world, that there is no international tribunal which can bring the moral judgments of the world to bear upon the great labour questions of the day.

What we need to do with regard to the labour questions of the day, my fellow countrymen, is tilt them into the light, is to lift them out of the haze and distraction of passion, of hostility, out into the calm spaces where men look at things without passion. The more men you get into a great discussion is the more you exclude passion.

Just as soon as the calm judgment of the world is directed upon the question of justice to labour, labour is going to have to forum such as it never was supplied with before, and men everywhere are going to see that the problem of labour is nothing more nor less o than the problem of the elevation of humanity.

We must see that all the questions which have disturbed the world, all the questions which have eaten into the confidence of men toward their governments, all the questions which have disturbed the processes of industry, shall be brought out where men of all points of view, men of all attitudes of mind, men of all kinds of experience, may contribute their part of the settlement of the great questions which we must settle and cannot ignore.

At the front of this great treaty is put the Covenant of the League of Nations. It will also be at the front of the Austrian, treaty and the Hungarian treaty and the Bulgarian treaty and the treaty with Turkey. Every one of them will contain the Covenant of the League of Nations, because you cannot work any of them without the Covenant of the League of Nations.

Unless you get the united, concerted purpose and power of the great Governments of the world behind this settlement, it will fall down like a house of cards. There is only one power to put behind the liberation of mankind, and that is the power of mankind. It is the power of the united moral forces of the world, and in the Covenant of the League of Nations the moral forces of the world are mobilized. For what purpose?

Reflect, my fellow citizens, that the membership of this great League is going to include all the great fighting nations of the world, as well as the weak ones. It is not for the present going to include Germany, but for the time being Germany is not a great fighting country. All the nations that have power that can be mobilized are going to be members of this League, including the United States.

And what do they unite for? They enter into a solemn promise to one another that they will never use their power against one anther for aggression; that they never will impair the territorial integrity of a neighbour; that they never will interfere with the political independence of a neighbour; that they will abide by the principle that great populations are entitled to determine their own destiny and that they will not interfere with that destiny; and that no matter what differences arise amongst them they will never resort to war without first having done one or other of two things - either submitted the matter of controversy to arbitration, in which case they agree to abide by the result without question, or submitted it to the consideration of the council of the League of Nations, laying before that council all the documents, all the facts, agreeing that the council can publish the documents and the facts to the whole world, agreeing that there shall be six months allowed for the mature consideration of those facts by the council, and agreeing that at the expiration of the six months, even if they are not then ready to accept the advice of the council with regard to the settlement of the dispute, they will still not go to war for another three months.

In other words, they consent, no matter what happens, to submit every matter of difference between them to the judgment of mankind, and just so certainly as they do that, my fellow citizens, war will be in the far background, war will be pushed out of that foreground of terror in which it has kept the world for generation after generation, and men will know that there will be a calm time of deliberate counsel.

The most dangerous thing for a bad cause is to expose it to the opinion of the world. The most certain way that you can prove that a man is mistaken is by letting all his neighbours know what he thinks, by letting all his neighbours discuss what he thinks, and if he is in the wrong you will notice that he will stay at home, he will not walk on the street.

He will be afraid of the eyes of his neighbours. He will be afraid of their judgment of his character. He will know that his cause is lost unless he can sustain it by the arguments of right and of justice. The same law that applies to individuals applies to nations.

But, you say, "We have heard that we might be at a disadvantage in the League of Nations." Well, whoever told you that either was deliberately falsifying or he had not read the Covenant of the League of Nations. I leave him the choice. I want to give you a very simple account of the organization of the League of Nations and let you judge for yourselves.

It is a very simple organization. The power of the League, or rather the activities of the league, lie in two bodies. There is the council, which consists of one representative from each of the principal allied and associated powers-that is to say, the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, along with four other representatives of smaller powers chosen out of the general body of the membership of the League.

The council is the source of every active policy of the League, and no active policy of the League can be adopted without a unanimous vote of the council. That is explicitly stated in the Covenant itself. Does it not evidently follow that the League of Nations can adopt no policy whatever without the consent of the United States?

The affirmative vote of the representative of the United States is necessary in every case. Now, you have heard of six votes belonging to the British Empire. Those six votes are not in the council. They are in the assembly, and the interesting thing is that the assembly does not vote. I must qualify that statement a little, but essentially it is absolutely true.

In every matter in which the assembly is given a voice, and there are only four or five, its vote does not count unless concurred in by the representatives of all the nations represented on the council, so that there is no validity to any vote of the assembly unless in that vote also the representative of the United States concurs.

That one vote of the United States is as big as the six votes of the British Empire. I am not jealous for advantage, my fellow citizens, but I think that is a perfectly safe situation. There is no validity in a vote, either by the council or the assembly, in which we do not concur. So much for the statements about the six votes of the British Empire.

Look at it in another aspect. The assembly is the talking body. The assembly was created in order that anybody that purposed anything wrong should be subjected to the awkward circumstance that everybody could talk about it.

This is the great assembly in which all the things that are likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations are to be exposed to the general view, and I want to ask you if you think it was unjust, unjust to the United States, that speaking parts should be assigned to the several portions of the British Empire? Do you think it unjust that there should be some spokesman in debate for that fine little stout Republic down in the Pacific, New Zealand?

Do you think it was unjust that Australia should be allowed to stand up and take part in the debate-Australia, from which we have learned some of the most useful progressive policies of modern time, a little nation only five million in a great continent, but counting for several times five in its activities and in its interest in liberal reform?

Do you think it unjust that that little Republic down in South Africa whose gallant resistance to being subjected to any outside authority at all we admired for so many months and whose fortunes we followed with such interest, should have a speaking part?

Great Britain obliged South Africa to submit to her sovereignty, but she immediately after that felt that it was convenient and right to hand the whole self government of that colony over to the very men whom she had beaten.

The representatives of south Africa in Paris were two of the most distinguished generals of the Boer Army, two of the realest men I ever met, two men that could talk sober counsel and wise advice, along with the best statesmen in Europe. To exclude Gen. Botha and Gen. Smuts from the right to stand up in the parliament of the world and say something concerning the affairs of mankind would be absurd.

And what about Canada? Is not Canada a good neighbour? I ask you, Is not Canada more likely to agree with the United States than with Great Britain? Canada has a speaking part. And then, for the first time in the history of the world, that great voiceless multitude that throng hundreds of millions strong in India, has a voice, and I want to testify that some of the wisest and most dignified figures in the peace conference at Paris came from India, men who seemed to carry in their minds an older wisdom than the rest of us had, whose traditions ran back into so many of the unhappy fortunes of mankind that they seemed very useful counsellors as to how some ray of hope and some prospect of happiness could be opened to its people.

I for my part have no jealousy whatever of those five speaking parts in the assembly. Those speaking parts cannot translate themselves into five votes that can in any matter override the voice and purpose of the United States.

Let us sweep aside all this language of jealousy. Let us be big enough to know the facts and to welcome the facts, because the facts are based upon the principle that America has always fought for, namely, the equality of self-governing peoples, whether they were big or little-not counting men, but counting rights, not counting representation, but counting the purpose of that representation.

When you hear an opinion quoted you do not count the number of persons who hold it; you ask, "Who said that?" You weigh opinions, you do not count them, and the beauty of all democracies is that every voice can be heard, every voice can have its effect, every voice can contribute to the general judgment that is finally arrived at. That is the object of democracy.

Let us accept what America has always fought for, and accept it with pride that America showed the way and made the proposal. I do not mean that America made the proposal in this particular instance; I mean that the principle was an American principle, proposed by America.

Well you come to the heart of the Covenant, my fellow citizens, you will End it in article ten, and I am very much interested to know that the other things have been blown away like bubbles. There is nothing in the other contentions with regard to the league of nations, but there is something in article ten that you ought to realize and ought to accept or reject.

Article ten is the heart of the whole matter. What is article ten? I never am certain that I can from memory give a literal repetition of its language, but I am sure that I can give an exact interpretation of its meaning. Article ten provides that every member of the league covenants to respect and preserve the territorial integrity and existing political independence of every other member of the league as against external aggression.

Not against internal disturbance. There was not a man at that table who did not admit the sacredness of the right of self determination, the sacredness of the right of any body of people to say that they would not continue to live under the Government they were then living under, and under article eleven of the Covenant they are given a place to say whether they will live under it or not.

For following article ten is article eleven, which makes it the right of any member of the League at any time to call attention to anything, anywhere, that is likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations upon which the peace of the world depends. I want to give you an illustration of what that would mean.

You have heard a great deal- something that was true and a great deal that was false-about that provision of the treaty which hands over to Japan the rights which Germany enjoyed in the Province of Shantung in China. In the first place, Germany did not enjoy any rights there that other nations had not already claimed.

For my part, my judgment, my moral judgment, is against the whole set of concessions. They were all of them unjust to China, they ought never to have been exacted, they were all exacted by duress, from a great body of thoughtful and ancient and helpless people.

There never was it any right in any of them. Thank God, America never asked for any, never dreamed of asking for any. But when Germany got this concession in 1898, the Government of the United States made no protest whatever.

That was not because the Government of the United States was not in the hands of high-minded and conscientious men. It was. William McKinley was President and John Hay was Secretary of State-as safe hands to leave the honour of the United States in as any that you can cite.

They made no protest because the state of international law at that time was that it was none of their business unless they could show that the interests of the United States were affected, and the only thing that they could show with regard to the interests of the United States was that Germany might close the doors of Shantung Province against the trade of the United States.

They, therefore, demanded and obtained promises that we could continue to sell merchandise in Shantung. Immediately following that concession to Germany there was a concession to Russia of the same sort, of Port Arthur, and Port Arthur was handed over subsequently to Japan on the very territory of the United States.

Don't you remember that when Russia and Japan got into war with one another the war was brought to a conclusion by a treaty written at Portsmouth, N.H., and in that treaty without the slightest intimation from any authoritative sources in America that the Government of the United States had any objection, Port Arthur, Chinese territory, was turned over to Japan?

I want you distinctly to understand that there is no thought of criticism in my mind. I am expounding to you a state of international law. Now, read articles ten and eleven. You will see that international law is revolutionized by putting morals into it. Article ten says that no member of the League, and that includes all these nations at have demanded these things unjustly of China, shall impair the territorial integrity or the political independence of any other member of the League.

China is going to be a member of the League. Article eleven says that any member of the League can all attention to anything that is likely to disturb the peace of the world or the good understanding between nations, and China is for the first time in the history of mankind afforded a standing before the jury of the world.

I, for my part, have a profound sympathy for China, and I am proud to have taken part in an arrangement which promises the protection of the world to the rights of China. The whole atmosphere of the world is changed by a thing like that, my fellow citizens. The whole international practice of the world is revolutionized.

But you will say, "What is the second sentence of article ten? That is what gives very disturbing thoughts." The second sentence is that the council of the League shall advise what steps, if any, are necessary to carry out the guaranty of the first sentence, namely, that the members will respect and preserve the territorial integrity and political independence of the other members.

I do not know any other meaning for the word "advise" except "advise." The council advises, and it cannot advise without the vote of the United States. Why gentlemen should fear that the Congress of the United States would be advised to do something that it did not want to do I frankly cannot imagine, because they cannot even be advised to do anything unless their own representative has participated in the advice.

It may be that that will impair somewhat the vigour of the League, but, nevertheless, the fact is so, that we are not obliged to take any advice except our own, which to any man who wants to go his own course is a very satisfactory state of affairs. Every man regards his own advice as best, and I dare say every man mixes his own advice with some thought of his own interest.

Whether we use it wisely or unwisely, we can use the vote of the United States to make impossible drawing the United States into any enterprise that she does not care to be drawn into.

Yet article ten strikes at the taproot of war. Article ten is a statement that the very things that have always been sought in imperialistic wars are henceforth foregone by every ambitious nation in the world. I would have felt very much disturbed if, sitting at the peace table in Paris, I had supposed that I was expounding my own ideas.

Whether you believe it or not, I know the relative size of my own ideas; I know how they stand related in bulk and proportion to the moral judgments of my fellow countrymen, and I proposed nothing whatever at the peace table at Paris that I had not sufficiently certain knowledge embodied the moral judgment of the citizens of the United States.

I had gone over there with, so to say, explicit instructions. Don't you remember that we laid down fourteen points which should contain the principles of the settlement? They were not my points. In every one of them I was conscientiously trying to read the thought of the people of the United States, and after I uttered those points I had every assurance given me that could be given me that they did speak the moral judgment of the United States and not my single judgment.

Then when it came to that critical period just a little less than a year ago, when it was evident that the war was coming to its critical end, all the nations engaged in the war accepted those fourteen principles explicitly as the basis of the armistice and the basis of the peace. In those circumstances I crossed the ocean under bond to my own people and to the other governments with which I was dealing.

The whole specification of the method of settlement was written down and accepted before hand, and we were architects building on those specifications. It reassures me and fortifies my position to find how before I went over men whose judgment the United States has often trusted were of exactly the same opinion that I went abroad to express. Here is something I want to read from Theodore Roosevelt:

"The one effective move for obtaining peace is by an agreement among all the great powers in which each should pledge itself not only to abide by the decisions of a common tribunal but to back its decisions by force. The great civilized nations should combine by solemn agreement in a great world league for the peace of righteousness; a court should be established.

A changed and amplified Hague court would meet the requirements, composed of representatives from each nation, whose representatives are sworn to act as judges in each case and not in a representative capacity." Now there is article ten.

He goes on and says this: "The nations should agree on certain rights that should not be questioned, such as territorial integrity, their right to deal with their domestic affairs, and with such matters as whom they should admit to citizenship. All such guarantee each of their number in possession of these rights."

Now, the other specification is in the Covenant. The Covenant in another portion guarantees to the members the independent control of their domestic questions. There is not a leg for these gentlemen to stand on when they say that the interests of the United States are not safeguarded in the very points where we are most sensitive.

You do not need to be told again that the Covenant expressly says that nothing in this covenant shall be construed as affecting the validity of the Monroe doctrine, for example. You could not be more explicit than that. And every point of interest is covered, partly for one very interesting reason.

This is not the first time that the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate of the United States has read and considered this covenant. I brought it to this country in March last in a tentative, provisional form, in practically the form that it now has, with the exception of certain additions which I shall mention immediately.

I asked the Foreign Relations Committees of both Houses to come to the White House and we spent a long evening in the frankest discussion of every portion that they wished to discuss. They made certain specific suggestions as to what should be contained in this document when it was to be revised.

I carried those suggestions to Paris, and every one of them was adopted. What more could I have done? What more could have been obtained?

The very matters upon which these gentlemen were most concerned were, the right of withdrawal, which is now expressly stated; the safeguarding of the Monroe doctrine, which is now accomplished; the exclusion from action by the League of domestic questions, which is now accomplished. All along the line, every suggestion of the United States was adopted after the Covenant had been drawn up in its first form and had been published for the criticism of the world. There is a very true sense in which I can say this is a tested American document.

I am dwelling upon these points, my fellow citizens, in spite of the fact that I dare say to most of you they are perfectly well known, because in order to meet the present situation we have got to know what we are dealing with.

We are not dealing with the kind of document which this is represented by some gentlemen to be; and inasmuch as we are dealing with a document simon-pure in respect of the very principles we have professed and lived up to, we have got to do one or other of two things-we have got to adopt it or reject it. There is no middle course.

You cannot go in on a special-privilege basis of your own. I take it that you are too proud to ask to be exempted from responsibilities which the other members of the League will carry. We go in upon equal terms or we do not go in at all; and if we do not go in, my fellow citizens, think of the tragedy of that result-the only sufficient guaranty to the peace of the world withheld!

Ourselves drawn apart with that dangerous pride which means that we shall he ready to take care of ourselves, and that means that we shall maintain great standing armies and an irresistible navy; that means we shall have the organization of a military nation; that means we shall have a general staff, with the kind of power that the general staff of Germany had; to mobilize this great manhood of the Nation when it pleases, all the energy of our young men drawn into the thought and preparation for war.

What of our pledges to the men that lie dead in France? We said that they went over there not to prove the prowess of America or her readiness for another war but to see to it that there never was such a war again. It always seems to make it difficult for me to say anything, my fellow citizens, when I think of my clients in this case.

My clients are the children; my clients are the next generation. They do not know what promises and bonds I undertook when I ordered the armies of the United States to the soil of France, but I know, and I intend to redeem my pledges to the children; they shall not be sent upon a similar errand.

Again and again, my fellow citizens, mothers who lost their sons in France have come to me and, taking my hand, have shed tears upon it not only, but they have added, "God bless you, Mr. President!" Why, my fellow citizens, should they pray God to bless me?

I advised the Congress of the United States to create the situation that led to the death of their sons. I ordered their sons overseas. I consented to their sons being put in the most difficult parts of the battle line, where death was certain, as in the impenetrable difficulties of the forest of Argonne.

Why should they weep upon my hand and call down the blessings of God upon me? Because they believe that their boys died for something that vastly transcends any of the immediate and palpable objects of the war. They believe and they rightly believe, that their sons saved the liberty of the world.

They believe that wrapped up with the liberty of the world is the continuous protection of that liberty by the concerted powers of all civilized people. They believe that this sacrifice was made in order that other sons should not be called upon for a similar gift-the gift of life, the gift of all that died - and if we did not see this thing through if we fulfilled the dearest present wish of Germany and now dissociated ourselves from those alongside whom we fought in the world, would not something of the halo go away from the gun over the mantelpiece, or the sword? Would not the old uniform lose something of its significance?

These men were crusaders. They were not going forth to prove the might of the United States. They were going forth to prove the might of justice and right, and all the world accepted them as crusaders, and their transcendent achievement has made all the world believe in America as it believes in no other nation organized in the modern world.

There seem to me to stand between us and the rejection or qualification of this treaty the serried ranks of those boys in khaki, not only these boys who came home, hut those dear ghosts that still deploy upon the fields of France.

My friends, on last Decoration day I went to a beautiful hillside near Paris, where was located the cemetery of Suresnes, a cemetery given over to the burial of the American dead. Behind me all the slopes was rank upon rank of living American soldiers, and lying before me upon the levels of the plain was rank upon rank of departed American soldiers.

Right by the side of the stand where I spoke there was a little group of French women who had adopted those graves, had made themselves mothers of those dear ghosts by putting flowers every day upon those graves, taking them as their own sons, their own beloved, because they had died in the same cause-France was free and the world was free because America had come!

I wish some men in public life who are now opposing the settlement for which these men died could visit such a spot as that. I wish that the thought that comes out of those graves could penetrate their consciousness. I wish that they could feel the moral obligation that rests upon us not to go back on those boys, but to see the thing through, to see it through to the end and make good their redemption of the world. For nothing less depends upon this decision, nothing less than liberation and salvation of the world.

You will say, "Is the League an absolute guaranty against war?" No; I do not know any absolute guaranty against the errors of human judgment or the violence of human passions but I tell you this: With a cooling space of nine months for human passion, not much of it will keep hot.

I had a couple of friends who were in the habit of losing their tempers, and when they lost their tempers they were in the habit of using very unparliamentary language. Some of their friends induced them to make a promise that they never would swear inside the town limits.

When the impulse next came upon them, they took a street car to go out of town to swear, and by the time they got out of town they did not want to swear. They came back convinced that they were just what they were, a couple of unspeakable fools, and the habit of getting angry and of swearing suffered great inroads upon it by that experience.

Now, illustrating the great by the small, that is true of the passions of nations. It is true of the passions of men however you combine them. Give them space to cool off. I ask you this: If it is not an absolute insurance against war, do you want no insurance at all? Do you want nothing? Do you want not only no probability that war will not recur, lout the probability that it will recur?

The arrangements of justice do not stand of themselves, my fellow citizens. The arrangements of this treaty are just, but they need the support of the combined power of the great nations of the world. And they will have that support. Now that the mists of this great question have cleared away, I believe that men will see the truth, eye to eye and face to face.

There is one thing that the American people always rise to and extend their hand to, and that is the truth of justice and of liberty and of peace. We have accepted that truth and we are going to be led by it, and it is going to lead us, and through us the world, out into pastures of quietness and peace such as the world never dreamed of before.

That was the speech given, and there was no trace of the alleged quote you display. Shortly after the speech, Wilson collapsed, and was incapacitated for the rest of the day. Several days later, he suffered a stroke. The fact that you used a false quote in your signature raises serious doubt about your other claimed quotes, as well as your credibility in general. Either way, this is a clear example of quote mining.

vgrippa

03-23-2009, 04:40 PM

I am sorry TW501 I found the real quote:

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men who, even if their action be honest and intended for the public interest, are necessarily concentrated upon the great undertakings in which their own money is involved and who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom."
Source: in his book, The New Freedom: A Call For the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People, chapter 8

TW501

03-23-2009, 05:37 PM

Very well, but that still doesn't change the fact that what you're doing is quote mining. Regardless of whether your position is correct or not, quote mining is not the proper way to prove it. Thomas Jefferson was anti-banking, but that doesn't make that position correct. The founding fathers were a diverse group of people with a diverse set of views. My point is that quotes that may or may not be in context are not sufficient grounds to base an argument upon. All the time you see fundamentalists taking quotes from the founding fathers with references to god as proof that we were meant to be a christian theocracy. It's simply a bad argument.

Marrow Rivengristel

03-23-2009, 07:53 PM

Did you watch the video? Because if you made your opinion without watching the video and being informed about it, it would be awfully FOX of you. lol

What? Of course I watched It what would be the point of posting in a thread discussing a clip without watching it?

Regardless If you can't pick up on alex jones's agenda and potential as a tool for elitism your not being a very astute conspiracy theorist.:guitar1:

Fatstogey

03-23-2009, 10:39 PM

What? Of course I watched It what would be the point of posting in a thread discussing a clip without watching it?

Regardless If you can't pick up on alex jones's agenda and potential as a tool for elitism your not being a very astute conspiracy theorist.:guitar1:

You watched that entire 1 hour show? Or just the single clip. There are 6 clips.

Alex Jones agenda is to provide any information he can find. He says he checks the credibility but i dont know that. I dont take this info as fact. I take it as suggestion. Then apply my own logic. And assume what i would do if i had the motive, opportunity, and resources to do what those in control do. And it simply makes sense. Regaurdless of what you say is proof. It makes sense to me. Because "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely." Make no mistake that the banks are headed towards absolute power.

Your house. Who owns it?
Your car. Who owns it?
Your boat. Who owns it?
Your property. Who owns it?

You dont. Because if you dont pay taxes they can be taken from you. So in fact you dont own them. Back in the day what you owned couldnt be taken from you.

We are providing good and services, at least i am cause im a technician, for worthless fiat money. That we then owe to use. We owe our time for something that has no value. It has value simply because we allow it to. And if i was in control this entity i would do the same thing. In their eyes if your too stupid to see it then you deserve to be a slave. We have to pay to be a part of civilization. The goods and services you provide to others insnt good enough payment. You have to pay cash as well.

Well we are past the point of it being theories. Our economy is collapsing as we speak and people think the solution is to take on more debt. Its obvious how predictable the masses are. We got ourselves into this because people were stupid to take loans they knew they couldnt pay. And the banking institutions were corrupt enough to allow them. Because they are trying to collapse the dollar.

So if thats how we got into this. By people taking on more credit than they could afford. They would allow the government to do the same thing. The government has just taken out massive loans, That WE have to pay back.

Im trying to save my money. Work is slow. Im not spending much. Im going out less. And being far less frivolous with my money. So the government is gonna force us to spend by spending it for us. Which is the wrong move. And its gonna prop the economy up long enough for Obama to start his second term. When this new government created wellfair bubble (larger version of the real estate bubble that just collapsed). Which is a bad investment. Its un transparent. And on top of that the investments are terrible.

Ask any stock broker if you should invest General Motors. See what they say. Then realize that you have already purchased stock in that company against your own will. They are forcing us to pay for profitless business. And if you cant understand how that will collapse the dollar then, im sorry im not trying to affend anyone here, your a moron.

I dont need any quotes from anyone to tell me that we are heading into another large inflationary period. With more risk and worst consequences than any before it.

@ TW we quote the forefathers cause they were aware of what is going on now. It is not a surprise at all. And we quote them because they are correct.

vgrippa

03-24-2009, 03:36 PM

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12784

^That is a very informative article if you take time to read it. In fact that whole website (www.globalresearch.ca) is a good source for some extremely interesting view points from all over the world.

Here is another fun one about the recent Jon Stewart interview everyone say:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12755

I regained hope in Jon Stewart after that interview because Jon Stewart was not just interviewing Cramer he was telling the American people to wake the fuck up and start paying attention to what is going on around you. Stephen Colbert even did the same thing right afterward in his "The Word" section (6:45 is very very important):

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/222069/march-18-2009/the-word---keeping-our-heads

Do not mind his sarcastic view and listen to the topic he is talking about. If you say take the thunderdome has his main topic you need to remove your head from your rectum then watch the clip again. It really isn't comedians job to do this but this is what we have been reduced to. I guess news stations have turned into circuses so someone has to report the news.

How do use the Fed's own magic trick against them:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12394

TW501

03-24-2009, 05:28 PM

@ TW we quote the forefathers cause they were aware of what is going on now. It is not a surprise at all. And we quote them because they are correct.
The problem with this is that just about every group uses quotes from the founding fathers to support their viewpoints, and each honestly believes that theirs is the right one. For example, Fundamentalists take quotes from the founding fathers referencing heaven and god and that sort of thing as 'proof' that the US was meant to be a christian theocracy.

The founding fathers were brilliant men, nobody is disputing that, but to imply that they are always right or that that their personal vision of America is absolutely correct, or even possible, for the modern age is rather foolish. They gave us the foundation of the country's laws and institutions, but were wise enough to know that a government that remained exactly the same forever could not last. We will probably never know exactly what position they would take were they in today's world. We can certainly learn from their wisdom, but simply cherry-picking quotes that support a particular position is a bad argument.

Also, I'd just like to say that the founding fathers were a diverse group of people with a diverse set of views. Jefferson was certainly anti-banking, but others, most notably Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of a central bank. Between all of the founding fathers, you can find unquestionably brilliant views, debatable views, controversial views, and downright silly views. That isn't to say that their opinions shouldn't at all be considered, just that we should be mindful of the fact that we live in a different time than they did.

Marrow Rivengristel

03-24-2009, 07:56 PM

YES I watched the stupid fucking clips !!:finger:

Fatstogey I have a question, one that I think you might legitimately be able to answer for me. Why do you guys (<-message board NWO resources) constantly talk down to people?

Do you think your the only ones who have ever been to cryptome or have read a Howard Zinn book? Don't you realize that you probably know less about the things you are presenting than many of the people that you lecture to? You do know that Corporate Imperialism isn't some new phenomenon right?

A little bit of a roast
Bankers are going to take over NOOOOOOOO! Bankers have been dictating the policies of the united states since it was founded my friend. The truth is this there is no NEW WORLD ORDER its the same old world order that has always existed. Same shit; the rich rape the poor; the rich fuck up the poor pay for it; the rich start wars the poor die in them blah blah blah.

Talking about things on message boards is not taking action.

Oh wait or are you trying to like mobilize resistance to Globalism is that it? If so maybe try being a little less puerile and abrasive.:idea:

TW501

03-25-2009, 04:45 PM

Remember that discussing reps in regular threads is against the rules and a bannable offense. Go to the neg-rep discussion thread to talk about that.

Fatstogey

03-25-2009, 05:41 PM

The problem with this is that just about every group uses quotes from the founding fathers to support their viewpoints, and each honestly believes that theirs is the right one. For example, Fundamentalists take quotes from the founding fathers referencing heaven and god and that sort of thing as 'proof' that the US was meant to be a christian theocracy.
See to me that is debatable. Again no quotes. Just if i were in there shoes. I am atheist and i have no belief in god whatsoever. Open to discussion about a being superior to ourselves. But not an omni-everything being who yada yada yada. However. If i was a founding father today. I know that if I was going to be followed by the mass public, i would need distinctly christian views to garner support from the majority. And given the other things theyve done. I would suspect they knew this as well. And no i have no quotes or proof. Just common sense. however not to say they werent religious fanatics. IDK maybe. But given their agenda and my logic. I assume, whether they believed or not, they had to throw it in there.

The founding fathers were brilliant men, nobody is disputing that, but to imply that they are always right or that that their personal vision of America is absolutely correct, or even possible, for the modern age is rather foolish. They gave us the foundation of the country's laws and institutions, but were wise enough to know that a government that remained exactly the same forever could not last. We will probably never know exactly what position they would take were they in today's world. We can certainly learn from their wisdom, but simply cherry-picking quotes that support a particular position is a bad argument.
Again different views. You look at the constitution as a "foundation" for us to build upon. As in our views or our interpretation of "the law of the land" would sit above the "foundation" of the constution.

I see the consitution as a guide. From beginning to end. Not of what you should will. But of what you should not allow, period. Its not "oh add to this whatever you see fit" its "do whatever you want except this, and you'll be ok"

Its linear. We can add on to these views. But not make views to sit above them. You have overlooked the purpose and created the purpose into what you want it to be. Its a foundation. You can build this house however you see fit. Once the walls and roof are up and the tile and carpet are in, you never see the foundation again. Wrong view.

Also, I'd just like to say that the founding fathers were a diverse group of people with a diverse set of views. Jefferson was certainly anti-banking, but others, most notably Alexander Hamilton, were in favor of a central bank. Between all of the founding fathers, you can find unquestionably brilliant views, debatable views, controversial views, and downright silly views. That isn't to say that their opinions shouldn't at all be considered, just that we should be mindful of the fact that we live in a different time than they did.

Well i actually never once mentioned Alexander Hamilton. And you cannot presume the snake in the grass to corrupt the whole lot. Where there profiteers among the founding fathers? With 0 doubt. However was the majority consensus and eventual Law of the Land for the benefit of freedom, liberty, and the people? With 0 doubt.

YES I watched the stupid fucking clips !!:finger:

Fatstogey I have a question, one that I think you might legitimately be able to answer for me. Why do you guys (<-message board NWO resources) constantly talk down to people? I dont talk down to people. As for "us guys" idk? They feel something must be done. And nothing can be done without support from others. So just as the religious intend to gain support in their cause, so to does any other who feels they have just cause. While i do state certain things i hold in high regard with fervor, it is my true intention to inform not to badger. And as i hate the religious I must apologize for giving that impression. No matter who has that impression. Its certainly not what i want coming across.
Plus dude its a forum. If we dont argue wtf are we gonna do here?

Do you think your the only ones who have ever been to cryptome or have read a Howard Zinn book? Don't you realize that you probably know less about the things you are presenting than many of the people that you lecture to? You do know that Corporate Imperialism isn't some new phenomenon right?
No but i think there are plenty who arent aware. Or who dont care. Ive said before "once the majoritys quality of life lowers enough, people will want to know then" And we must keep the topic hot so the information is available to them when they choose to seek it.
A little bit of a roast
Bankers are going to take over NOOOOOOOO! Bankers have been dictating the policies of the united states since it was founded my friend. The truth is this there is no NEW WORLD ORDER its the same old world order that has always existed. Same shit; the rich rape the poor; the rich fuck up the poor pay for it; the rich start wars the poor die in them blah blah blah.

Talking about things on message boards is not taking action.

Oh wait or are you trying to like mobilize resistance to Globalism is that it? If so maybe try being a little less puerile and abrasive.:idea:[/QUOTE]

No not since it was founded. Andrew Jackson freed the country again from a central bank. And his presidency was the last time the US deficit was at 0. 1837

And yea. The NWO, i dont like to really say that cause it does sound cooky but no less a possiblity, is beyond trying to earn money, like a bank. Its moving into a realm where we are the money. We are the owned assets. Yes we have been already. But its moving to a point beyond what its ever been before.

And no i havent know this forever. I was busy doing what they wanted me to do. Being entertained, getting drunk, and fuckin. lol

Only once my salary decreased have i been staying at home reading shit on the internet.

Consequently i just got home from the beach and im still a lil bit drunk right now.

TW501

03-25-2009, 06:17 PM

Fatstogey

03-25-2009, 06:29 PM

I'm not saying that it's entirely illogical to use quotes to supplement an argument, but too often people (sometimes unintentionally, sometimes not) merely take quotes out of context and basically say "Look, this famous and respected person said this! That settles it!"

Yea but a lot of people generalize those who share views such as mine. Into conspiracy theorists and kooks. Then we use quotes from the FF to demonstrate that people holding these views arent all "kooks." However i will agree it does, and i have lol, get to point of saying "oh so if im a kook GW is a kook too!?"

It is indeed a conundrum. LOL

But no matter what. George Washington was the mothafuckin man. LOL

TW501

03-25-2009, 06:45 PM

But no matter what. George Washington was the mothafuckin man. LOL
I think we can all agree on that, lol.

vgrippa

03-26-2009, 10:23 AM

Again different views. You look at the constitution as a "foundation" for us to build upon. As in our views or our interpretation of "the law of the land" would sit above the "foundation" of the constution.

I see the consitution as a guide. From beginning to end. Not of what you should will. But of what you should not allow, period. Its not "oh add to this whatever you see fit" its "do whatever you want except this, and you'll be ok"

Its linear. We can add on to these views. But not make views to sit above them. You have overlooked the purpose and created the purpose into what you want it to be. Its a foundation. You can build this house however you see fit. Once the walls and roof are up and the tile and carpet are in, you never see the foundation again. Wrong view.

I think the constitution was written and worded the way it was so we would have to think about what it says and not just take it for its written word. The founding fathers wanted us to read the constitution and try to remember what they were trying to free us from at that time not place regulations on the American people to limit their freedom. The constitution was made to protect the people not regulate them.

Yadomaru

03-26-2009, 10:56 AM

The constitution was made to protect the people not regulate them.
ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. The Constitution was never intended to be anything more than an outline of what the government could and could not do with regards to the rights of the American people.
The sad thing is the extent to which these guidelines have been ignored and/or violated in the last ten or so years.

The last time the government tried to use the Constitution as a means to regulate or control the people's actions, the wrong people got rich and everybody else got shafted.
Remember Prohibition? Constitutional Amendment #18? That worked out really fucking well, didn't it?[/sarcasm]

Fatstogey

03-29-2009, 05:14 PM

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY. The Constitution was never intended to be anything more than an outline of what the government could and could not do with regards to the rights of the American people.
The sad thing is the extent to which these guidelines have been ignored and/or violated in the last ten or so years.

The last time the government tried to use the Constitution as a means to regulate or control the people's actions, the wrong people got rich and everybody else got shafted.
Remember Prohibition? Constitutional Amendment #18? That worked out really fucking well, didn't it?[/sarcasm]

Well prohibition still exists in marijuana. And its separate from other drugs in the publics own view.
The general public, marijuana users or not, dont believe it to be a crime. I know plenty of people who dont like pot at all. However they dont think people should go to jail for it. And this is most of the people i know. However idk about the majority of the country. But imo i think most agree that its along the lines of alcohol and it shouldnt be prohibited.

But the law does not follow the will of the majority. That is where amendments come into play. For change of the will of the majority. If the constitution said weed was illegal, it doesnt, but the majority of the public thought that to be wrong. An amendment to legalize marijuana would seem like a legitimate amendment because its the will of the people.

None of these amendments that exist are the will of the people, nor do they benefit the people. People wont stand for it. There are plenty who wont sacrifice their freedoms for protection.

We are asking for slavery. Its retarded. People want the government to get bigger. So it can save them. People have no pride. No pride in themselves and their own ability to provide services for others. They need the government. Which is the wrong move.

However i think the govt is accelerating the agenda to fast. I dont think the people are ready for this. To many who want freedom still exist. I dont want the government changing the rules. I still like the constitution. Its still relevant and if its forgotten then freedom will be forgotten. The constitution is the guide to freedom. We havent been following it for a long time.

vgrippa

03-31-2009, 02:26 PM

Fatstogey

03-31-2009, 02:47 PM

^Amen

It just sucks that all this could be fixed so incredibly easily and we could get back on track in less than a year no problem, but Obama would rather stay on his knees in front of Wall Street instead of standing up. I have faith in the American people. We will have a revolution along with the rest of the world. The band Hed P.E. said it best, "We give you until 2012 to get out the f**king White House. We run this s**t." (Song: Family Album: N.W.O. - New World Orphans)

Well thankfully. WE had Bush to make us aware. Bush made us not totally trust the president. So Obama is being scrutinized right from the beginning which is a good thing. People are already starting to realize that Obama is not the Jesus they thought he was gonna be.

Change? Yea hes gonna change. Hes gonna do teh same thing. Just more and faster. lol that was his change. Everything they are doing already goes directly against what they campaigned for. And the people arent falling for it anymore.

However there are still tons of stupid people who support obama simply because they dont know the actual facts. They dont know anything.

LOL Shit im for freedom. But i almost wish there was a test. A test you must pass to be allowed to vote. We can vote. But we have huge stupid masses who are easily persuaded. And will vote, just because its there rigth. NOt because they are informed. They basically just vote for whoever they see on tv the most. And proven with obamas election.

But agian people are already saying "whoa there buddy, whoa." And we must educate the stupid masses so they know what hes doing is not the answer. He hasnt changed anything. hes doing more of what bush was doing. And doing a lot more of it.

Im not religious but id liken Obama more to the antichrist than jesus. Hes a snake oil salesman. And their blatant lies have been made evident very early in their admnistration. And they are arrogant to think that its ok, cause obama has the idiotic masses hypnotized. This dude is gonna collapse our economy.

Good stuff on glen beck right now. Check fox news. I hated them before. Butim so happy they are now taking oppisitional stances to the president.

vgrippa

04-01-2009, 12:59 PM

"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand." -Milton Friedmen

Wall Street is running out of the bullshit they are using to cover up the truth. Every day I find someone new that is talking about this and soon all the "sheepeople" will start breaking away from the folk and turn into wolves.

Obama is one of the best puppets they are showed us in a long time. I mean just recently he forced some of the CEOs for auto companies to resign but what about the banks? AIG alone has taken over 151 billion dollars and completely wasted it but their CEO is still sitting on his throne. Also his "new age" idea of having both repubs and demos in his administration is completely retarded. If he really wanted to be "new age" he would have completely changed the administration all together by firing everyone. All he did was put the same idiots that caused the problems back in control. Fix the problems by adding more problems to them. If you are going to do that you might as well give Americans a credit card to pay off all their debts with and then make them pay that credit card off the next day.

I am actually pretty happy that he is going to collapse the economy because eventually things will hit the "tipping point" and the American people will get tired of just being force fed bullshit. Once that happens the educated Americans will take center stage and start the revolution.

If America really wanted change they would vote for the Green Party. Their economic platform is written by Ellen Brown who advocates Congress printing its own debt-free money and abolishing the Federal Reserve. Right now the Green Party is the only party who is actually trying to fix this country through Monetary Reform and placing regulations on Wall Street making them accountable to the American people.