The Obama Deception - Full Film
- Thread starter deberry
- Start date
Free speech bitches.... go cry to the mods if you dont like hearing THE TRUTH? dont like DONT READ IT. simple no one forced onto this.
Hey Silky, weren't you already banned once on this exact topic. How the hell did you get from Obama to 9/11.
You are a very sad person, but I do have an idea. I think the whole board should nominate you for Misty's blowjob challenge. It seems to me that you need to clear your pipes, oh sorry meant to say brain.
By the way, Elvis is still alive. His reported death was a government conspiracy coverup.
Yea i know you dont have common sense you cant understand how that Beijing hotel burned for over 24 hrs and its still standing meanwhile WTC7 wasnt hit by anything and it collapsed in on itself. Oh dont ask questions, ust shut up like a good little slave.
How did I get from 9/11 to Obama? READ YOU FUCKING DICK FACE!
You are a piece of shit zaig and i'm tired of your bitch ass. STFU and die ok? Just STFU AND DIE YOU LITTLE BASTARD!
I could be wrong, but I think I touched a raw nerve.
I think I see a banning in your future.
I really do think you should enter the blowjob contest. You need some relief.
I have to go now, Silky hurt my feelings.
Eat a dick and die you piece of shit. Go fuck your mother too.
You are everything that is wrong with the world and you should be flushed down the toilet you fucking turd!
Come on Lightbear, don't sugarcoat it, tell me what you really think.Eat a dick and die you piece of shit. Go fuck your mother too.
You are everything that is wrong with the world and you should be flushed down the toilet you fucking turd!
Hey lightbearer, just calm down dude. I enjoy your opinions and I like how you think outside the box with your opinions but, I think guys like zaig and company really just wanna get you banned so just cool yourself and let your nautral abilities of debating be your voice and not loosing your cool. Don't waste your energy on guys, who are obviously just trying to egg you on to get you banned.
Great, another country heard from.
Brilliant thinking. How can anyone get someone else banned. I am not typing on lightbears keyboard. Those words are coming from his fingertips, not mine. If he is not in full control of his faculties, that's his problem. Not mine.
I'm telling you, he's Captain Queeg. It's the strawberries.
What do you call this?
Hey, all I was trying to do was to tell the guy to check himself. If, I offended you I apologize. I just like seeing healthy debating going on without the elementary stuff that goes along with it.
As far as an apology is concerned, definately not neccessary. I don't personally get offended from any posts on this board. I do from time to time have my intelligence offended by some of the stupidity that is posted here.
I too enjoy a good debate, but in case you have not read any of his postings, he is not all there.
You haven't read his posts; he doesn't think "outside the box". He quotes only from the bible of Alex Jones. In his world, there are only three possible types of people:
- fellow devotees of the cult (angry white Americans, mostly, but obviously others as well)
- ignorant "sheeple" (anyone who disagrees with the tenents of his faith)
- the real masters of the planet who orchestrate all events, and their willing minions.
Ad hominem after ad hominem after ad hominem dont you get tired? Do you even LISTEN to Alex Jones? Go google his radio show and WATCH him read MAINSTREAM news articles ok. Now grow the fuck up airhead.
This is for you:
How I Learned to Love the New World Order was originally published in the Wall Street Journal April 23, 1992 on page A13.
Joseph R. Biden Jr defends his view that the Pentagon’s new strategy which appoints the US as a sort of world monitor could render the US a hollow superpower. Biden explains why he reacted the way he did to the plan.
Imagine my surprise when a Wall Street Journal editorial appointed me dean of the Pat Buchanan school of neo-isolationism. My credentials? Believing that the Pentagon’s new strategy — America as “Globocop” — could render the United States a hollow superpower. All agree we need the military capacity to defend our vital interests — by ourselves when need be. The question is grand strategy. With the Journal’s endorsement, the Pentagon has called for a Pax Americana: The U.S. should cast so large a military shadow that no rival dare emerge.
American hegemony might be a pleasant idea, but is it economically, politically or even militarily wise? Bristling with weapons, we would continue our economic decline, while rising industrial and financial giants in Europe and Asia viewed our military pretensions with indifference or contempt.
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney outdid even the Journal, dipping deep into the well of Cold War argumentation to accuse Pax Americana critics of thinking “America’s world presence is somehow immoral and dangerous.
” Why doesn’t the Journal stop the namecalling, get its schools sorted out, and court an honest debate over America’s proper role in the new world order?
Pat Buchanan’s “America First” preaches martyrdom: We’ve been suckered into fighting “other” people’s battles and defending “other” people’s interests. With our dismal economy, this siren song holds some appeal.
But most Americans, myself included, reject 1930s-style isolationism. They expect to see the strong hand of American leadership in world affairs, and they know that economic retreat would yield nothing other than a lower standard of living. They understand further that many security threats — the spread of high-tech weapons, environmental degradation, overpopulation, narcotics trafficking, migration — require global solutions.
What about America as globocop? First, our 21st-century strategy has to be a shade more clever than Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun. Power also emanates from a solid bank balance, the ability to dominate and penetrate markets, and the economic leverage to wield diplomatic clout.
Second, the plan is passive where it needs to be aggressive. The Journal endorses a global security system in which we destroy rogue-state threats as they arise. Fine, but let’s prevent such problems early rather than curing them late. Having contained Soviet communism until it dissolved, we need a new strategy of “containment” — based, like NATO, on collective action, but directed against weapons proliferation.
The reality is that we can slow proliferation to a snail’s pace if we stop irresponsible technology transfers. Fortunately, nearly all suppliers are finally showing restraint. The maverick is China, which persists in hawking sensitive weapons and technology to the likes of Syria, Iran, Libya, Algeria and Pakistan — even while pledging otherwise.
The Senate has tried to force China’s leaders to choose between Third World arms sales (1991 profits of $500 million) and open trade with the U.S. (a $12.5 billion annual Chinese surplus). Even though we have convincing intelligence that China’s leaders fear the use of this leverage, the president inexplicably refuses to challenge Beijing.
Weapons containment can’t be foolproof; and against a nuclear-armed North Korea, I would support pre-emptive military action if necessary. But let’s do our best — using supplier restraint and sanctions against outlaw sellers and buyers-to avoid having to round up the posse.
Why not an anti-proliferation “czar” in the cabinet to give this objective the prominence it urgently needs?
Third, Pax Americana is a direct slap at two of our closest allies — Japan and Germany — and a repudiation of one of our panel1. Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? great postwar triumphs. For years, American leaders argued that building democracy in Europe and Asia would guarantee stability because democracies don’t start wars. Now the Pentagon says we must keep our military large enough to persuade Japan and Germany “not to aspire to a greater role even to protect their legitimate interests.”
How has our success suddenly become a threat? It hasn’t, but the Pentagon plan could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. By insulting Tokyo and Berlin, and arrogating to ourselves military stewardship of the world, we may spark the revival no one wants.
Secretary Cheney says he wants the allies to share the burden on defense matters. But Pax Americana puts us on the wrong end of a paradox: Hegemony means that even our allies can force ever greater U.S.
defense spending the more they try to share the burden!
Fourth, collective security doesn’t rule out unilateral action. The Journal says I’m among those who want “Americans . . . to trust their security to a global committee.” But no one advocates that we repeal the “inherent” right of self-defense enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Secretary Cheney says his plan wouldn’t undermine support for the U.N. Who would know better than the U.N.’s usually understated secretary general? If implemented, says Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Pentagon’s strategy would spell “the end of the U.N.” Rather than denigrating collective security, we should regularize the kind of multilateral response we assembled for the Gulf War. Why not breathe life into the U.N. Charter? It envisages a permanent commitment of forces, for use by the Security Council. That means a presumption of collective action — but with a U.S. veto.
Rather than defending military extravagance, the Bush administration should be reallocating Pentagon funds to meet more urgent security needs: sustaining democracy in the former Soviet empire; supporting U.N. peacekeepers in Yugoslavia, Cambodia and El Salvador; and rebuilding a weakened and debt-burdened America.
If Pentagon strategists and their kneejerk supporters could broaden their horizons, they would see how our superpower status is best assured. We must get lean militarily, revitalize American economic strength, and exercise a diplomatic leadership that puts new muscle into institutions of collective security
Well, LB, now i am actually curious. Why would you post a lengthy article, which seems like a perfectly reasonable opinion, from 1992, by someone who is now the vice-puppet and a representative of the evil overlords? Does it reveal his horrendous future plans in some code? Do you actually understand it? Is it random text?
No it just shows there is a new world order. If you mentioned it years ago other than WCW wrestling you got laughed at because it deosnt exist. Now the vice president writes an article about loving it. What else exists that they said is all whacky shit? Viruses in vaccines? Man made AIDS? Staged terror acts? Hitlers second book was called "The New World Order". Its too long to copy and paste:http://hitlersdiaries.com/HitlersDiariesPhilosophy2.html
Ok now please look at this:http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r210_35.pdf
Not just for Americans, us too. Heres some video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P-hvPJPTi4
And that ties into this new gun bill. Armed public wont go willingly. I mean shit this gun bill has caused 32 states to introduce bills for there soveriegnty. They smell tyranny. Now please look at this http://www.infowars.com/secret-stat...rr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/
Alex called the missouri police on radio today and confirmed it was real. When its on youtube dont worry I'll post.
They are going to set up a Nazi like state over here. And then the rest of the world with one world government, after WW3 of course.
Thank you, you did answer my question. It had the code words "new world order" in the title, and you didn't understand it.
Thank you for your time.
I'm glad you bothered to take your ignorant ass and go through all the stuff I posted. Never mind government plans to put us in camps. Keep drinking the koolaid
