unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
As far as I'm concerned current policies are failing policies. You call it what you want, I'll vote for my conscious in the end.
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
As soon as you accept that they really aren't much different and either have continued or will continue failed Bush policies.
These aren't "Bush" policies.
These are the "consensus" (ie. what "they" could agree upon) policies of the global elite.
These are the policies that must be enforced to bring about the hoped for result they desire.
They may not make sense to you, and they may even seem detrimental\suicidal in the short term, but it is perhaps because you can not see the goal they are striving for.
If you want to see what a "real" internal policy debate looks like,
you could check out:
Joseph Biden's How I Learned To Love The New World Order WSJ article... and see where the genuine points of disagreement may come between "hawks" and "doves" ...
but most of (if not all) of the "debate" you hear on the media is just for show. There is no real policy difference between any two "selected" candidates, because they take orders\recommendations from the same ultimate group of "real" "leaders".
ps - i picked that article, because, as Obama's Vice President, it shows you what "alignment" Obama has (vis a vis his VP) going in to the White House (read the title, he MEANS it) and it also shows you a genuine glimpse of REAL policy debate between elite "factions". It also includes most of what you mentioned in your original post: war and money, namely.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
As far as I'm concerned current policies are failing policies. You call it what you want, I'll vote for my conscious in the end.
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
do you see me starting anti-mitt threads? ... i think i am about as non-partisan as it gets here ... i supported ron paul, i posted about the drones under obama and i said that mitt was better than obama in the debate last nite from what i saw ...
i don't even like obama ... i do think mitt is horrible but that is besides the point ...
look at my posts - i've been railing on the partisanship for years ... i recognize that both parties suck and are only interested in serving their donors and base ...
As far as I'm concerned current policies are failing policies. You call it what you want, I'll vote for my conscious in the end.
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
do you see me starting anti-mitt threads? ... i think i am about as non-partisan as it gets here ... i supported ron paul, i posted about the drones under obama and i said that mitt was better than obama in the debate last nite from what i saw ...
i don't even like obama ... i do think mitt is horrible but that is besides the point ...
look at my posts - i've been railing on the partisanship for years ... i recognize that both parties suck and are only interested in serving their donors and base ...
I agree it is the global elite policies that have been in play for some time.
I think it behooves those that are aware of such things to *frame their own debates accordingly*.
I'm not knocking anything you said in specific. I'm just asking for those who understand what games are really being played to openly discuss *those games*, and not sideshow diversions.
If the gripe is with central bank policy, or with globocop war practices, lets discuss those policies, and lets discuss how they fit in to *the plan* **as you understand it** and do not allow the debate, from its inception, and due to faulty wording, to be drawn *back down* in to a partisan quagmire.
If you know the elite are playing an entirely different game and are more or less unconcerned with republican\democratic policies ... it is unhelpful to *anyone* here for us to set up questions which reek of partisanship (whether that was your intention or not).
So far as I know, the *only* candidate who is (just below his breath) 100% anti "new world order" would be Ron Paul. How do i know this? All i really need to know is that he is a long time friend of the John Birch Society. He gave their keynote speech a few years ago. Their stated goal is the reversal and obstruction of "new world order" policies. I could give you another laundry list of reasons i believe him to be genuine in his adherence to "anti-nwo" policies, but i don't think anyone here really needs that list (certainly not you).
That being said, we should frame debates accordingly, or they just become sort of trivial. The points in your OP are fair points, but it seems to be a "setup" for a partisan mudslinging match.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I think it behooves those that are aware of such things to *frame their own debates accordingly*.
I'm not knocking anything you said in specific. I'm just asking for those who understand what games are really being played to openly discuss *those games*, and not sideshow diversions.
If the gripe is with central bank policy, or with globocop war practices, lets discuss those policies, and lets discuss how they fit in to *the plan* **as you understand it** and do not allow the debate, from its inception, and due to faulty wording, to be drawn *back down* in to a partisan quagmire.
If you know the elite are playing an entirely different game and are more or less unconcerned with republican\democratic policies ... it is unhelpful to *anyone* here for us to set up questions which reek of partisanship (whether that was your intention or not).
So far as I know, the *only* candidate who is (just below his breath) 100% anti "new world order" would be Ron Paul. How do i know this? All i really need to know is that he is a long time friend of the John Birch Society. He gave their keynote speech a few years ago. Their stated goal is the reversal and obstruction of "new world order" policies. I could give you another laundry list of reasons i believe him to be genuine in his adherence to "anti-nwo" policies, but i don't think anyone here really needs that list (certainly not you).
That being said, we should frame debates accordingly, or they just become sort of trivial. The points in your OP are fair points, but it seems to be a "setup" for a partisan mudslinging match.
exactly!
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Points taken.
The original post was an agenda for all of that. My intent was to illustrate that BOTH candidates take those stances, hence the social issues comment at the end.
As far as I'm concerned current policies are failing policies. You call it what you want, I'll vote for my conscious in the end.
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
Spot on lad, excellent post.
And for what it's worth, I would have given my right arm to see Ron Paul up there on the stage, it's a scandal that he is continually marginalised in American politics. He would be the danger to both sides, and because of that he'll never see the light of day on this kind of platform.
As far as I'm concerned current policies are failing policies. You call it what you want, I'll vote for my conscious in the end.
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
Spot on lad, excellent post.
And for what it's worth, I would have given my right arm to see Ron Paul up there on the stage, it's a scandal that he is continually marginalised in American politics. He would be the danger to both sides, and because of that he'll never see the light of day on this kind of platform.
I feel the same way---but I wouldn't give my right arm....maybe a dollar or two.....
Comments
When you attack Obama the way you probably attacked Bush then come judge my thought process. Because until then I don't really respect the opinions of those that don't do that. THAT is partisan politics.
As soon as you accept that they really aren't much different and either have continued or will continue failed Bush policies.
These aren't "Bush" policies.
These are the "consensus" (ie. what "they" could agree upon) policies of the global elite.
These are the policies that must be enforced to bring about the hoped for result they desire.
They may not make sense to you, and they may even seem detrimental\suicidal in the short term, but it is perhaps because you can not see the goal they are striving for.
If you want to see what a "real" internal policy debate looks like,
you could check out:
Joseph Biden's How I Learned To Love The New World Order WSJ article... and see where the genuine points of disagreement may come between "hawks" and "doves" ...
but most of (if not all) of the "debate" you hear on the media is just for show. There is no real policy difference between any two "selected" candidates, because they take orders\recommendations from the same ultimate group of "real" "leaders".
ps - i picked that article, because, as Obama's Vice President, it shows you what "alignment" Obama has (vis a vis his VP) going in to the White House (read the title, he MEANS it) and it also shows you a genuine glimpse of REAL policy debate between elite "factions". It also includes most of what you mentioned in your original post: war and money, namely.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
do you see me starting anti-mitt threads? ... i think i am about as non-partisan as it gets here ... i supported ron paul, i posted about the drones under obama and i said that mitt was better than obama in the debate last nite from what i saw ...
i don't even like obama ... i do think mitt is horrible but that is besides the point ...
look at my posts - i've been railing on the partisanship for years ... i recognize that both parties suck and are only interested in serving their donors and base ...
This is true. He hates all Americans equally.
Just kidding polaris.
I agree it is the global elite policies that have been in play for some time.
I think it behooves those that are aware of such things to *frame their own debates accordingly*.
I'm not knocking anything you said in specific. I'm just asking for those who understand what games are really being played to openly discuss *those games*, and not sideshow diversions.
If the gripe is with central bank policy, or with globocop war practices, lets discuss those policies, and lets discuss how they fit in to *the plan* **as you understand it** and do not allow the debate, from its inception, and due to faulty wording, to be drawn *back down* in to a partisan quagmire.
If you know the elite are playing an entirely different game and are more or less unconcerned with republican\democratic policies ... it is unhelpful to *anyone* here for us to set up questions which reek of partisanship (whether that was your intention or not).
So far as I know, the *only* candidate who is (just below his breath) 100% anti "new world order" would be Ron Paul. How do i know this? All i really need to know is that he is a long time friend of the John Birch Society. He gave their keynote speech a few years ago. Their stated goal is the reversal and obstruction of "new world order" policies. I could give you another laundry list of reasons i believe him to be genuine in his adherence to "anti-nwo" policies, but i don't think anyone here really needs that list (certainly not you).
That being said, we should frame debates accordingly, or they just become sort of trivial. The points in your OP are fair points, but it seems to be a "setup" for a partisan mudslinging match.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
exactly!
The original post was an agenda for all of that. My intent was to illustrate that BOTH candidates take those stances, hence the social issues comment at the end.
Spot on lad, excellent post.
And for what it's worth, I would have given my right arm to see Ron Paul up there on the stage, it's a scandal that he is continually marginalised in American politics. He would be the danger to both sides, and because of that he'll never see the light of day on this kind of platform.
I feel the same way---but I wouldn't give my right arm....maybe a dollar or two.....