Can you find a Concentration Camp in your state?
yahamita
Posts: 1,514
I knew all the rules, but the rules did not know me...GUARANTEED!
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
www.seanbrady.net
do a search on the page for concentration camps..
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
Unbelievable. The shit some people come up with. I like how it's so top secret that people are just allowed to stroll up and take pictures.
REX84 is a REAL program, and has been fully implemented for well over a decade.
i believe that question touches upon a sensitive and highly classified area.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ground breaking news, or perhaps just information put out to raise awareness?
It looks like an old page to me, ( re: format compared to infowars.com itself).
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Because he is no different than Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, and telling people what they want to hear. Nobody on this board has seen this personally or has any real facts this is true, but fuck, it is sent to Alex Jones, they have to slurp his shit up.
Seriously, dont listen to these people anymore than you listen to the Rush Limbaugh followers. None of them no shit, they just read and believe what they want too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_84
Did you not catch the martial law threat over the bailout just recently? That should be a wake up call like no other. It happened. It's real.
Whether these camps exist or not is moot conjecture. I think you paint people with far too broad a brush to justify your own beliefs.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
What are my own beliefs? Tell them to me, because I bet you dont have a goddamn clue to my beliefs. I voted for Nader in 04, when most on this board were on the Kerry bandwagon. Now, I read this board this election, cycle, and many of the Kerry supporters in 04, are were rallying for Nader. So tell me my thoughts beliefs since you obviously know so well. I was well ahead of this board, and will certainly hold the Kerry supporters in 04 more accountable than the Obama supporters now.
In saying that, that doesnt mean I believe anything sent to Alex Jones, who believe it or not, (am Im sure you wont acknowledge this), is a for profit entertainer no different than Hannity or Limbaugh. People believe what they want to believe, and listen to what they want to hear, and you are no exception.
I live in the south, and have been to Miss. more times than you, I promise. Because you read it on the internet doesnt make it true. Wake the fuck up. There are serious issues in the world and in this country and continent, and you dont help those issues by sitting behind your comp and eating up bullshit opinions from someone making money from you. ANd go ahead and write me off as you wish and make yourself feel better about yourself. But you know as much about this world as the Hannity keyboard commandos, which isnt shit.
Why would you hold them more accountable? btw, who did you vote for this time around? Just curious.
I'm trying to see how far ahead you are,
I hold them more accountable because Kerry was just as full of shit as Bush, and didnt even hide it. In 04 the issue was the war. Kerry voted for the war, in August of 04 said he wouldnt have changed that decision, and never said he would end the war. Yet, the anti-war misinformed crowd eat him up.
And this year I voted for Nader as well. IT will be the last time. He isnt serious about running. He is a great guy who has done a lot for the US and world in general. And I agree with a lot of his points But at this point, after I voted for him, I realized he is for face time and nothing else.
Ron Paul actually cares and actually tries to be president. It was a failed effort. But Paul, at least did gain the attention of many and made a dent. Both are older guys, so who knows if they will make the effort again. But Nader, after the last 2 elections, I know wont get my support. His past efforts I love, but at this point he is done and could care less about being president. If he did he would at least make a serious effort, just like Paul did.
Well I find it conflicting points of view that you dismiss Alex Jones altogether by saying people that look into him just blindly slurp up what he offers, but then hold the beliefs you just outlined above. I'm no big fan of his To be honest I visit his website maybe once or twice a month, but he is far from deluded on the issues if that was your original intention.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Why do you think Nader wasn't serious?
It doesn't look like we're getting anyone who opposed the invasion this time, either. In fact I think Kucinich and Gravel were the only democratic candidates that opposed it.
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
I hold Obama supporters =ly accountable. They made no demands on him, gave him a free pass to the white house.
Every wrong turn Obama made, in a speech or action was greated with excuses from his followers.
The excuses will continue years from now and in 2012 we will be left with "We have to vote for Obama again, we can't have Palin win"
I do not agree that Nader is only for face time, you know he is mainly trying to bring issues to the table and the issues he speaks of, his views are very sound.
The Problem with Ron Paul, he pretty much gave up at the end. I just don't see much fight in him. But he is a smart guy, he had a big chance to do some real damage this election but he did not. The dent may not be big enough.
But as I feared back in 2004, the time of the neo libs is coming and now it has arrived with Obama and co. I feel they are much more dangerous than the neo cons before them.
btw, the neo cons are a dying breed. I mean that way of thinking will still be around, but they will be replaced by another power group, The next couple of years will show us with what.
The hope is, Ron Paul style, but he did not do enough, like I said the dent is just not big enough.
No No, I dont disagree with everything he says by any means. But, I do get the feeling there are many that eat up his shit with no questions asked. Maybe that isnt you, and I apologize if I put that on you. But lets be serious. Jones is just the opposition extreme of Limbaugh or Hannity. Does he say some things that have an element of truth? Certainty. Does he also feed a lot of complete bullshit? Certainly.
If he was serious he would have tried. Kucinich, Gravel, Paul, are at least member of parties that matter. Should they be the only parties that matter? No. But the truth is they are. Nader, who knows damn well it takes money to compete, (again, I dont agree with the money element, but that is reality), raises no money, hardly campaigns, and basically releases youtube videos.
Like I said, I voted for him the last 2 elections. But it wont happen again. He cant win or even make a dent. I hadnt even heard of Ron Paul until this last election cycle, and made very nice headway. He did that because he was serious. Nader needs to back a Kucinich or someone similar in 12, but he needs to sit that one out, unless he is serious.
Nader gave a record number of campaigns speeches, he was all over. Of course he only got time on the tele a few times.
I don't think he ran until Kucinich dropped out and he said he would have stayed out had a real progressive, like Kucinich, won the nomination. Also he and Matt Gonzalez did campaign, they didn't get any coverage and were not allowed into the debates, again.
Lastly, b/c of the votes he received the Independent party no longer has to petition for ballot access in several states in 2010
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'
I dont completely separate Obama and Kerry supporters, dont get me wrong. I am saying, dont lecture me on Nader this year, if you supported Kerry 4 years ago. At least Obama brings some type of vision to the table, where Kerry didnt. But, like I said, I voted for neither, but my personal opinion, is that Obama will be the better president of the two.
How do you say Paul gave up at the end, but Nader didnt? That is delusional. Paul had his own separate convention during the repub convention back in Aug(sept?). Paul seriously tried and broke fundraising records. Nader, was relying on his name. Sorry, I love Ralph Nader for the things he has done. But this last election, he put no effort in to, and certainly no effort compaired to Paul.
Paul didnt win, but he made a didnt. Nader become more irrelevant every time he pretends to compain. There is at least hope with Paul, because he puts the effort in. Nader doesnt.
Oh ok...misunderstanding...my bad.
edit: I agree with you btw..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
First off, who cares if Kucinich is running. They werent in the same party, so why not preach to the same choir, but try to expand it. He knew Kunich wasnt going to win the dem nomination, so that point is moot.
They should be allowed in the debates. He and Paul would have humiliated Obama or McCain, I agree on that.
I could be wrong on this, but there is no indepentent party. I voted for him as an indepentent, but Bob Barr and others were also noted as independents. You could be right on that, but it isnt many states, since his party wasnt distinguished from the libertarians at least in my state, and they were both considered independents.
Now about Obama, sure he has a vision, but tell me, does that make him at all better? Taking into account what that vision of his is, which we can understand via his voting record and speeches...plus who he's throwing on board his team.
I'm not in the mood of getting started with the whole 'Nader is irrelevant' right now, i've touched on that in other threads.
But you must admit, is anything Nader says, irrelevant? Now compare him to the rest of the field. How can anyone come to the conclusion that nader does not matter anymore?
Then he simply wasnt as successful as Paul. Paul broke campaign finance records, Nader was irrelevant this whole election cycle. Regardless, Nader's past is far more important than his present or his future. Not sure what Paul will do in 2012, but he at least opened the door for a long shot candiate to win, Nader never did, and a lot of that is his own fault.
I dont know if his vision makes him better or not. I think he has the approval of not only the country, but most of the world though, which at least helps the US standing in the world. What he does with that, is impossible to say at this point.
No, Nader's ideas arent irrelevant, many of his ideas I think are great. His running for office is irrelevant because he is old and many have no clue who he is, and he does nothing to change that.
But, it isnt about Paul or Nader. THey are both old. It is about someone carrying out their ideals in 2010 and 2012. Paul has at least laid a foundation, Nader hasnt.
Any significant changes in society have always come from the bottom up, such as women's right's, racial equality, gay rights...etc..etc.. The government didn't mandate any of these monumental changes, the people themselves made it a reality.
Ron Paul has repeatedly stated he wouldn't really prefer anyone to know his name, or ever place him on a such a high pedestal if her were president. In fact, he hates it. I see the same traits in Nader. I think they get it that it's not a top down approach. It's always been up to the people to bring the results, and shape and create the policies. I think this plays in a lot into what they say and do, and how they both ultimately think.
They're quietly and persistently putting out the information, and patiently waiting for the lightbulbs to go off instead of playing up the Hollywood popularity contest aspects that so many other politicians get high (and unfortunately elected) from.
Ron Paul created something that can't be stopped without some kind of severe fascist/oppressive rule. That genie cannot be put back in the bottle. What he has going for him is long term consistency, which is perhaps why has been received better in general than Nader imo. Nader has more of an "on and off again" rapport.
my .0000001¢
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
His bank balance and self promotion. He doesn't give a rats ass about you, me or anyone else. He acts like he is doing everyone a favor by making them see the light, but really, all he cares about is the dollars rolling in.
Maybe that's what the half million coffin liners were for. Alex's billions....
Edit: Guess I could comment on the OP. Not buying into concentration camps.
Every time one group of people acts irrationally, a rational opposing group is ready to gain more control over them.
I voted for Perot in my 1st election. Funny how the Democrats who didn't want Nader to run didn't mind Perot 'stealing' voted from the Republicans
'How a culture can forget its plan of yesterday
and you swear it's not a trend
it doesn't matter anyway
there's no need to talk as friends
nothing news everyday
all the kids will eat it up
if it's packaged properly'