• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did Bill Gates admit that vaccines are used for depopulation?

WCH said:
Prove that.
Click to expand...

Happy to oblige and it took less than twenty seconds.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/congress-declares-civil-wars-aims-july-25-1861-005095

Congress declares Civil War's aims July 25, 1861
By ANDREW GLASS 07/25/2007 06:04 AM EDT

On this day in 1861, Congress enacted a resolution declaring that the Civil War was being fought to preserve the Union, not to abolish the South's "peculiar institution" of slavery. The resolution was named for Rep. John Crittenden of Kentucky (1786-1863) and Sen. Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (1808-1875), who became president upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

The resolution was aimed at keeping the pivotal states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland in the Union. As the war had begun a few months before, in April, Lincoln was worried that those three slave-holding states might join the Confederacy. (Delaware, the other slave state on the Union side, had so few slaves that its fealty was never in doubt.) Were Maryland to bolt, the nation's capital would be surrounded by Confederate territory. And since Lincoln was born in Kentucky, losing the state early could be viewed as a major political setback for the White House.


The resolution said the war was being fought not for "overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions of those states," but to "defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution and to preserve the Union." The war, it further stated, would end when the seceding states returned to the Union.
Click to expand...

Is that official enough for you?
 
Deuce said:
Lots of people think the earth is flat, too. You and I are only responsible for our own beliefs.
Was your answer wishy-washy on purpose or did it just come out that way?
Click to expand...

Nope. Gates foundation is responsible for foreign vaccinations. Who knows what's in those or what the results of administration have caused.
 
WCH said:
Nope. Gates foundation is responsible for foreign vaccinations. Who knows what's in those or what the results of administration have caused.
Click to expand...

"Who knows" is a wishy washy answer. A cop out.

Gates is a liberal, so you're willing to entertain any absurd conspiracy theory about him. It's cute.
 
haymarket said:
Happy to oblige and it took less than twenty seconds.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/congress-declares-civil-wars-aims-july-25-1861-005095



Is that official enough for you?
Click to expand...

Sounds like Imperialism. It also goes against your reasoning that the "freeing of slaves: didn't become an issue until later in the war. It, according to Congress, was never an issue.

Regardless the Abolitionists had been at work for a couple of hundred years. They used guilt as a weapon.
 
Deuce said:
"Who knows" is a wishy washy answer. A cop out.

Gates is a liberal, so you're willing to entertain any absurd conspiracy theory about him. It's cute.
Click to expand...

Glad you think so. This CT has been around for decades and it doesn't involve American children.
 
WCH said:
Glad you think so. This CT has been around for decades and it doesn't involve American children.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's a monumentally stupid one. It's up there with chemtrails and lizard people.
 
WCH said:
Sounds like Imperialism. It also goes against your reasoning that the "freeing of slaves: didn't become an issue until later in the war. It, according to Congress, was never an issue.

Regardless the Abolitionists had been at work for a couple of hundred years. They used guilt as a weapon.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how Congress can pass a resolution in the summer of 1861 that explains the reason why they are going to war and at the same time prohibits forever the later change in future reasons for continuing the war?

There can be a reason for starting a war and then as the war develops and changes along the way, a different reason can come up to continue fighting the war that goes beyond the initial reason which is deemed no longer sufficient to continue support.

You were proved wrong. You tried to equate the exploitation of poor whites in the South to die for a cause that did not benefit them with white guilt in the North. Why you did this - why you felt it was necessary to do this - why you felt it was important to defend the exploitation of poor whites by richer slaveholders is a mystery to me but you did it just the same. Maybe its a right wing thing to defend slave owners? Maybe you felt it was some moral equivalency that conservatives have to defend even when it is false? I really can only speculate why you saw fit to do it when your basic premise was so incorrect.

Be a man and just accept it.
 
Last edited:
This has always been one of my favorite conspiracy theories. The entire thing revolves around Bill Gates giving this presentation where he literally describes how much the population is going to increase. From that, people conclude Bill Gates wants the population to decrease.

Conspiracy theorists are just stupid. That's all there is to it. They have ridiculous interpretations of what they see.
 
haymarket said:
Can you tell me how Congress can pass a resolution in the summer of 1861 that explains the reason why they are going to war and at the same time prohibits forever the later change in future reasons for continuing the war?

There can be a reason for starting a war and then as the war develops and changes along the way, a different reason can come up to continue fighting the war that goes beyond the initial reason which is deemed no longer sufficient to continue support.

You were proved wrong. You tried to equate the exploitation of poor whites in the South to die for a cause that did not benefit them with white guilt in the North. Why you did this - why you felt it was necessary to do this - why you felt it was important to defend the exploitation of poor whites by richer slaveholders is a mystery to me but you did it just the same. Maybe its a right wing thing to defend slave owners? Maybe you felt it was some moral equivalency that conservatives have to defend even when it is false? I really can only speculate why you saw fit to do it when your basic premise was so incorrect.

Be a man and just accept it.
Click to expand...

Why did you feel the need to bring the CW into this topic at all? Because you're losing it?
 
WCH said:
Why did you feel the need to bring the CW into this topic at all? Because you're losing it?
Click to expand...

Attacking me does not change the reality that you blew it on this one. My post #10 actually agreed with your earlier post. You could have simply accepted my agreement and moved on but for some reason unknown to me , you tried to engage in this false equivalency about the North and South and why they fought and white guilt.

Why did you do that when I was supporting your post with further historical examples?

Am I viewed as such a political enemy that you have to instinctively oppose what I say even when I am agreeing with you?
 
haymarket said:
Attacking me does not change the reality that you blew it on this one. My post #10 actually agreed with your earlier post. You could have simply accepted my agreement and moved on but for some reason unknown to me , you tried to engage in this false equivalency about the North and South and why they fought and white guilt.

Why did you do that when I was supporting your post with further historical examples?

Am I viewed as such a political enemy that you have to instinctively oppose what I say even when I am agreeing with you?
Click to expand...

Off topic.
 
haymarket said:
Attacking me does not change the reality that you blew it on this one. My post #10 actually agreed with your earlier post. You could have simply accepted my agreement and moved on but for some reason unknown to me , you tried to engage in this false equivalency about the North and South and why they fought and white guilt.

Why did you do that when I was supporting your post with further historical examples?

Am I viewed as such a political enemy that you have to instinctively oppose what I say even when I am agreeing with you?
Click to expand...

Takes two to tango, Bro.
 
WCH said:
Takes two to tango, Bro.
Click to expand...

Actually in this case it only takes one and that was you when you attempted your first post replying to me agreeing with your premise. You could have simply accepted my agreement and moved on but for some reason unknown to me , you tried to engage in this false equivalency about the North and South and why they fought and white guilt.
 
WCH said:
The Abolitionists stirred up hate among the Northerners for decades before the war. Don't tell me that these people had nothing to do with starting the war.
Click to expand...

Oh boy, they stirred up “hate” for slavery. Horrifying. You dare they hate Americans being brutally enslaved, beaten, sold like cattle away from their families, raped at a whim and murdered with impunity. They were just picking on the poor poor south :roll::roll::roll:
 
Tigerace117 said:
Oh boy, they stirred up “hate” for slavery. Horrifying. You dare they hate Americans being brutally enslaved, beaten, sold like cattle away from their families, raped at a whim and murdered with impunity. They were just picking on the poor poor south :roll::roll::roll:
Click to expand...

Wasn't their cause rather, their methodology I question. I'm surprised given they were basically the extremely religious, they would get much support from the Left.

Which ever, they had no issue with the killing of 100s of thousands of their fellow countrymen to achieve their goal. They pressured Lincoln into proceeding.
 
WCH said:
Wasn't their cause rather, their methodology I question. I'm surprised given they were basically the extremely religious, they would get much support from the Left.

Which ever, they had no issue with the killing of 100s of thousands of their fellow countrymen to achieve their goal. They pressured Lincoln into proceeding.
Click to expand...

Considering that the Confederates had already had shot at federal troops, things were going to proceed no matter what. And I don't think many decent people had a problem with killing slavers--- especially since once they murdered federal troops they lost any right to declare themselves "Americans".
 
WCH said:
Wasn't their cause rather, their methodology I question. I'm surprised given they were basically the extremely religious, they would get much support from the Left.

Which ever, they had no issue with the killing of 100s of thousands of their fellow countrymen to achieve their goal. They pressured Lincoln into proceeding.
Click to expand...

Lotta Germans got killed in the 30's and 40s to achieve a goal too.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Considering that the Confederates had already had shot at federal troops, things were going to proceed no matter what. And I don't think many decent people had a problem with killing slavers--- especially since once they murdered federal troops they lost any right to declare themselves "Americans".
Click to expand...

Abolitionist John Brown attacked Federal troops at Harper's ferry in 1859...a year and a half before the start of the war.

Still other abolitionists felt that violence was the only way to end slavery. These militants resorted to extreme and deadly tactics, and incited violent insurrections. These acts of terror aroused fear in slaveholders, but also led to the execution of perpetrators.




"I will be heard!" Abolitionism in America
 
WCH said:
Abolitionist John Brown attacked Federal troops at Harper's ferry in 1859...a year and a half before the start of the war.

Still other abolitionists felt that violence was the only way to end slavery. These militants resorted to extreme and deadly tactics, and incited violent insurrections. These acts of terror aroused fear in slaveholders, but also led to the execution of perpetrators.




"I will be heard!" Abolitionism in America
Click to expand...

Boo-****ing hoo. Maybe if they didn't, you know, enslave Americans, there wouldn't be anyone to "strike fear" into them.

There's a reason England and France didn't come running to the Confederacy's rescue. Want to guess what it was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom