• 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!

Is this funny to you?

We have a "rogue" government who are the REAL terrorists


  • Total voters
    42
Wait a minute. Let me put your input into perspective, here. You haven't challenged any of the facts from the link, such as what they've done to the first amendment, or reserving the right to execute emergency orders (martial law) during peacetime, etc.

The direction this country is headed in is, historically, a bad one. If you remain oblivious to it, it keeps going in that direction. There is much reason for concern, yet, according to fellow American shrubnose, nobody should voice any concerns. If we're not happy - get out. Listen, buddy, if you're happy with what is transpiring in Washington, you are a masochist.
Wake up. You're not in Kansas anymore.




I am awake.

You are the guy who needs to wake up, take a look around, and recognize that he has little to no support for his weird ideas.

Believe whatever wacky ideas that you want to believe, just don't expect a huge crowd to follow you over the cliff into never-never land.




"If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there."
~Lewis Carroll
 
Social justice is his agenda in my view.
Yeah ... I thought it was inarguable ... that's why I was surprised to see 3 pages of pushback on what's obviously the case.
Oh well ... waddya gonna do.
 
I don't need to. Instead, let's focus on your inability to challenge and prove me wrong. No, let's not - you've wasted enough of my time. Join the growing ranks who want to talk sht about how I'm talking nonsense, but then fail to counter it with anything intelligent. It's dumb, really. If you don't provide a valid argument on the subject matter to go along with the personal attack, then the personal attack fails and YOU look stupid, not me.

Again, that's not how it works. You say something stupid, no one has to prove you wrong. The burden is yours to convince. No counter is required.
 
Okay okay okay ... enough of this.

Are we really discussing whether or not Barack Obama views the political & social system of the USA as one that would benefit from a Socialist makeover?
And that he knows the US Constitution is an impediment?
So he can't come right out and say it so he has to be careful when going about his work?
While some here either don't believe it or, like him, can't acknowledge it?
Is that pretty much a summary?




I do believe that it's a pretty good summary of the way that some of the people in the USA think.

They will all be mighty disappointed some day when they finally wake up and realize that almost none of the terrible crap that they spent a good bit of their life worrying about ever happened.
 
.

They will all be mighty disappointed some day when they finally wake up and realize that almost none of the terrible crap that they spent a good bit of their life worrying about ever happened.

I don't think waking up is even possible without the correct admixture of medication and therapy.

I am almost 60, and the only difference between the lunatics 50 years ago holding up their cardboard signs warning people that the end was near and today's version is the advent of the internet providing insane people a better sense of anonymity, a wider audience and a support mechanism for their shared psychosis, all legitimized by this media that provides them their soap box and does not select rationality over raving paranoia.
 
Yeah ... I thought it was inarguable ... that's why I was surprised to see 3 pages of pushback on what's obviously the case.
Oh well ... waddya gonna do.

There's not much one can do except to continue to hold his ideology up to our Constitution and continue to point out how far off base it is from our first principles. And as far as principles go related to the statement in the poll "We have a "rogue" government who are the REAL terrorists", I agree we have a "rogue" government but not to the point of equating it to terrorism . But it definitely has become unprincipled, unreliable and deceitful.
 
Hannity: Obama Can ‘Declare Martial Law’ in Peacetime!

Due to the fact that so many here appear completely unaware that they have laughed themselves out of freedom, due process, and a government with checks and balances, I challenge anybody to refute any of the information from the above link. While you people laughed at "conspiracy theorists" who paid close attention to executive orders and bills such as the NDAA that were quietly signed with little to no media attention, the legal framework for totalitarian dictatorship was passed into law.

I suspect people don't believe it because they haven't read all the documents, and they haven't seen the implementation of it. Of course, they also completely ignore things like the DHS and every other agency arming itself to the teeth, and Obama firing 11 military generals in one day (apparently weeding out the patriots), false flag operations in Boston, Colorado, and Connecticut (all attempts to try to get Americans to demand gun confiscation and abolishment of the 2nd amendment).

Obama, and all members of congress have broken their oaths and committed treason, yet NOTHING is done about it. You're either unaware or you just don't care about you, your family, and future generations. If you don't believe it, you can read it all and see that it's there in black and white (you can link to the actual documents from the above link).

I urge you to accept my challenge and disprove any statement from the above link. Please don't dismiss it just because you can walk outside right now and see a bunch of "freedom" going on. They're no doubt making final preparations and deciding on an "event" to use as a hammer-dropper. If Americans were smart, there would be indictments and recalls, and impeachment. More likely, they're going to sit idle until the NWO has everything in place. It's very near that point, and then it's too late.

If you want to find all of Obama's executive orders, just Google it. They are there.
 
That's not Hannity; its Beck and they are over the top on their interpretation of laws and reject all others.

Hannity/beck its all the same to me.

You know if I actually believed that link and their assertion that "OBAMA IS TRYING TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, BECOME A DICTATOR, AND TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!" I wouldnt be online talking about it. If it were true we would all be out on the streets at this very moment. But its just conspiracy hype from entertainers that know how to make money off of conspiracy theorists.
 
Well I disagree; I won't even listen to Beck because that is his rhetoric, where as Hannity just thinks he sucks as a leader - to which I can agree.


Hannity/beck its all the same to me.

You know if I actually believed that link and their assertion that "OBAMA IS TRYING TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, BECOME A DICTATOR, AND TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!" I wouldnt be online talking about it. If it were true we would all be out on the streets at this very moment. But its just conspiracy hype from entertainers that know how to make money off of conspiracy theorists.
 
False flag events (like 911 for example) do not require the deaths to be fake, but in Sandy Hook and Boston marathon we saw evidence of phony crisis actors who were "witnesses" at both events. People caught on camera at the supposed Boston bombing dispersing fake blood, along with that famous video of the man who very quickly dumps "ashes' amidst a crowd of people, and even amputee actors with gruesome Hollywood style prosthetics being paraded down the street in a wheelchair instead of being loaded into one of the many ambulances that waited, and waited.....and waited.

Sandy Hook was as phony as it gets. The "grieving parent" at the press conference who didn't know the camera was rolling and was shown laughing on the set just seconds before his "tearful" speech. His speech was unconvincing after that bit of insight. Again, waiting ambulances, but no bodies. People who lived in that tight-knit neighborhood saying they never heard of that guy and his mother. They tried to say his mother worked at the school until no one would corroborate it.

911 is the emergency call service Americans use when they need help from firemen, police or paramedics.

'Phony crisis actors'? I think you have had too much to drink from the kool-aid.
 
I watched the video and the guy has an interesting idea, but I don't plan on doing it anytime soon.

Heh! It's from the movie, 'Network'. It'd be called a cult classic except it won umpteen awards.
I've been yelling out my window but it's kinda futile up here- just alarms the chickens.
 
Okay okay okay ... enough of this.

Are we really discussing whether or not Barack Obama views the political & social system of the USA as one that would benefit from a Socialist makeover?
And that he knows the US Constitution is an impediment?
So he can't come right out and say it so he has to be careful when going about his work?
While some here either don't believe it or, like him, can't acknowledge it?
Is that pretty much a summary?

Pretty much - and that people here seem to take freedom for granted and don't seem to have a clue that the rug is slowly being pulled out from under them. If I wasn't on the same rug, they could all just remain clueless for all I care. That is not the case, unfortunately.
 
I am awake.

You are the guy who needs to wake up, take a look around, and recognize that he has little to no support for his weird ideas.

Believe whatever wacky ideas that you want to believe, just don't expect a huge crowd to follow you over the cliff into never-never land.
Little to no support? Why is he still in office? He has been impeachable for a long time now. If you are awake like you say you are, you would be aware that they are not necessarily his ideas...there's a corporate influence and a jewish think tank, as well. I didn't express my "beliefs" either, as you put it. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. Repeat after me.... I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. Is it getting through yet?
 
Lots of countries are happy to admit American citizens. Do a little research, Google is your friend.

Russia admitted NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden recently.

I can't believe you called Snowden a whistleblower and not a wack-o conspiracy theorist! Congratulations.
 
Hannity/beck its all the same to me.

You know if I actually believed that link and their assertion that "OBAMA IS TRYING TO VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION, BECOME A DICTATOR, AND TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS!" I wouldnt be online talking about it. If it were true we would all be out on the streets at this very moment. But its just conspiracy hype from entertainers that know how to make money off of conspiracy theorists.

Everybody keeps saying if it was true "we'd all be on the streets etc." Slow down..I'M saying that the framework for this scenario has been written into legislation and is there. It's not my opinion or belief. It exists. They can use it when they are good and ready. You can read it yourself. It is undeniable. Also undeniable, are the actions of FEMA and DHS that clearly show they are planning to be good and ready for SOMETHING. Just making observations. Use the insight and have some intuition. Observe.
 
Everybody keeps saying if it was true "we'd all be on the streets etc." Slow down..I'M saying that the framework for this scenario has been written into legislation and is there. It's not my opinion or belief. It exists. They can use it when they are good and ready. You can read it yourself. It is undeniable. Also undeniable, are the actions of FEMA and DHS that clearly show they are planning to be good and ready for SOMETHING. Just making observations. Use the insight and have some intuition. Observe.

Well then we disagree, but thats nothing new
tinfoil.gif
 
Well then we disagree, but thats nothing new
tinfoil.gif


Disagree on what? Interpretation of the executive orders? Of section 1021 of the NDAA? I followed the NDAA case from start to finish. The first judge threw it out, giving the indefinite detention clause a permanent injunction because the government refused to be more specific about the meaning of "associated forces". Federal judge Katherine Forrest, said that such a broad and vague meaning meant it could be anything. She called it "chilling" and permanently enjoined that section from ever becoming law..

Obama's lawyers appealed immediately. Two corrupt judges overturned the enjoinment, without forcing them to clearly define "associated forces" or "belligerent act". This means that it's whatever they say it is. Obama said he had "reservations" about signing it, but promised he "would never abuse the power". How's Obama's track record on promises? Do you think that this doesn't obliterate Habeas Corpus? What exactly do you disagree on? If Section 1021 stands it will mean, as Forrest (the first judge) pointed out in her 112-page opinion, that whole categories of Americans—and here you can assume dissidents and activists—will be subject to seizure by the military and indefinite and secret detention." Yes, we can see that hasn't happened, but, you have to be an utter fool to think they designed this to not use it.

With regard to the executive orders - 5 words to be concerned about: "in peacetime" and "regardless of ownership".
 
Disagree on what? Interpretation of the executive orders? Of section 1021 of the NDAA? I followed the NDAA case from start to finish. The first judge threw it out, giving the indefinite detention clause a permanent injunction because the government refused to be more specific about the meaning of "associated forces". Federal judge Katherine Forrest, said that such a broad and vague meaning meant it could be anything. She called it "chilling" and permanently enjoined that section from ever becoming law..

Obama's lawyers appealed immediately. Two corrupt judges overturned the enjoinment, without forcing them to clearly define "associated forces" or "belligerent act". This means that it's whatever they say it is. Obama said he had "reservations" about signing it, but promised he "would never abuse the power". How's Obama's track record on promises? Do you think that this doesn't obliterate Habeas Corpus? What exactly do you disagree on? If Section 1021 stands it will mean, as Forrest (the first judge) pointed out in her 112-page opinion, that whole categories of Americans—and here you can assume dissidents and activists—will be subject to seizure by the military and indefinite and secret detention." Yes, we can see that hasn't happened, but, you have to be an utter fool to think they designed this to not use it.

With regard to the executive orders - 5 words to be concerned about: "in peacetime" and "regardless of ownership".

Plainly I disagree with everything that you have claimed. I am just not a conspiracy theorist and I am certain that you believe all kinds of things about what you think I believe. I am fine with that situation because of the irrelevance of it all. And dont assume me to be a fool just because we dont see eye to eye.
 
Plainly I disagree with everything that you have claimed. I am just not a conspiracy theorist and I am certain that you believe all kinds of things about what you think I believe. I am fine with that situation because of the irrelevance of it all. And dont assume me to be a fool just because we dont see eye to eye.

I did my best to try to turn what you said into something that made sense, but your inability to say something more than just you "disagree with me" has foiled my attempt. I never called you a conspiracy theorist, and, I really have to wonder what is your purpose posting here? There ought to be a minimum brain cell requirement to be able to post.
 
False flag events (like 911 for example) do not require the deaths to be fake, but in Sandy Hook and Boston marathon we saw evidence of phony crisis actors who were "witnesses" at both events. People caught on camera at the supposed Boston bombing dispersing fake blood, along with that famous video of the man who very quickly dumps "ashes' amidst a crowd of people, and even amputee actors with gruesome Hollywood style prosthetics being paraded down the street in a wheelchair instead of being loaded into one of the many ambulances that waited, and waited.....and waited.

Sandy Hook was as phony as it gets. The "grieving parent" at the press conference who didn't know the camera was rolling and was shown laughing on the set just seconds before his "tearful" speech. His speech was unconvincing after that bit of insight. Again, waiting ambulances, but no bodies. People who lived in that tight-knit neighborhood saying they never heard of that guy and his mother. They tried to say his mother worked at the school until no one would corroborate it.

Holy banana crap!! I'm not sure this requires a response.
 
Back
Top Bottom