Miburo

Okay. I guess we'll just wait on you then.

ACt

That's odd - because there are quite a few people looking down at you right now.

That barb aside, I also await some evidence or theories because I am interested in what people think is going on. So please - more debate, less pointless jabber.

LonelyNinja

First off, he said he was going to take troops out of Iraq. That's what he's doing. He said he's going to send more troops to Afghanistan. Know why? Because that's where the enemy really is. Taliban and al-Qaeda are both prevalent and a threat over there. America finishes what it starts. Also, it would be more of a threat to national security if we gave those terrorist kikes time to build up their forces and resources. Instead, we're going to stay there and bomb the shit out of them. Like we should have done from the beginning instead of going after Iraq.

Creating a thread does not reflect a person's intellect. Just because someone is smart doesn't mean they start threads all willy nilly. Just because someone does make a thread doesn't mean they're smart. The smart people don't need to post a shit ton because they're able to get their point across with as little posts as possible. Unfortunately, this intellectual ability is undermined by individuals who do not understand what is posted. Also, the "smart are coming down" on you because your previous posts (and the posts of others, perhaps) did not meet proper criteria.
Wait. People saying "new world order" isn't all that important, but you made a thread about a conspiracy of a new world order precisely because you were lead to believe so because people said "new world order?"

I can't take this topic seriously. "Well, Obama is told what to do by a small group of people." Yes, that is called the Cabinet. Every. Single. President. Has. Appointed. A. Cabinet. That does not mean that every President has been influenced by special interest groups. Sure, many of the Founding Fathers were Free Masons, but the Free Masons were not nor were they ever a satanic cult bent on world domination. In fact, most politicians are members of some kind of special interest group. Religion, political affiliation, et cetera. And yet, our world hasn't become a single, uniform entity. There's too much diversity and safeguards for that.

All laws reflect some ideology or another. That is not unusual at all. But not everything from a specific ideology is used. For example, we don't stone adulterers or disobedient children. Laws are made to preserve economies, protect the people, and so on. There has to be some inspiration or reason for all of this. We need special interest groups to better our society.

Or is it this "elite" that you're worried about? Well, I'm quite fond of the elite because they are elite for a reason. They're better than the peons beneath them. They have more money, power, and influence and are usually highly educated. What's so bad about being ruled by that? I mean, it's worked for the last entire human history. Oh. I get it. You're not part of the elite, so you're just upset you aren't a part of it. Probably why you're against us smart people. Now it all makes sense.

__________________

AniMeFaN

^on your first reply, the longer we stay over there the more enemies we create, the more people we piss off to be recruited to al queda, we are killing innocent people in the middle east and 9 years have passed since 9/11, are entire country is in debt including the governement and we have spent trillions to go to war and are keeping tons of soldiers over seas for years.

on your second reply, i never suggested that people who start threads or post indicate intelligence, there was talk of this part of the forums being only for intelligent people and i merely asked where are all of them, i dont see new threads being made very often, i dont see posts being made very often.

on your third reply, the video was called the invisible empire, because these people are doing this behing closed doors and manipulating the world, the name is not whats important as i stated. the way it works is important.

you think that im making this thread because im not one of the elite, yea well i would have to be one of a few hundred select people out of billions to be one. you think that they know better because they have what they have and should be ruling us, why dont you move to a dictator ship if you want to be ruled, the constituion was made inorder to protect peoples liberties and freedoms from the government, it is a safeguard against the governemt which has been abused in modern times.

everything you have said in its entirety just shows how foolish you are.

LonelyNinja

Yes, we should leave the Middle East alone. Not like sexism, radicalism, poverty, the heroin market, Antisemitism, bigotry, and genocide is, ya know, detrimental to society or anything. If we brought proper education and relief to the Middle East then they'd be a lot better off. We just need to get rid of the snags (read: improvised explosive devices) in the area. So what if nine years have passed? Over seventy years have passed since World War II. Does that mean we should forget about the Holocaust? Absolutely not. I'd rather spend decades looking for al-Qaeda's leaders and eliminating them rather than pulling every troop out now and let them get back up to snuff. Most, if not all, of America's current problems in the Middle East are from not finishing what we started. The economy goes up and down, regardless of war or peace. Sure, we'd probably be better off if we weren't in Iraq, but it was bound to happen eventually.

The syntax, tone, and word choice of your sentences heavily imply that "Thread making = Smart." You also use the same things to imply that you're being shat on by the smart people for making a thread, not for failing at being insightful or at the very least constructive.

Everything, and I mean everything, happens behind closed doors. Hospitals, governments, businesses, churches, schools, and Xenu knows what else. I don't understand what your beef is with that. Is it because you think you're being mislead? Well, tough titties; that's gonna happen a lot. Is it because you think you're being left in the dark? Well, even tougher titties; it's honestly for your own good. If Obama told the public about everything (from policy making to military strategy) then we'd be in a bigger mess than when his universal health care bill was announced and the Republicans ran with it. President Washington coined the term "presidential privilege." It basically means that the President is allowed to withhold certain documents and the like in order to preserve national security. It really is for our own good that Obama consults with his trained advisers than with the general public. Or do you think he's being used by special interest groups? Well, it happens, but good things do occur from it. A lot of public works projects are funded by special interest groups, and in order to stay in business they have to deal with people in high places.

They do know better because they obviously know how to get what they want and how to keep it. If we had more fellows like Carnegie and Rockefeller we'd be prospering. Unfortunately, bleeding-heart liberals and hardcore socialists keep any future Carnegies from getting a foothold anywhere. A dictatorship is different from what I'm proposing. A dictatorship is one person with too much power. I'm all for a government of many individuals who have both power and a system of checks and balances. Hell, the United Nations is basically what our world would be like if everyone fucking cooperated, unlike Iran, Pakistan, Palestine, North Korea, and so on. Plus, as a citizen of the United States I am ruled already. It's just run differently than other nations, such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Iraq, India, Brazil, yadda yadda yadda. You can't escape control from a higher, legal power. Actually, the Constitution is about how the government should work. The Bill of Rights protects liberties and freedoms. No, they are not the same thing. The Bill of Rights was originally tacked onto the Constitution to appease the Anti-Federalists. Obama's administration isn't abusing their power, nor is the legislative branch. An abuse of power would be forcibly removing all Republican members of the House or Senate, for example. Instead, they pass laws, bills, and decide new courses of action. Yeah, sure sounds like an abuse of power (except it's following the rules and guidelines set in the Constitution... Oh, wait).

Lolol, u mad?

__________________

AniMeFaN

would like to first off thank miburo and mal for once again thanking a post by one of their own friends, regardless of what was written.

^on your first reply, do we need thousands of troops to bomb and take over a country inorder to find an extremely small group of terrorists, do you even think they are in the country, do you think if we havent found them in 9 years we are all of sudden going to, this would seem more like a job for a small special ops group with a small amount of military back up, we are at war with enitre countries because a few guys staged an attack?? we didnt even do it the right way, we didnt declare war on a country, we declared war on terror and marched in.

its not our job to police the world, we cant just march into countries and force are ways upon them, we dont have any damn money, we are bankrupt and we are borrowing money and going into furhter debt to finance a war against a few guys, this is part of the problem, also how do you think we would feel if someone like china put millitary bases in the united states against its will, because thats what we did in alot of places even before 9/11.

you say world war 2 happened a long time ago, should we just forget about it, why would we forget about a war that already happened, not really following your logic or how its relevant to leaving a country in an undeclared war going on for 9 years against a small group of people who are terrorists. world war 2 didnt even last 9 years. you say the economy goes up or down regardless of war, well i can assure that economies always go down because of war.

on your second reply, that is completely wrong go read it again.

on your third reply, im not really sure why policies should be kept secret, they will become public, unless the majority of people are against the policies. not everything should be private like the federal reserve, many congressmen, people of the senate etc agree, it is a seperate entity of the federal governement owned by private bankers and they can just print money, they control the money suppply which effects the economy and we can not audit them and they refuse to tell us what they are doing.

on your 4th reply,you say they know how to keep what they have and get what they want, this is because they use there power and influence to manipulate the system, you say if we had more rockefellers we would be more prosperous, these are the people who are using abusing the system to make themselves richer at our expense. the bill of rights gives us our rights, the constitution is in place to protect us from our government abusing its power which protects our rights.

lolol u mad?
why would i be mad, you are the one who doesnt really know what they are talking about, not me. you are the one who will not learn anything from this conversation because you arent open to the possibility of being wrong.

ACt

Yeah - right on! Couldn't possibly be that they actually agree...

Only part of the reason armed forces were sent to Afghanistan. The other was to remove a group that was running the country, making it a safe harbour and a training ground for terrorists groups who were responsible for a horrific attack on the USA (despite what conspiracies you may want to believe, the hijackers were al qeada). Oh... and they were horribly surpressing the masses with violent means. The problems with the attack was not the motives but rather the rushed planning and the failure to account for the porous nature of the Afghan/Pakistan border - which is largely the reason the Taliban still have major presence and the war has gone on too long.

The idea of policing the world seems a bit totalitarian, I know, but when the enemy becomes one without borders, it becomes a world problem and those with the ability to defeat these enemies must step up and do so. America is one of those nations who can. They shouldn't do it alone, but since they have a massive military, they should definitely play a major role.

May I ask what you would do with this information?

The phenomena that rich people gain power and band together with rich people and work to influence change/policy/economics/governance is so very old - what about this is so wrong? Especially in the western world where most people of affluence are self-made or, at least, have used money wisely to become more powerful. Perhaps it is easy to be angry today because of what has recently happened to the economy, but believe me, even those who are responsible will be the ones working to bring it back to a stronger position - which will benefit the country as a whole.

What makes this system palatable to me is that it isn't closed. Yes, people with less appear to have less power, but if they are driven to, they can work hard and gain access to the upper echelons. It isn't easy, but it can be done. Political leaders of today can often come from poor backgrounds (it sometimes helps with the campaigns) - the idea that these people are handpicked and told what to do seems completely unrealistic. There certainly is more at play than we see, but I refuse to believe that it is a closed system and all is determined by a select few. I see no evidence for it other than they ask for advice from their fellow political leaders and big business as these are the major players in the world.

Ah yes - the "you are wrong and don't see it" argument. Debates would be so much better if people gave in so easy. Perhaps the true statement is that you aren't open to the possibility that one of us may be right.

Finally, I am working through that video you posted - 30 minutes in one sitting before I felt the need to shut it off. I agree with Mal's early assessment, but would like to add another point. It may change, but so far the makers of this "film" have relied on one "expert" and the rest is stock footage and snippets of documents. Of all the good documentaries I've seen, the makers tend to spread out the expertise to get multiple opinions and often multiple points of view. This work is coming across very narrowly and that diminishes its impact for me so far. (I also nearly wretched at the plea for support as if this were PBS or something... the guy came across vaguely cult-like.)

LonelyNinja

You're just jealous that you're not their friend, too.

We do have a small special ops group there: the Green Berets. But have they found any al-Qaeda leaders recently? No. Why? They don't have enough support. If you send in a team of five to comb a twenty square mile area you are bound to miss a lot of shit, and since the enemy isn't stationary it's almost impossible to find them. Now, if you have two hundred fifty soldiers combing this same area, well, your chances of finding the enemy go way up. So, yes, we do need more troops. No, we aren't going to magically find all of al-Qaeda sitting in the same cave. But we'll find the dipshits on the lower rungs and find out where the higher-ups are. Nineteen guys didn't get together and say, "Hey, we should hijack some American planes and do terrorist things!" Rather, those nineteen were part of a larger group. This larger group was harbored and encouraged to act under the government of Afghanistan. So, fuck yes we do need to be in that country to take down those bastards to keep that shit from happening again. It's hard to wage war on an entity that isn't concrete. I'm not a fan of the so-called "War on Terror" because terror is a tactic, but I'm behind the idea of eliminating known terrorist groups.

The United Nations is for policing the world. The United States military just happens to be the most effective for the job. Think of America as the SWAT of the United Nations police force. It's for getting shit done properly. We actually have plenty of money. America's GDP is still one of the highest in the entire world. Our debt just makes it harder for the country to utilize it to its fullest. It's like a credit card. You can still function if you have a lot of debt, it's just a pain in the ass once the bills come in. (By the way, every single nation has debt, so America is no exception. We simply have one of the highest.) America put bases in other countries because we went to war with them or they needed our aid. Putting bases in Germany and Japan in post-WWII was a damn good idea. Putting bases in West Berlin, France, and Belgium worked wonders during the Cold War. Bases are an insurance policy.

Alright, since you clearly don't understand the very simple analogy, let me dumb it down even further: What fucking difference does it make that it's been nine years since the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Well, I can assure you that war can benefit the economy. America went into World War II during the Great motherfucking Depression. It came out as a motherfucking superpower with following years of economic prosperity. Don't see the connection? Then let me further elaborate: America invented many goods during WWII that every other nation wanted. So, war makes money. It costs money, yes, but it pays for itself and then some. We're still in the middle of this war, so we aren't going to see any surplus until it's over. Which it won't be until we win. When's that going to be? I don't know. No one really knows. But I'd argue that it'll happen within the next decade.

I did. And you still make it sound like you're some victim of "t3h smrt3r" people. Grow up.

They should be kept secret so dumbshits or our enemies don't take advantage of it until all of the kinks are worked out. Misinformation and -interpretation springs up from not having the whole picture. If a rough outline of a new policy is released to the public then they have a hey day with it and make a mess of it before it's been fully realized.

Thank you for helping me review my Economics course. Now, who gives a fuck about the Fed? You're pissy that they're more or less autonomous from the government? Well, here's a pro to that: they don't get caught up in bipartisan bullshit that keeps any progress from being made. The pencil pushers in the Fed know what they're doing. They aren't a bunch of loonies who scream, "WE NEED MOAR MONAY, YAAAY!" and print several billion dollars.

It's not called "abusing" if they're acting within the rules. Rockefeller was good at what he did because he knew what he could and couldn't do and acted accordingly (by viciously eliminating his competition in a fair, capitalist way). "Richer at our expense." That is the basis of every single business in the entire world. You make McDonald's richer by spending your money there. Is McDonald's "abusing" the system? No. You make Shell richer by spending your money there. Is Shell "abusing" the system? You make any grocery store richer by spending your money there. Are these grocery stores "abusing" the system? No. ...The Constitution is not about protecting the people from the government. That's what the Bill of Rights is for. The Constitution explains how our government should work. It covers the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Yes, clearly I don't know what I'm talking about. Not like I'm countering every single one of your arguments. I'm not allowing myself the possibility that I'm wrong because you are not doing a very good job of proving me wrong. Instead you try to misdirect the argument by making false assumptions about me rather than back up your claims with actual evidence.

And judging from the comments about the video I'm not going to bother watching it.

__________________

AniMeFaN

i really dont care if im friends with them, i just dont think its right for them to be thanking posts that clearly are wrong in majority of it claims, which could lead to other people believing these things, unless they actually agree than i have no problem.

100,000 troops doesnt sounds like a small special ops group backed by some military enforcement, the fact is where looking for guys who are living in caves, they are operating out of caves. they are probably not in the country as we have not found them in 9 years, we are sending our country further into debt inorder to finance this war which majority did not want and still dont want. we have spent trillions on this war which has no intended timeline to end because we went in to the war undeclared in an unconstitional way.

you say we actually have plent of money, our gdp is one of the highest. how can we have plenty of money if we have the largest debt in the world, explain that? explain how a country that is consumption based is going to pay off the largest debt in the world? explain how the counrty that is consumption based with a huge trade defecit can have money?

you say you can assure that war helps the economy,you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you say amreica produced war time goods and made money in ww2, well that is because the were not the ones fighting the war, they just manufactured goods needed by countries in war, countries fighting a war never benefit from it economically, never.

you say who gives a shit about the fed, there are so many political figures and people who want to audit it and are against it, let me ask you how many recessions and depressions have we had since it was made (in 1913 i believe), how many before, you know why we had all these economic problems, because of the fed, this is why people want to audit it, thats why people care about it, its owned by private individuals who control the money supply and keep there precedings secret.

funny that you bring up rockefeller, im studying for a test right not, pre ww1, rockefeller happens to be mentioned in my textbook, let me quote my book for you
" in the end rockefeller triumphed over his competitors by marketing products of high quality at the lowest unit cost. but he employed other, less savory methods as well. he threatend rivals and bribed politicians. he employed spies to harass customers of competing refiners. above all he extorted railroad rebates that lowered his transportation cost and undercut competitors. by 1879 he controlld 90 percent of the countrys entire oil refiniing capacity"

Mal

Quote:

Originally Posted by AniMeFaN you say you can assure that war helps the economy,you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you say america produced war time goods and made money in ww2, well that is because the were not the ones fighting the war, they just manufactured goods needed by countries in war, countries fighting a war never benefit from it economically, never.

Tell that to the 418,500 dead.

I'll be leaving the rest of this to LN, who is doing a much better job than I could.

AniMeFaN

you know america did not want to get involved in the war and did not until much later, who do you think they were sending the weapons to??? the countries involved in the war.
its alright, i know that is the best thing from that post you can throw at me. i can throw almost everything back from the other guys post which you neglect because of being friends, if your friend is wrong you can tell him, he wont learn otherwise.

Miburo

I still don't see any logical reason to even consider the conspiracy theory that was presented as the topic of this thread.


Also, I was thanking the posts I thanked because I agreed with them or thought they were intelligently presented. Now I'm just going to thank any post other than yours just so you'll cry about it more.

AniMeFaN

well were not even talking about the conspiracy theory anymore, topic seems to have shifted, i was going to eventually put up "evidence" although it is a conspiracy theory so any so called evidence could be flipped around and would not hold up in a debate of 2 equals. i told you multiple times i posted a theory to discuss, you think every discussion has to start as a debate for some reason, if anyone actually knew anything about the conspiracy that posted in the thread than we would be having a discussion.

pretty much everything your friend said was completely wrong, he really has no idea what hes talking about, so that would mean you dont either if you are legit thanking him.

Miburo

If I was presenting a theory, I could definitely at least provide a convincing and logical argument supporting it. Even if I couldn't definitively prove it. Just like that pro-life, pro-choice abortion shit. No side is 100% right, but they can each argue their stance to a satisfactory degree.

And if he doesn't have any clue what he's talking about, or is wrong about every single thing he has posted, then it would surely be easy for you to actually prove that claim.

If someone was saying something completely wrong, like that the earth was flat, I could easily produce undeniable evidence that proves him wrong. You haven't provided any evidence that he's wrong. No numbers or links or anything. I mean, if someone was that wrong, you'd think an intelligent person like yourself could do a quick google search and destroy him with actual evidence.

I know I could do it, if he was actually completely wrong about something anyway. Thing is, he's not. Sucks to be you, kiddo.

balmung5000

cpas