The Official Conspiracy thread

[Lalapizzame]

There is no need to invade Syria. The rebels do not seem to ask for our help, nor do the people desire for an intervention, leaving us with no reason to declare war or invade Syria.

Our aid has predominantly been air support. The United States has not moved beyond this, nor shall it ever, with public opinion inert regarding this issue.

There is no desire to re-colonize Africa. Trying to make sure regimes are not hostile to us is far from a desire to re-colonize. It would be more of a burden than a benefit, public opinion is so firmly against it, and private companies can buy resources more efficiently than the force of arms can extract.

Gaddafi has tried to cooperate with Islamist factions to suppress the rebels, but that is far from Al-Qaeda being "in on it."

Also, do you have a credible source to make these claims? Some source accepted by mainstream society, not just some site a majority of people don't know about or accept.

 

[Xyrin]

Let me ask you this.

Why in their right mind would they send 4 planes out. The 4th plane was heading towards Washington DC and could have very well been out to destroy the White house, the congress building, or the Washington memorial.

Haven't you ever thought that they could have attacked a smaller place, with one plane and still get people to support invading Afghanistan? I do.

 

[Livewire]

When I say invde, it could be the neighboring countires like Syria. You have to realize, we don't get told about everything. To be honest, I don't think it matters what Europe would think as there are forces such as Britains who are apart of NATO that are there beheading rebels...



Read the full article here.

Spoiler:

https://www.infowars.com/former-congressman-i-saw-nato-troops-behead-libyans/

In that article, there are official sources.

As for Al-Qaeda, it's said that even they are involved.

Spoiler:

https://www.prisonplanet.com/mi6-directed-rebel-terrorists-in-tripoli-siege.html

We were already there using the War Powers Act. Now it's totally irrelevant since it's been longer than 60 days. The Patriot Act as I believe is now void, even than, how the heck could the Patriot Act be used to invade or "insist" another country? That made no sense..

The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

You ignored the biggest part of that post. Executive Order. Made by the President alone, Executive Orders can only be made and undone by the President and are above legislative or judicial interference. We could be there for 60 years if need be. And we have no ground forces there, either.


I'm also going to ask you to drop your tone so I don't have to close this thread, as it's gone downhill quickly.

 

[HackChu]

Here's something I just thought up to explain the "bombs" people say they heard and the "explosions" people see. A building collapsed. When that happens it makes noise, lots of loud noises, some of which I'd assume can easily sound like bombs.

For the "explosions," again, a building collapsed. Can you prove that the floors didn't collapse before the structural support gave out? Because the floors collapsing upon themselves moments before the towers fell would refi Troy create enough forceto blow windows out-which to me is all I looked like happening in all of the "explosion" videos I've watched [windows blowing out]

As for Libya, there is a BIG difference between the us invading a nation and the un/nato providing support for rebels overthrowing an oppressive government.

And you ignored the whole part about the us congress FUNDING part of the un support btw. How exactly is it without congressional approval if congress is providing funding for part of it? Lool

The Congress can fun the UN as the President isn't in control of them. However it's different when the US troops are being sent there.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?_r=3

The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.

I think that shows we are going over there without Congress' approval.

Inside sources that were in Fort Hood(soldiers of course) stated that they are preparing for an invasion in October.

https://www.infowars.com/u-s-invasion-of-libya-set-for-october/

This is unconstitutional, and the President can't declare war for no reason. Heck he doesn't have the power to start a war unless it goes through Congress. Obama himself said he "would go under the radar". Are you dismssing that?

Lol, under the radar to me sounds like Obama is saying he doesn't need approval and that he can do whatever he wants.

As for the 9/11 question. I didn't say that the towers collapsed when they said it. Wow. Heck there are videos where the Policemen are around the WTC7 building and are saying, "they're going to bring it down!" "I just heard an explosion".

Larry Silverstein himself said that "they agreed to just pull it!".

Can you explain in several of the live news coverages that when WTC7 was standing, they said "This just in, but WTC7 has just collapsed" when it did not lol. oh my god, I wonder if people think when things like this are talked about. How did she know before hand that it would collapse when it did not, and wasn't hit with anything? It proves that it was all scripted, and that it was planned demolition. Go figure.

You ignored the biggest part of that post. Executive Order. Made by the President alone, Executive Orders can only be made and undone by the President and are above legislative or judicial interference. We could be there for 60 years if need be. And we have no ground forces there, either.


I'm also going to ask you to drop your tone so I don't have to close this thread, as it's gone downhill quickly.

Drop my tone? Because I'm disagreeing with you? How ignorant. As you can see there were post that were mocking me, and yet you didn't say anything to them.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say something about that. You're trying to get the thread locked because you disagree with what's being said here.

 

[yankee0724]

The involvement in Lybia should be limited to UN troops not the US troops. I don't see Guddafi being a remote threat at all in the Middle East.

What...? The only reason the us is there is because we are part of the un... That makes like no sense

 

[HackChu]

What...? The only reason the us is there is because we are part of the un... That makes like no sense

The UN don't control our troops...that's why they have their own.

However if Congress decides that our troops should aid the UN that's a different story. It made perfect sense.

Let me ask you this.

Why in their right mind would they send 4 planes out. The 4th plane was heading towards Washington DC and could have very well been out to destroy the White house, the congress building, or the Washington memorial.

Haven't you ever thought that they could have attacked a smaller place, with one plane and still get people to support invading Afghanistan? I do.

Who knows? I don't have all the answers. What I do know for certain is that, according to Operation Northwoods, the Government had at one time decided to stage false flag events to blaim on another politicial entitiy like Hitler did with his own Parliament building.

 

[Lalapizzame]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_..._was_demolished_by_order_of_the_WTC.27s_owner

Presidents can use the Executive Order as Live_Wire has said, without the consent of Congress, if they desire to.

 

[Livewire]

Drop my tone? Because I'm disagreeing with you? How ignorant. As you can see there were post that were mocking me, and yet you didn't say anything to them.

Yeah, I'm going to have to say something about that. You're trying to get the thread locked because you disagree with what's being said here.

I don't have to "try" to get anything locked here. I am Other Chat.

You post condescendingly and rudely, in this thread and others. Any more problems or reports from this thread, and it will be closed and I will infract all of you.

 

[HackChu]

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_..._was_demolished_by_order_of_the_WTC.27s_owner

Presidents can use the Executive Order as Live_Wire has said, without the consent of Congress, if they desire to.

Where's the line where Americans start saying something about that than? That being the case, the President could issue a order declaring himself a dictator or even God. These orders need to be kept under control.

It's quite saddening. When the President is signing orders to a Federal Bank because I would hope everyone knows that a Federal Bank isn't a Government. What needs to be done, an executive order that should really be ratified is getting rid of the FED like JFK was going to do. But the Presidents are too scared to go through with that.

I fail to understand why people aren't seeing the problems with the President signing order after order. It's a sneaky way to get passed the Congress, and it really ticks me off.

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson — and I am not wholly excepting the Administration of W. W. The country is going through a repetition of Jackson's fight with the Bank of the United States — only on a far bigger and broader basis--Franklin_D._Roosevelt

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.--Franklin_D._Roosevelt

 

[Lalapizzame]

The President has usually issued Executive Orders with the approval of Congress. While there has been attention devoted to this issue, it is not abused enough to be struck out and removed from the President's privileges. No one would take the President seriously if he went out of line, HackChu. You mistake the Congress and the Judiciary as sheep, and the military as cows. Self-restraint is the name of the game here, or else that power would be taken out of the President's hands like a toy from a baby.

This principle applies to every power granted to a single executive or person; the Monarchy of the United Kingdom does not veto everything (au contraire), because Parliament would disobey the monarch and threaten to strip the Crown of that power.

Are you sure getting rid of the Federal Bank would have benefits that far outweigh its costs? A nostalgic proposal, but a potentially disastrous one. There is a reason Presidents are scared to do such a thing. If the President is not allowed to go through with it or will lose his job for it, he will not do it. It may even cost the jobs of many others, depending on how severely it affects the economy.

The President is allowed to do this because he is trusted with Executive Orders. If that sacred trust is breached, so too will his privilege to use Executive Orders. This fear of retribution keeps him in line.

 

[yankee0724]

The UN don't control our troops...that's why they have their own.

However if Congress decides that our troops should aid the UN that's a different story. It made perfect sense.

How long do you plan on ignoring the fact that congress is helping pay for the un's involvement? Just because a small group of congressmen/women don't think we should be there anymore doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Who knows? I don't have all the answers. What I do know for certain is that, according to Operation Northwoods, the Government had at one time decided to stage false flag events to blaim on another politicial entitiy like Hitler did with his own Parliament building.

It's nearly universally accepted that van der Lubbe did it, only thing is if he did it alone or with a group of communists. Once again, it's just a relatively small group of historians that think the nazi party was involved.

And seriously I don't see how anything I, hackchu, or lala has said would warrant an infraction.

 

[HackChu]

The President has usually issued Executive Orders with the approval of Congress. While there has been attention devoted to this issue, it is not abused enough to be struck out and removed from the President's privileges. No one would take the President seriously if he went out of line, HackChu. You mistake the Congress and the Judiciary as sheep, and the military as cows. Self-restraint is the name of the game here, or else that power would be taken out of the President's hands like a toy from a baby.

This principle applies to every power granted to a single executive or person; the Monarchy of the United Kingdom does not veto everything (au contraire), because Parliament would disobey the monarch and threaten to strip the Crown of that power.

Are you sure getting rid of the Federal Bank would have benefits that far outweigh its costs? A nostalgic proposal, but a potentially disastrous one. There is a reason Presidents are scared to do such a thing. If the President is not allowed to go through with it or will lose his job for it, he will not do it. It may even cost the jobs of many others, depending on how severely it affects the economy.

The President is allowed to do this because he is trusted with Executive Orders. If that sacred trust is breached, so too will his privilege to use Executive Orders. This fear of retribution keeps him in line.

I must say, I'm quite happy to discuss these things with someone such as yourself. You're the only one who hasn't bashed me around in any way and you're being level headed. So I appreciate that. Now. Like I said with a few of my other posts. There are loopholes and there are ways of getting around things. Again, like Hitler. He supported the Jews, had everyone fooled. But when it got down to it, well you know what happened from there. A President of the U.S(I doubt the current puppet can do this, unless there is a "terror" event to boost his ratings) could issue orders that could some-what bypass certain amendment rights, such as the order that Obama signed that went against the 4th Amendment to take guns from people in Texas and neighboring states because of the so-called drug cartels(that they profit from anyway)

Another example is using an attack on America, and than say it's not safe so they can have an excuse to decalre Martial Law. That means guns would be taken away totally going against the 4th amendment. Even now the government is using the fear from the 9/11 attacks to introduce more "securities" like the TSA sticking hands down people's pants. So basically, when there is a crises, the people will beg for the Government's help, and of course that would be the time to seige and use the adventage to become dictator. It was seen in Germany, it was how in a similar way that Hitler became dictator. Using the fear of the people that they had for the Communists. See the resemblence here with today's society? Heck if a attack happened at the White House, or the Congress building, the President could use that opportunity to become a dictator than what? If you really look at history you can see the very exact same thing going on that happened in Germany.

All of this explained in many of Alex Jones' films. Heck, seeing how intelligent you are, I challenege to watch a couple of them and see what you can argue against.

As for getting rid of the FED, I think it should at least be audited so they don't have too much power. Former chairmen of the fed said they are above law themselves anyway. They need to have power taken from them at the very least. It's like the quote I posted, the banks rule America, these private banks set up by rich families. If you'd like I can post an article that describes how the FED rapes America. It's basically like they take our money, print nothing and give nothing in return. It's a pansy scheme. The inflation will continue to rise so long as the FED are around.

How long do you plan on ignoring the fact that congress is helping pay for the un's involvement? Just because a small group of congressmen/women don't think we should be there anymore doesn't make it unconstitutional.




It's nearly universally accepted that van der Lubbe did it, only thing is if he did it alone or with a group of communists. Once again, it's just a relatively small group of historians that think the nazi party was involved.

And seriously I don't see how anything I, hackchu, or lala has said would warrant an infraction.

I'm not ignoring, I just think it's irrelovent because it isn't like they are funding the military or anything like that to go there. Congressmen Ron Paul knows it all crap, and that's why he himself is calling for an impeachment of Obama. Our troops have no reason to be there. Leave it to the UN.

And I agree, no one should be recieving an infraction for anything. No one is being hostile towards anyone or calling names.

 

[Lalapizzame]

I must say, I'm quite happy to discuss these things with someone such as yourself. You're the only one who hasn't bashed me around in any way and you're being level headed. So I appreciate that. Now. Like I said with a few of my other posts. There are loopholes and there are ways of getting around things. Again, like Hitler. He supported the Jews, had everyone fooled. But when it got down to it, well you know what happened from there. A President of the U.S(I doubt the current puppet can do this, unless there is a "terror" event to boost his ratings) could issue orders that could some-what bypass certain amendment rights, such as the order that Obama signed that went against the 4th Amendment to take guns from people in Texas and neighboring states because of the so-called drug cartels(that they profit from anyway)

Another example is using an attack on America, and than say it's not safe so they can have an excuse to decalre Martial Law. That means guns would be taken away totally going against the 4th amendment. Even now the government is using the fear from the 9/11 attacks to introduce more "securities" like the TSA sticking hands down people's pants. So basically, when there is a crises, the people will beg for the Government's help, and of course that would be the time to seige and use the adventage to become dictator. It was seen in Germany, it was how in a similar way that Hitler became dictator. Using the fear of the people that they had for the Communists. See the resemblence here with today's society? Heck if a attack happened at the White House, or the Congress building, the President could use that opportunity to become a dictator than what? If you really look at history you can see the very exact same thing going on that happened in Germany.

All of this explained in many of Alex Jones' films. Heck, seeing how intelligent you are, I challenege to watch a couple of them and see what you can argue against.

As for getting rid of the FED, I think it should at least be audited so they don't have too much power. Former chairmen of the fed said they are above law themselves anyway. They need to have power taken from them at the very least. It's like the quote I posted, the banks rule America, these private banks set up by rich families. If you'd like I can post an article that describes how the FED rapes America. It's basically like they take our money, print nothing and give nothing in return. It's a pansy scheme. The inflation will continue to rise so long as the FED are around.

The Germany that allowed Hitler to rise was a desperate, starving, and angry Germany, which had a flawed and relatively young democracy. America is a country very conscious of its liberties and system of democratic government, founded as a democracy with rights which are inalienable. The people will not allow the President to deny them their Rights, or they will remove him from office.

I don't see how we profit from drug cartels. They are operating illegally, they encourage a type of system which thrives on corruption and a lack of law, and encourage armed conflict, including the violent downfall of several public figures. There's a reason no one wants to live in the areas affected by drug cartels.

It has to be a serious, serious war for martial law to be introduced, and the President will not move unless he's sure the two other branches of government will approve of it. Lincoln's time is the most well-known time of authoritarian measures, but martial law was a dangerous card to play unless he could arrest or silence opposition. Only in such a scenario would martial law happen, and I doubt the people will pander to him to enforce martial law.

Again, Germany's democracy was flawed and lacked the strength which is present in systems that have been long-established. Germany had just come out of a war that wiped out many young men, forced conditions on it which its people strongly resented, and was suffering from terrible economic conditions which turned it from barely surviving into a state of bankruptcy and near complete collapse. Our government has a clear and strong Constitution, one which will not allow the President to become the dictator you fear. He would be impeached, or the judiciary branch would object.

Germany and the United States are two very different countries; this is comparing apples and oranges.

Former politicians and members of government institutions say what they desire to say. Was he actively calling for limitations on the Federal Bank during his time as Chairman?

Inflation will continue to rise if the money supply outstrips consumption. While encouraging the haphazard issuing of money is inflationary, as long as it is kept under reasonable limits then we can deal with it, as long as growth outpaces inflation. I don't think it should be called a ponzi scheme; an easier example to make of a ponzi scheme would be Social Security and things of that sort. Now, all government institutions must be moderated, and not just by themselves. However, I'm not quite sure whether the Federal Bank is as disastrous as you claim. It may not be doing much to help the economy, but that's different.

 

[HackChu]

The Germany that allowed Hitler to rise was a desperate, starving, and angry Germany, which had a flawed and relatively young democracy. America is a country very conscious of its liberties and system of democratic government, founded as a democracy with rights which are inalienable. The people will not allow the President to deny them their Rights, or they will remove him from office.

What kind of position do you think we're in now? No one is starving, but we are fearful, and we're in the greatest recession that fit's the days before the Great Depression. Although the mainstream keeps saying that the economy is bubbling and that we're rising out of debt when that's a complete lie. I trust alternative media, because there is no scripted events, light shows and flashy tricks or anything like that. It's all done based on pure evidence that is presented. I balme Fox news and CNN for telling Americans that the economy is getting better brainwashing us, when we all know things are getting worse. People don't seem to realize that the Government is using fear as a way to control us, which again points back to Germany.

When you have a series of news programs based on politcs(Fox being right and CNN being left) than anyone should know they can't be trusted.

It has to be a serious, serious war for martial law to be introduced, and the President will not move unless he's sure the two other branches of government will approve of it. Lincoln's time is the most well-known time of authoritarian measures, but martial law was a dangerous card to play unless he could arrest or silence opposition. Only in such a scenario would martial law happen, and I doubt the people will pander to him to enforce martial law.

On 9/11 we were in a post-martial law. The borders were closed, and people were advised to stay in. The only thing that was missing was the Police being on the streets marching door to door asking for weapons. A mini martial law wasn't officially declared but it was acheived down in Pittsburgh during the G20 summit when protesters were gased and being knocked around. Again, their amendment rights were broken when the mini police state sent out dogs in one case that attacked an old lady and she was thrown around. Do you not see that being tyrannical?

Again, Germany's democracy was flawed and lacked the strength which is present in systems that have been long-established. Germany had just come out of a war that wiped out many young men, forced conditions on it which its people strongly resented, and was suffering from terrible economic conditions which turned it from barely surviving into a state of bankruptcy and near complete collapse. Our government has a clear and strong Constitution, one which will not allow the President to become the dictator you fear. He would be impeached, or the judiciary branch would object.

People don't follow the constituion anymore, otherwise people could protest all they want, they wouldn't be thrown around, guns wouldn't be taken away, people would be able to freely voice their opinions on the streets without police intervention. Heck Obama commited treason when he gave power to the so0called "Commitee of 12". You can't give judicial power to certain indivdiuals, its like saying "yeah, screw Congress, who needs them?" Yeah the mainstream goes over it like they're talking about the forecast or something.

The media is controlled. Bottom line. You hear what they want you to hear and nothing more.

Face it folks, there is a New World Order rising. Here's a quote from scumbag globalist, David Rockefeller.

"For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." —David Rockefeller, from his own book, Memoirs.

Here are more quotes.

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." —Woodrow Wilson

"[The New World Order] cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most
significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United
States to change it's perceptions." — Henry Kissinger, World Affairs Council Press Conference,
Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel, April 19th 1994

"David Rockefeller is the most conspicuous representative today of the ruling class, a multinational fraternity of men who shape the global economy and manage the flow of its capital. Rockefeller was born to it, and he has made the most of it. But what some critics see as a vast international conspiracy, he considers a circumstance of life and just another day's work... In the world of David Rockefeller it's hard to tell where business ends and politics begins" —Bill Moyers

And it goes on and on. I honestly can't see how the New World Order is a good thing either when I hear some people say that.

 

[Lalapizzame]

I don't know about you, but the news media I hear about says things opposite of what you claim they say. We have become a nation obsessed with the debt problem, and are mildly gloomy about a recovery.

I'm not sure how alternate media is any better. Smaller media outlets have less sources to rely upon, less prestige to attract recognized professionals, and the same political agenda. The only difference is that less people have heard of them.

That's not post-martial law. Those are extremely low expectations for martial law; I would call that a suggestion and safety precautions. What did these protestors do during the G20 Summit, before you shall claim they were simply gassed? There are always two sides to a story, and the authorities would not want to risk compromising public opinion without a reason. Tell me this story from a recognized media outlet, a mainstream one. Police being mobilized with dogs is not tyrannical, nor is an old lady being attacked by police dogs. That is a public casualty, and an unfortunate one.

The people may hold peaceful protests. Guns shall not be seized unless the government has provided a proper reason, and people are able to voice their opinions in almost every single case ever heard, except where it endangered the public welfare (like Lincoln's time).

The judiciary branch is an example of judicial power being given to certain individuals.

The media is controlled, yes, but not by the government. There is no institution, public or private, that is not controlled by something.

Also, I'm not quite sure how quotes from prominent individuals proves anything. They can say what they please.

I don't think the media's trying to brainwash anyone into thinking the economy is recovering or the debt problem will be solved, especially since it seems they believe the economy is not recovering fast enough and the debt problem is coming to a climax. I believe you have been brainwashed and pushed into some form of irrational fear and belief in quotes. Not to mention your loose standards, since alternate media is still the media, except it caters to an audience different from what the mainstream anticipates.

 

[HackChu]

I don't know about you, but the news media I hear about says things opposite of what you claim they say. We have become a nation obsessed with the debt problem, and are mildly gloomy about a recovery.

I'm not sure how alternate media is any better. Smaller media outlets have less sources to rely upon, less prestige to attract recognized professionals, and the same political agenda. The only difference is that less people have heard of them.

That's not post-martial law. Those are extremely low expectations for martial law; I would call that a suggestion and safety precautions. What did these protestors do during the G20 Summit, before you shall claim they were simply gassed? There are always two sides to a story, and the authorities would not want to risk compromising public opinion without a reason. Tell me this story from a recognized media outlet, a mainstream one. Police being mobilized with dogs is not tyrannical, nor is an old lady being attacked by police dogs. That is a public casualty, and an unfortunate one.

The people may hold peaceful protests. Guns shall not be seized unless the government has provided a proper reason, and people are able to voice their opinions in almost every single case ever heard, except where it endangered the public welfare (like Lincoln's time).

The judiciary branch is an example of judicial power being given to certain individuals.

The media is controlled, yes, but not by the government. There is no institution, public or private, that is not controlled by something.

Also, I'm not quite sure how quotes from prominent individuals proves anything. They can say what they please.

I don't think the media's trying to brainwash anyone into thinking the economy is recovering or the debt problem will be solved, especially since it seems they believe the economy is not recovering fast enough and the debt problem is coming to a climax. I believe you have been brainwashed and pushed into some form of irrational fear and belief in quotes. Not to mention your loose standards, since alternate media is still the media, except it caters to an audience different from what the mainstream anticipates.

I don't agree with you saying they have less sources to rely on. To be honest, the only alternative media I listen to is Alex Jones, the one and only man who predicted 9/11 just 3 months before it happened. The man who infiltrated a place called Bohemian Grove, where top Government officials go to partake in rituals(as been recorded) and partake...in homosexual origies. Clinton revealed that himself. Henry Kissinger is seen on posters with a bra on. So I do believe crazy acts happen in the grove. I think that mainstream should be getting into the important things, instead of worrying about what football team beat who, or the Casey Anthony trials and things like that.

And no, those protesters weren't advocating hate or anything so I don't know why they were gassed and tossed around. I guess it's about feeling whos in control. The media has gotten us so twisted, and telling everyone that we protest out of hate that it's sickening. I imagine that's why you asked if the protesters did anything. Protesters who disagree with the government are always attacked by mainstream news and it's pathetic. That's because the mainstream teaches us to love our government and believe they are our saviors.

For you to say that I"M brainwashed really allows me to question your knowledge. I say this, because I do plenty of research, I read books, I look at the declassified documents, and study evidence. I don't see how that shows I'm brainwashed when I look up the things I'm being told before actually believing it.

I have to also say, that yes my friend, the Media is controlled. Perhaps maybe not from the Government but from corporate interests. There was a site somewhere that showed that many major networks in America that air on TV are controlled by the interworkings of the shadow government. The Rothschild's run Reuters and many other stations in Europe.

Bottom line is that, I think you and others should really go out and read and do some research before saying someone is brainwashed. I have to say that I listen to both sides of the story, the "Conspiraies" and the "truths". I find myslef normally leaning toward the "conspiracies"(in which most really aren't when there is evidence that usually backs it up) However there are many who disagree with me that believe and only hears one side, and that's normally the side the Government wants you to hear.

EDIT: Have you forgotten about the free speech zones?

 

[Livewire]

Heck Obama commited treason when he gave power to the so0called "Commitee of 12". You can't give judicial power to certain indivdiuals, its like saying "yeah, screw Congress, who needs them?" Yeah the mainstream goes over it like they're talking about the forecast or something.

How do you suppose we appoint new judges/judicial officials? That would be giving a person judicial power. Granted, they go through a review process before they get the job, but the President appoints people to positions of judicial power, which kinda refutes your point that doing so is somehow treasonous. And I'd like to see some evidence please, aside from irrelevant, anecdotal videos and incredibly biased conspiracy websites.

If Obama committed treason, then my cousin is the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[HackChu]

How do you suppose we appoint new judges/judicial officials? That would be giving a person judicial power. Granted, they go through a review process before they get the job, but the President appoints people to positions of judicial power, which kinda refutes your point that doing so is somehow treasonous. And I'd like to see some evidence please, aside from irrelevant, anecdotal videos and incredibly biased conspiracy websites.

If Obama committed treason, then my cousin is the Loch Ness Monster.

You're telling me that the 12 appointed members were reviwed? Are you serious? This isn't like going to Wendys for an interview. Besides even if it were, no one was reviewed at all. They were just appointed. The members vote for a piece of legislation, and if they themselves get an even vote, the legislation gets passed. Scew Congress, they don't pass bills anymore, lets leave it all to the Commitee.

And evidence to what exactly? You don't believe the commitee of 12 exists?

Infowars isn't biased by the way. I'd say Fox and CNN are though..

 

[Zet]

Awww it's always cute seeing super paranoid kids getting themselves involved with conspiracies. Let me tell you that the minute God crapped out the third caveman, a conspiracy was hatched against one of them.

If you think something is a conspiracy like Obama being a warmonger or committing treason, you're just a paranoid republican with an IQ lower than five.

 

[Zet]

Lol, I'm a kid. Haha. You're 4 years older than me, what makes you say I'm a kid. I guess we all are if we're at a Pokemon forum, hahaha. Oh the irony in that post.

Anyway, if you haven't gotten something constructive to post don't post at all. It's clear that you're just apart of the minority who bashes people around because we unlock minds, and aren't apart of the robot system that is America today.

The irony of your post is that republicans are robots. Also America != the world. Just so you know for future reference.

I've already reached enlightenment and realized that I was truly foolish to believe things like conspiracies. It was certainly childish, and the very idea of "unlocking" minds with your asinine posts is ridiculous at best.