Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
Interesting thread. Thanks to all contributors.
And they can place it in the fiction section so all the Occam's Razor advocates can immediately declare that obviously that means it must be true.
So Barry Goldwater was a neocon in 1964, huh? I guess, according to this, Ralph Nader would be more of a conservative than William F. Buckley, Frank Meyer, Hayek, Thomas Sowell and Rush Limbaugh.
Obviously, that's absurd. Ralph Nader, like Pat Buchanan, are neither one of them conservatives in so far as either believes in centralized governance with respect to economic matters. Economic nationalism is a form of socialism practiced by the likes of Hugo Chavez, and the national government telling businesses who they may buy or sell to is a form of economic nationalism. As such, it is not only unconservative but as profoundly antithetical to America's principles as monarchism.
What about it? It's over 4000 members range from actors to former Presidents to active military generals, to leading conservative commentators. Are you saying they are all involved in a plot to end America?
I would love to. Point by point and page by page. All claims and accusations must be supported by factual, contextual references from the document.
Bill Buckley is a member of CFR.
Under the terms of its constitution, UNESCO was entrusted with the task of "ensuring the preservation and protection of the world heritage of works of art and monuments of historic or scientific interest."
First of all, that in no way gives them "control" over the site. It does mean that the UN has an interest in protecting things of significance around the world. But note that in Afghanistan, during the rule of the Taliban, it made no difference and the Taliban were still completely free to destroy all kinds of ancient Buddhist artifacts, much to the dismay of the rest of the world.
Heck, Americans have an interest in preserving lots of sites in the ME, Europe and China. That doesn't mean we control them.
For that matter, I have wondered at times if it was a good idea myself. I decided it wasn't eventually.
A method of keeping us quiet?
I knew about this one, it was announced right after the Dubai issue.
BINGO!
Oh, you got us there. Conspiracy Kooks R Us.
We have a President who has managed, during economic prosperity, to drive his approval ratings to Nixonian levels.
Not content with his unpopularity, he is hell bent on enraging his base by giving 12 million illegals Green Cards to have permanent residence in the US.
I have yet to see a plausible explanation for this. What is motivating him (and the RINO Senators)?. Neither marginal improvement among Hispanic voters nor support from business interests can make up for losing the conservative base.
If you have an explanation, please discuss. If you don't have a plausible conventional explanation, then don't chide us for by neccessity venturing somewhat afield.
As one of Clinton's final acts didn't he give control over our inland waterways to the UN?
$64,000 question, if one of us could figure that one out we would probably hold the key to the Whitehouse.
Me, I am just a conspiracy kook, so how am I to know? I am waiting for Rokke (no conspiracy kook he) to explain it, using simple language that I can understand.
We have soooooooo been sold down the proverbial river the last 20 years.
Just like Clinton getting NAFTA through. I have noticed that trend for some time now. Someone should have done a study by now.
I just searched under keywords 'immigrant' and 'immigrants,' found several articles/threads for the time period you referred to. Maybe those were used instead of 'immigration?'
that's a possibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.