Posted on 05/19/2006 6:56:03 AM PDT by Dark Skies
Conspiracy is a real word, but it can often be applied to the phony make believe that gets pieced together by conspiracy theorists. They take a few loose facts, and tie them together to create an alternate reality. Kind of like what you are doing when you describe "any highly secret, undocumented, and well secured regular meeting of high powered people." If you are talking about the CFR, you have created a situation that doesn't exist. Then you ask if it is more believable for them to be engaging in your fantasy or making fishsticks. Since neither are true, it doesn't really matter which is more believable. If you believe either, you are still wrong.
Sure. They have it too. They also only have one vote. George Soros is a billionaire who dedicated a large part of his assets to defeat George Bush. Average American voters overruled him. That is why we live in a democracy.
"What, you think I meant to say I don't find the notion credible?"
I have no idea what you were going to say...and based on this latest input, I have even less of an idea.
"So, being a member of CFR rates a presumption that these will uphold the oath?"
Being a member of the United States military rates the presumption that they will uphold the oath. Don't you dare let your fantasy world trash the members of our armed forces. They don't have the luxury of living outside of the real world.
OK. It is evening. I'm ready.
Because the organization doesn't. You've accepted a lie. And based on the rest of your post, you've apparently accepted many lies. Support them with facts if you can.
Please please please tell me you knew I was kidding.
LOL. Well I guess I don't need to ask you if you've read the CFR document we were going to discuss. This "other" article is excerpts from the very same document. You haven't even read it have you?
You believe what you like. If I'm wrong, the world goes on unmolested. If you're wrong, we're screwed. I'd rather have cynical assumptions and be prepared instead of gullible assumptions and be unpleasantly surprised.
I'd much rather be wrong my way than yours.
This is juuuuust a little bit alarmist.
President Bush took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
A North American Union? Maybe someday in the distant future but President Bush will be doing no such thing.
Agreed. It was a really stupid move initiated by a terrible President who had no idea how to use American and NATO strengths in a crisis. But as you imply, going into places like Bosnia was not at all what NATO was established to do. It was established to create a common defense against the spread of Soviet Communism in the West. In that role, it was used extremely effectively.
Come on now, let's not bring reality into this :)
The way I see it now the leadership in both parties are taking us toward a United nation as stated above derived from U.S. Canada, and Mexico. I however do not see the two current parties as we know them today as being any form of the solution to stop this. It's going to take a voter revolution at the polls and either the DEM or the GOP is gonna have to go.
Nothing else explains Bush's failure to secure the southern border in time of war. Nothing.
No. I know you are wrong.
"That's as close as you can get, unless you tell me specifically what goes on in those meetings."
What meetings? You mean those super classified meetings that nobody knows about? Those meetings...that somehow you know about? I deal in facts. I want you to show me your evidence that those meetings take place. Then we'll discuss it.
When, in history, has our southern border ever been secured? Second question...have we ever been at war before?
The big boys got together and decided this would solve Latin America's instability problems, prevent communism from rearing its ugly head again, etc. America needed more workers to shore up Social Security, business loves cheap labor. What's not to like? That they took great pains not to clue in the general dumb public until it was in their words, too late to send the many millions back, tells us they knew perfectly well what the reaction would be. How does it feel to be considered a nation of dopes? Members of both parties are involved with this. (See Clinton and The Third Way.)
They held meetings about this after the Berlin Wall came down, not immediately, but soon enough. Those meetings at ritzy spas, attended by big business, govt. leaders. One was held in California, maybe Hilton Head Island, NC, too. Anyway, the one in California starts with a 'B'. Clinton went to at least one of those. This is why we had NAFTA and CAFTA shoved down our throats. The War on Terror put a crimp in things, but we can chew gum and tap dance at the same time, so globalization/One hemisphere was and has been pursued full tilt despite the danger of terrorists slipping over the leaky southern border.
It is blindly utopian, and some thought Bush's dream of democracy for Iraq was blindly utopian, but guess what...we're over there fighting a war.
We haven't had millions of Mexicans pouring over the border before now. Why is this a good thing? Cheap labor, forecasts of a dwindling US labor supply...Social Security going broke. Come on. What makes me mad is that, and I'll say it again, we weren't asked if we wanted to do this. And the fact that we weren't, shows they already knew what US voters would say. A resounding NO. There should have been an honest dialogue about this at least three years ago...or back when NAFTA was first proposed.
It's Bilderburg, of course.
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.