 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / January 2007Top cop says that average drivers are the problem, not speediots
http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/3915944a6009.html "Old Wolf" <oldwolf@inspire.net.nz> said in rec.autos.driving: >http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/3915944a6009.html >It was all too easy for the public to blame boy racers for >road carnage. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >at least partly caused by a person under the influence >of drugs. How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s?  SignatureI hate speediots - especially Carl Troller. > How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic > collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s? Which path leads towards the greatest revenue and power? >> How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic >> collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s? > > Which path leads towards the greatest revenue and power? You seem to have problems with symbols of authority. Were you ever a Catholic altar boy? Steve >> How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic >> collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s? > > Which path leads towards the greatest revenue and power? Revenue and power, power power!!!!!! Why is it that I could care less about revenue, and my power stays the same, no matter how many people I pull over? Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>> How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic >>> collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why is it that I could care less about revenue, and my power stays the same, > no matter how many people I pull over? Because you're just one of the cannon fodder following orders. However checkpoints and defining the majority of the population as violators of the law gives your masters more power and money. >>>> How come cops in NZ can figure out the TRUE causes of traffic >>>> collisions but American cops have their heads up Joan Claybrook's a.s? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Because you're just one of the cannon fodder following orders. Yes sir. > However checkpoints and defining the majority of the population as > violators of the law gives your masters more power and money. I don't care how much money my masters are making. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain > I don't care how much money my masters are making. It would do you well to pay attention to what's going on, at least know whom it is you serve. Just think, in the coming years you might end up reporting to a mexican buracrat. > > I don't care how much money my masters are making. > > It would do you well to pay attention to what's going on, at least know > whom it is you serve. Just think, in the coming years you might end up > reporting to a mexican buracrat. Is the ethnic origin of his boss a problem ? Graham >> I don't care how much money my masters are making. > > It would do you well to pay attention to what's going on, at least know > whom it is you serve. Just think, in the coming years you might end up > reporting to a mexican buracrat. I'm an equal-opportunity employee. The ethnicity of my boss has never been an issue for me. Any other possible meaning behind your remark would be classified under another one of your delusions. Signature--- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault. "If you don't read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed." - Mark Twain >>> I don't care how much money my masters are making. >> >> It would do you well to pay attention to what's going on, at least know >> whom it is you serve. Just think, in the coming years you might end up >> reporting to a mexican buracrat. > I'm an equal-opportunity employee. The ethnicity of my boss has never been > an issue for me. Any other possible meaning behind your remark would be > classified under another one of your delusions. I wasn't talking about ethnicity, but of what nation's government he comes from. The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now talking about the Amero. Of course you're just a boot licking servant anyway, I have yet seen you give a damn about such important things as the Bill of Rights, but only how you've managed to find ways around it. > > "Brent P" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I wasn't talking about ethnicity, but of what nation's government he > comes from. You reckon that Al Qaeda and the Mexican government might make a deal to invade the USA and turn you all into burrito eating Islamic sissies ? The level of US intellect today is truly something to behold ! Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > You reckon that Al Qaeda and the Mexican government might make a deal to invade > the USA and turn you all into burrito eating Islamic sissies ? > > The level of US intellect today is truly something to behold ! You mean because most of us don't want anything to do with a one world (most likely totalitarian) government? SignatureSincerely, The New World Order. > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You mean because most of us don't want anything to do with a one world > (most likely totalitarian) government? Where did you get an idea like that from ? You think Mexiico will invade ? Graham Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in rec.autos.driving: > > Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Eeyore said in > > rec.autos.driving: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You think Mexiico will invade ? They don't have to. Our corporations are doing a good job of inviting them in. SignatureSincerely, The New World Order. > The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to > pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now > talking about the Amero. Don't bogart that joint, my friend. I want a hit - it must be some seriously good sh.t. >> The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to >> pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now >> talking about the Amero. > > Don't bogart that joint, my friend. > I want a hit - it must be some seriously good sh.t. It's not my fault you don't understand how the world works and what's going on. Of course when you realize these things are happening, you'll go from calling it wacko to telling everyone it's a good thing. > >> The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to > >> pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's not my fault you don't understand how the world works and what's > going on. Asserting something and proving it are not the same thing. Step away from the black helicopter blogs for a few days. Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless wiretapping. Maybe the slope ain't so slippery after all, huh? E.P. >> >> The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to >> >> pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now >> >> talking about the Amero. > Asserting something and proving it are not the same thing. Fine. The new merged buracracies: http://www.spp.gov/prosperity_working/ http://www.treasury.gov/press/releases/js2360.htm http://www.mexidata.info/id436.html http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf Amero: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union (has various links) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4693888498103257054&q=Amero http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53350 > Step away from the black helicopter blogs for a few days. spp.gov is a black helicopter blog? Is CNBC? > Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless > wiretapping. Since when has congress reduced government power? Mean while GWB wants to be able open first class mail when he decides the conditions warrant an emergency or other reason to do so. > Maybe the slope ain't so slippery after all, huh? I've only stated present fact of what is being worked towards. Sticking one's head in the sand and saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean that those working towards it stop, pack up, and go home. When Ron Paul's legislation to stop a north american union passes, let me know. >>Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless >>wiretapping. > > Since when has congress reduced government power? > Mean while GWB wants to be able open first class mail when he decides the > conditions warrant an emergency or other reason to do so. My assumption is that that signing statement was a tacit admission that the administration is already reading mail that we assumed that it didn't have the authority to read. Kind of like the wiretapping thing. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > My assumption is that that signing statement was a tacit admission that > the administration is already reading mail that we assumed that it > didn't have the authority to read. Kind of like the wiretapping thing. That would be a good assumption given typical government operation. > >> >> The merging of buracracies via the SPP is no delusion. You really need to > >> >> pay attention to what's going on in the world. Even top bankers are now [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/building_a_north_american_community.html > http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf None of those cites show "merging" of any type. They do show cooperation, which is most decidedly not the same thing. Actually, considering the amount of shared border, and cross-traffic, some sort of security arrangements make sense, from a "let's not duplicate efforts and cost" tax money standpoint. > Amero: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union (has various links) Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical doesn't make it real. > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4693888498103257054&q=Amero Some guy talking about the Amero? What government post does this guy hold, again? > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53350 A black-helicopter blog-alike, to be sure! Even then, it's an oblique reference, at best. > > Step away from the black helicopter blogs for a few days. > > spp.gov is a black helicopter blog? Is CNBC? Neither one of those things shows what you claim is true. Cooperation between entities is not the same as merged entities. And an intelligent design proponent can speak on CNBC at any time - but that doesn't make intelligent design any more or less legitimate. > > Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless > > wiretapping. > > Since when has congress reduced government power? That's a nice red herring. But if you recall, in the '80s, Reagan was told to lay off the Sandinistas. By Congress. So it *does* happen. > Mean while GWB wants to be able open first class mail when he decides the > conditions warrant an emergency or other reason to do so. And he'll continue to do it after he's out of office? And just because he wants to doesn't mean he can, legally. > > Maybe the slope ain't so slippery after all, huh? > > I've only stated present fact of what is being worked towards. Which has turned out to be more Chicken Little than actual reality. Or overheated rhetoric, if you like that term better. > When Ron Paul's legislation to stop a north american union passes, let me > know. The idea itself is so silly as to not warrant discussion. Like the UN taking over America. Bigfoot. Loch Ness monster. Intelligent design. All cut from the same, wacky, cloth. E.P. > None of those cites show "merging" of any type. They do show > cooperation, which is most decidedly not the same thing. It doesn't exist. > Actually, considering the amount of shared border, and cross-traffic, > some sort of security arrangements make sense, from a "let's not > duplicate efforts and cost" tax money standpoint. But if it exists, it's a good thing... The merging is the harmonizing of regulation, the integration of operation. To me, this is a mergining of burcracies. Burcracies working together as one under regulations formulated from bringing those of all three nations together, ie, merged. The new spp website is so santizied from what it used to be. Wonder why? >> Amero: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union (has various links) > Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent > Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical > doesn't make it real. An Ad-hominem against wikipedia. I figured that's what you'd do. >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4693888498103257054&q=Amero > Some guy talking about the Amero? What government post does this guy > hold, again? Why don't you read the CFR publications on the Amero then, the vice president is a member and former director of the CFR, I think he holds a government post, that is if you want someone with a government post. How about a state senator? http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?ID=4511 Not good enough? How about a US senator? http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53350 > A black-helicopter blog-alike, to be sure! Even then, it's an oblique > reference, at best. Just because you call it black-helicopter doesn't make it so. Interesting, I never considered Harvard professors to be black helicopter types. >> > Step away from the black helicopter blogs for a few days. >> spp.gov is a black helicopter blog? Is CNBC? > Neither one of those things shows what you claim is true. Cooperation > between entities is not the same as merged entities. And an > intelligent design proponent can speak on CNBC at any time - but that > doesn't make intelligent design any more or less legitimate. Would you prefer Lou Dobbs of CNN? >> > Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless >> > wiretapping. >> Since when has congress reduced government power? > That's a nice red herring. This from someone who introduces the Loch Ness Monster. > But if you recall, in the '80s, Reagan was > told to lay off the Sandinistas. By Congress. So it *does* happen. How is laying off a group overseas in any way related to laying off US citizens? >> Mean while GWB wants to be able open first class mail when he decides the >> conditions warrant an emergency or other reason to do so. > And he'll continue to do it after he's out of office? And just because > he wants to doesn't mean he can, legally. The old 'it might be different tomorrow so don't worry about it'. And legal? Legal doesn't count for much in this nation when it comes to limiting government any more. Been through a checkpoint lately? Those aren't legal either. Ask jaybird, legal is anything the doomsmen (judges) say is legal. >> > Maybe the slope ain't so slippery after all, huh? >> I've only stated present fact of what is being worked towards. > Which has turned out to be more Chicken Little than actual reality. Or > overheated rhetoric, if you like that term better. Guess I am suppose to think it's a good thing to have manufacturing in China, goods off loaded in Mexico and delivered throughout the US by mexican truckers on roads controlled by a spainish corporation.. >> When Ron Paul's legislation to stop a north american union passes, let me >> know. > The idea itself is so silly as to not warrant discussion. Really? So silly that a group to which the vice president of the USA belongs, which has historically, eventually gotten what it wants, wants it. "The new world order will be built...an end run on national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece will accomplish much than the old fashioned frontal assault." - Council on Foreign Relations Journal 1974, p.558 "We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." -Paul Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations and architect of the Federal Reserve System in an address to the US Senat, 17-Feb-1950. "We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But now the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march to towards a world government. THe supra national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller, Private Banker, Council on Foreign Relations, June 1991. Yeah, just silly stuff, by silly people. > Like the UN > taking over America. Bigfoot. Loch Ness monster. Intelligent design. > All cut from the same, wacky, cloth. You forgot that george bush is actually a space alien, like in 'They Live' and that the invasion of Iraq was to get the ancient alien technology and the UFO that Saddam got after it crashed in Iraq. If you'd actually like to convince me that the SPP, entered into outside the tready process is nothing to worry about go ahead. But if you want to just dismiss it as wacky by created associations, there is no point in discussing it. > > None of those cites show "merging" of any type. They do show > > cooperation, which is most decidedly not the same thing. > > It doesn't exist. Strawman. > > Actually, considering the amount of shared border, and cross-traffic, > > some sort of security arrangements make sense, from a "let's not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The merging is the harmonizing of regulation, the integration of > operation. Nonsense. The merging is actually having one chain of command. That doesn't exist, here. > To me, this is a mergining of burcracies. Well, you can call a turkey a chick, but that doesn't make it one. > The new spp website is so santizied from what it used to be. Wonder why? Space aliens? ;) > >> Amero: > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union (has various links) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > An Ad-hominem against wikipedia. I figured that's what you'd do. No. A wiki entry doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write anything into wiki. That was the point. > >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4693888498103257054&q=Amero > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > president is a member and former director of the CFR, I think he holds a > government post, that is if you want someone with a government post. But that doesn't make it a reality - there is no official currency, and no plans to make it official, from anyone in the federal reserve. You said "top bankers" - list them. > How about a state senator? http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?ID=4511 > Not good enough? How about a US senator? > http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm Both those guys are using the same sorts of rhetoric you are. They can rail all they like about it, but it doesn't make it real. Did you know that a bunch of politicians believe in intelligent design? How is this any different? > >> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53350 > > > A black-helicopter blog-alike, to be sure! Even then, it's an oblique > > reference, at best. > > Just because you call it black-helicopter doesn't make it so. These guys go on and on about the Federal Reserve. Yeah, black-helicopter to be sure. Wacky, fringe stuff. > >> > Step away from the black helicopter blogs for a few days. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Would you prefer Lou Dobbs of CNN? Lou claims where that we are going to the Amero, and uses what sources? So far, the Amero is a bunch of circular reasoning, with no reality to it. > >> > Hey, it looks like the new Congress is going to revisit warrantless > >> > wiretapping. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > This from someone who introduces the Loch Ness Monster. It's called an analogy. Look it up. > > But if you recall, in the '80s, Reagan was > > told to lay off the Sandinistas. By Congress. So it *does* happen. > > How is laying off a group overseas in any way related to laying off US > citizens? "Since when has Congress reduced government power?" Asked and answered. Oh, wait - now you're moving the goalposts. :) > >> Mean while GWB wants to be able open first class mail when he decides the > >> conditions warrant an emergency or other reason to do so. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The old 'it might be different tomorrow so don't worry about it'. No, it *will* be different. Past 2008, he won't be reading anything. > And > legal? Legal doesn't count for much in this nation when it comes to > limiting government any more. Once you make that assertion, no proof is needed. > Been through a checkpoint lately? Nope. > Those > aren't legal either. Ask jaybird, legal is anything the doomsmen > (judges) say is legal. If they aren't legal, why aren't they being ended? Oh, yeah - those corrupt judges. The argument becomes circular again. > >> > Maybe the slope ain't so slippery after all, huh? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > China, goods off loaded in Mexico and delivered throughout the US by > mexican truckers on roads controlled by a spainish corporation.. Strawman. > >> When Ron Paul's legislation to stop a north american union passes, let me > >> know. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Yeah, just silly stuff, by silly people. Cherry-picked quotes, by someone other that you (lifted them from a blog, didn't you?) Trying to paint a picture by juxtaposition. > > Like the UN > > taking over America. Bigfoot. Loch Ness monster. Intelligent design. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > just dismiss it as wacky by created associations, there is no point in > discussing it. That there are some folks who think "zebra" when they hear hoofbeats is beyond my ability to explain. There is nothing in ANY of your cites or quotes that proves your claims. But hey, did you know that Nostradamus predicted Hitler? Some folks on the internet say it, so it must be true. E.P. >> It doesn't exist. > Strawman. Then what was that lockness monster stuff supposed to mean? >> > Actually, considering the amount of shared border, and cross-traffic, >> > some sort of security arrangements make sense, from a "let's not >> > duplicate efforts and cost" tax money standpoint. > >> But if it exists, it's a good thing... >> The merging is the harmonizing of regulation, the integration of >> operation. > Nonsense. The merging is actually having one chain of command. That > doesn't exist, here. The old increase the standard. As far as my comment to jaybird, if you notice the spp groups are composed of people from all three nations. There need not exist a chain of command outside the buracracy. The groups are the command. >> To me, this is a mergining of burcracies. > Well, you can call a turkey a chick, but that doesn't make it one. And you can stick your head in the sand and hope for a better tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it will come. >> An Ad-hominem against wikipedia. I figured that's what you'd do. > No. A wiki entry doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write anything > into wiki. That was the point. I refered you to the links given. >> > Some guy talking about the Amero? What government post does this guy >> > hold, again? >> Why don't you read the CFR publications on the Amero then, the vice >> president is a member and former director of the CFR, I think he holds a >> government post, that is if you want someone with a government post. > But that doesn't make it a reality - there is no official currency, and > no plans to make it official, from anyone in the federal reserve. > You said "top bankers" - list them. bankers was an error. finance should have been the proper word. >> How about a state senator? http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/story.cfm?ID=4511 >> Not good enough? How about a US senator? >> http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm > Both those guys are using the same sorts of rhetoric you are. They can > rail all they like about it, but it doesn't make it real. Did you know > that a bunch of politicians believe in intelligent design? How is this > any different? You asked for people with government posts. Now you say their opinions are worthless. Same old song and dance. You make a demand, I meet it, you declare it worthless or a make a greater demand. How about you show me why I shouldn't be concerned so I can go to sleep and trust GWB and his CFR vice president. >> Just because you call it black-helicopter doesn't make it so. > These guys go on and on about the Federal Reserve. Yeah, > black-helicopter to be sure. Wacky, fringe stuff. Kookification and ad hominem. Have you traveled to europe lately? I hear the exchange rate is a killer these days. Not like the fed has anything to do with the money supply or anything, that's just kookiness, right ? >> Would you prefer Lou Dobbs of CNN? > Lou claims where that we are going to the Amero, and uses what sources? I didn't say we are going to amero and neither did he. However it's on some wish lists. Of course if we all declare it wacky stuff and don't pay attention, they might get their wish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kjsy2Z3kdI > So far, the Amero is a bunch of circular reasoning, with no reality to > it. Let's see, the fed is printing dollars increasing the supply at 10% a year, china refuses to let their currency float against the dollar, China has a pile of dollars that is staggering, they are loaning them back to the federal government to pay for the war in Iraq, China wants Taiwan but the US stands in the way, demand for the dollar is tied to oil but oil producers are exploring other currencies to sell their oil in, the dollar has fallen dramatically against the euro, and a few other things I've missed. Not like the stage isn't set for another dollar crisis. It's not like the fed can just goto double digit intrest rates like it did in the early 80s. That in a nutshell, is the reasoning of how an amero can come about. Care to tell me what is 'circular'? Looks linear to me. Now as to why the amero.... http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1999/amero/section_01.html http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=152 >> > That's a nice red herring. >> This from someone who introduces the Loch Ness Monster. > It's called an analogy. Look it up. There was no analogy present, just kookification. >> How is laying off a group overseas in any way related to laying off US >> citizens? > "Since when has Congress reduced government power?" Government power was unchanged by that action. > Asked and answered. Oh, wait - now you're moving the goalposts. :) Not at all. I discuss government power over US citizens and you introduce foreign policy. >> The old 'it might be different tomorrow so don't worry about it'. > No, it *will* be different. Past 2008, he won't be reading anything. Why you expect GWB to die before january 2009? He will be in office until then at the minimum provided no emergencies have been declared to change it. >> And >> legal? Legal doesn't count for much in this nation when it comes to >> limiting government any more. > Once you make that assertion, no proof is needed. It's just an obversvation. >> Been through a checkpoint lately? > Nope. Shame, might change your view some. >> Those >> aren't legal either. Ask jaybird, legal is anything the doomsmen >> (judges) say is legal. > If they aren't legal, why aren't they being ended? Oh, yeah - those > corrupt judges. The argument becomes circular again. Read the US constitution and bill of rights. Compare to what has been declared 'legal'. >> > Which has turned out to be more Chicken Little than actual reality. Or >> > overheated rhetoric, if you like that term better. >> Guess I am suppose to think it's a good thing to have manufacturing in >> China, goods off loaded in Mexico and delivered throughout the US by >> mexican truckers on roads controlled by a spainish corporation.. > Strawman. You call me chicken little for not liking it, thusly not liking it must be irrational. Logically it follows that I should think it a good thing. No straw needed. > Cherry-picked quotes, by someone other that you (lifted them from a > blog, didn't you?) No, I lifted them out of a file of quotes I keep. > Trying to paint a picture by juxtaposition. Powerful people in powerful places say they want certain things and are working towards them, but I'm the wacky one for thinking they are working towards those things they say they want and are working towards. >> If you'd actually like to convince me that the SPP, entered into outside >> the tready process is nothing to worry about go ahead. But if you want to >> just dismiss it as wacky by created associations, there is no point in >> discussing it. > That there are some folks who think "zebra" when they hear hoofbeats is > beyond my ability to explain. In other words you can't. I'd like not be concerned about it. You're such a smart guy and I a mere kook, so please explain why I shouldn't be concerned about the SPP and all related subject matter. After all, it's just kooky to believe that powerful people would sell out the nation for personal wealth and power, right? > There is nothing in ANY of your cites or quotes that proves your > claims. But hey, did you know that Nostradamus predicted Hitler? Some > folks on the internet say it, so it must be true. Yeah, David Rockefeller is just some guy on the internet. A half-assed blogger with no influence or friends in high places and no money to use for influence. > >> It doesn't exist. > > Strawman. > > Then what was that lockness monster stuff supposed to mean? Re-read the thread. It's very clear why I referenced it. > >> > Actually, considering the amount of shared border, and cross-traffic, > >> > some sort of security arrangements make sense, from a "let's not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The old increase the standard. Wrong. That was my standard to begin with. > As far as my comment to jaybird, if you > notice the spp groups are composed of people from all three nations. > There need not exist a chain of command outside the buracracy. The groups > are the command. So, this thing is so, because you say so. I got it. > >> To me, this is a mergining of burcracies. > > Well, you can call a turkey a chick, but that doesn't make it one. > > And you can stick your head in the sand and hope for a better tomorrow, > but that doesn't mean it will come. Non sequitur. Using loaded terms and making unsupported claims is essentially calling a turkey a chicken. Or ostrich, to stretch your metaphor a bit. > >> An Ad-hominem against wikipedia. I figured that's what you'd do. > > > No. A wiki entry doesn't prove anything. Anybody can write anything > > into wiki. That was the point. > > I refered you to the links given. They don't have any stamp of officialness either. It's all circular reasoning. > >> > Some guy talking about the Amero? What government post does this guy > >> > hold, again? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You asked for people with government posts. Well, gosh - GWB has a government post and talks about teaching creation science in schools. Last I checked, he can't make that happen, so quit goofing around and tell me precisely where the legislation creating this new currency is, and which folks in charge of monetary policy are pushing it. You can't, because those folks don't exist, and neither does the legislation. "The sky is falling!" > Now you say their opinions > are worthless. Their opinions are worthless. Just like GWB's opinion on what subject matter should be taught in bio classes. > How about you show me why I shouldn't be concerned so I can go to sleep > and trust GWB and his CFR vice president. Nothing I say will change your opinion that the sky is falling, so I won't even try. Like telling a bible-thumper that there ain't such thing as God. > >> Just because you call it black-helicopter doesn't make it so. > > > These guys go on and on about the Federal Reserve. Yeah, > > black-helicopter to be sure. Wacky, fringe stuff. > > Kookification and ad hominem. No - an accurate description of the contents of their site. They have a particular bent, and they aim their writings that way. > >> Would you prefer Lou Dobbs of CNN? > > Lou claims where that we are going to the Amero, and uses what sources? > > I didn't say we are going to amero and neither did he. Then WTF are you pissing and moaning about? > However it's on > some wish lists. So the f.ck what? American hegemony in the Mid East is on some wish lists too, but that ain't gonna happen! Holy crap, if it's not on the horizon, then it's just as viable as Dave's space shield. > Of course if we all declare it wacky stuff and don't pay > attention, they might get their wish. Yeah, just like flowering democracy in Iraq. Fringe, alarmist bullshit, unsupported by facts, and barely supported by innuendo. > > So far, the Amero is a bunch of circular reasoning, with no reality to > > it. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > early 80s. That in a nutshell, is the reasoning of how an amero can come > about. Care to tell me what is 'circular'? Looks linear to me. No. The jump from shitty monetary policy to some new currency is the flight of fancy. > >> > That's a nice red herring. > >> This from someone who introduces the Loch Ness Monster. > > It's called an analogy. Look it up. > > There was no analogy present, just kookification. Then you are having trouble reading/comprehending. Go look again. > >> How is laying off a group overseas in any way related to laying off US > >> citizens? > > > "Since when has Congress reduced government power?" > > Government power was unchanged by that action. Bzzt. The administration was publically spanked, and were forced to withdraw direct aid. The administration's power was changed. > > Asked and answered. Oh, wait - now you're moving the goalposts. :) > > Not at all. I discuss government power over US citizens and you introduce > foreign policy. Your question did not make such a limitation, goalpost-mover. > >> The old 'it might be different tomorrow so don't worry about it'. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > then at the minimum provided no emergencies have been declared to change > it. LOL. Kook-land, here we come. Read for comprehension. Jan 09 is PAST 2008. > >> And > >> legal? Legal doesn't count for much in this nation when it comes to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's just an obversvation. An observation assumes some fact. You're making an unsupported assertion. > >> Those > >> aren't legal either. Ask jaybird, legal is anything the doomsmen [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Read the US constitution and bill of rights. Compare to what has been > declared 'legal'. AIUI, the USC provides for a a group of folks known commonly as "judges". You may want to read the document sometime. > >> > Which has turned out to be more Chicken Little than actual reality. Or > >> > overheated rhetoric, if you like that term better. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be irrational. Logically it follows that I should think it a good thing. > No straw needed. You are assuming me to have some position I don't have. Strawman. > > Cherry-picked quotes, by someone other that you (lifted them from a > > blog, didn't you?) > > No, I lifted them out of a file of quotes I keep. Even better - cherry-picked by *you* for effect. > > Trying to paint a picture by juxtaposition. > > Powerful people in powerful places say they want certain things and are > working towards them, but I'm the wacky one for thinking they are working > towards those things they say they want and are working towards. You're wacky for saying they are likely to come to be. > >> If you'd actually like to convince me that the SPP, entered into outside > >> the tready process is nothing to worry about go ahead. But if you want to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > just kooky to believe that powerful people would sell out the nation for > personal wealth and power, right? It's wacky to think it will actually happen. After all, there have been dire warnings of such events since, hmmm, the beginning of the republic? LOL. > > There is nothing in ANY of your cites or quotes that proves your > > claims. But hey, did you know that Nostradamus predicted Hitler? Some [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > blogger with no influence or friends in high places and no money to > use for influence. Steven Jobs thought his NeXT computer would be the ultimate in computing. The head of the patent office in 1899 said that everything that could be invented already was. All kinds of folks with wide open mouths say stuff. Hell, Art Bell made a radio career out of it! When there's legislation proposed, get back to me. Until then, it's the same thing as talking about the little green men and their anal probes. E.P. > Well, gosh - GWB has a government post and talks about teaching > creation science in schools. Last I checked, he can't make that > happen You guys have tried forcing it on us too but schools have been told to bin the creepy stuff. Graham > Re-read the thread. It's very clear why I referenced it. Good old kookification. > So, this thing is so, because you say so. I got it. I don't say anything, I just keep aware of what's going on without this rosy idealism of yours that it will all sort itself out with no harmful effects. > Non sequitur. Using loaded terms and making unsupported claims is > essentially calling a turkey a chicken. Or ostrich, to stretch your > metaphor a bit. Then tell me why there's nothing to be concerned about, besides that rosy 'things can change'. Of course things can change, but it's a lot more difficult to set things right after they've been changed for the worse than pay attention and stop it in the first place. >> You asked for people with government posts. > Well, gosh - GWB has a government post and talks about teaching > creation science in schools. Last I checked, he can't make that > happen, so quit goofing around and tell me precisely where the > legislation creating this new currency is, and which folks in charge of > monetary policy are pushing it. You can't, because those folks don't > exist, and neither does the legislation. GWB doesn't exist? Dick Cheney doesn't exist? David Rockefeller doesn't exist? Hmmm... maybe they combine and form the loch ness monster? > "The sky is falling!" Gee... a buracracy creating regulation with the weight of law across three nations established with the approval of only three men and nothing else spending untold amounts of money in reshaping the economies of said three nations is nothing. I guess the US constitution really is a goddamn piece of paper then. Ya think that maybe "We the people" should have something to say about this, or at least the congress. Instead it's secret and the documents need to be dragged out through FIA requrests and court battles. And I'm crazy for being concerned about it. > Their opinions are worthless. Just like GWB's opinion on what subject > matter should be taught in bio classes. He signed us into the SPP all by his lonesome... Last I read the US constitution calling a treaty an agreement doesn't change what it is. It's beyond the constitution and clearly supports the aims of the CFR. Or maybe I could be less worried if the real core of what's going wasn't kept secret. But I'm just the crazy person who doesn't trust a government to do what's best for him. >> How about you show me why I shouldn't be concerned so I can go to sleep >> and trust GWB and his CFR vice president. > Nothing I say will change your opinion that the sky is falling, so I > won't even try. Like telling a bible-thumper that there ain't such > thing as God. Try me. I have a very open mind. But nahh... easier to just call me a kook. >> I didn't say we are going to amero and neither did he. > Then WTF are you pissing and moaning about? Why don't you take your own advice and re-read. What can happen, what people are working towards, isn't in stone yet. >> However it's on some wish lists. > So the f.ck what? American hegemony in the Mid East is on some wish > lists too, but that ain't gonna happen! It will happen if we all bury our heads in the sand and dismiss what is happening as kooky nonsense the way you'd have it. That's what kookification is all about, to dismiss any one who is critical of and get most people to ignore it. >> Of course if we all declare it wacky stuff and don't pay >> attention, they might get their wish. > Yeah, just like flowering democracy in Iraq. Fringe, alarmist > bullshit, unsupported by facts, and barely supported by innuendo. Hmm.. We have a body that is deciding regulation for the united states of america with ZERO accountability to the people, to the congress... a by pass of the treaty process. More than that, much of what they are doing is being kept a secret, only to be released with a court battle if at all. Nothing to be concerned about at all... only the people with the best intentions would operate like that. > No. The jump from shitty monetary policy to some new currency is the > flight of fancy. Yeah, so was using planes crashing into buildings as an excuse to short circuit the Bill of Rights. Before 11-sept-2001, it's was the realm of kooks. Then there is how it is required that we have permission to leave and enter the country. Anyone who may have said that even a year ago, he would have been dismissed as a kook. But this month it becomes reality. A few years ago the national ID card was something kooks talked about while rational people like you would say it could never happen. Then the Real ID act passed. My road to being a kook happened because I couldn't dismiss the kooks any more, they just kept being correct and the things they said kept coming to pass. And it is plain as day, all you have to do is read the published plans from places like the CFR, PNAC, etc and so forth. There's no crystal ball required, it's all laid out. >> > No, it *will* be different. Past 2008, he won't be reading anything. >> >> Why you expect GWB to die before january 2009? He will be in office until >> then at the minimum provided no emergencies have been declared to change >> it. > LOL. Kook-land, here we come. Mexican troops patroling US soil and the US military taking citizen's guns was just kook-land once upon a time too. But oops that happened. > Read for comprehension. Jan 09 is PAST 2008. He will be office serveral days in Jan 09, which is past 2008. Past 2008 begins, jan 1 until the new president takes the oath, 2009 GWB will be in office, and hence in office past 2008. Sure, it's a technicality, but you play them, so I might as well. >> It's just an obversvation. > An observation assumes some fact. You're making an unsupported > assertion. I've observed what has been going on nationally and locally in the last few years. Legal doesn't seem to matter much any more when it comes to restricting government. I would suggest you read the US constitution and Bill of Rights and then some of the legislation and actions of government in the last several years and see for yourself. > AIUI, the USC provides for a a group of folks known commonly as > "judges". You may want to read the document sometime. To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson We've been over this before: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/browse_frm/thread/7fc50f2e13cf2 a4c?hl=en& >> You call me chicken little for not liking it, thusly not liking it must >> be irrational. Logically it follows that I should think it a good thing. >> No straw needed. > You are assuming me to have some position I don't have. Strawman. Calling me a chicken little is your stated view and position you clearly took. The meaning is clear. A chicken little opposes, is concerned about, is affraid of something, that cannot possibly happen, something that isn't bad, something that might even be good for him. > Even better - cherry-picked by *you* for effect. Should I choose quotes from William Shanter when discussing the CFR's plans, or should I quote CFR members/leaders? Or should I have every quote that exists on the planet? Of course not. One chooses quotes that demonstrate the point he's trying to make. >> > Trying to paint a picture by juxtaposition. >> Powerful people in powerful places say they want certain things and are >> working towards them, but I'm the wacky one for thinking they are working >> towards those things they say they want and are working towards. > You're wacky for saying they are likely to come to be. The great thing about having something declared wacky, kooky, is that all the 'rational and sane' people think it can never happen. Somebody will stop it. Who's that somebody? It wasn't that long ago that the national ID was one of those kooky things that would never happen. But sure enough, those pesky folks with the power and influence found a way to make it happen with the Real ID act. Everyone dismissed it as kooky. Even I thought, 'that would never happen'. Sure enough, it did. >> In other words you can't. I'd like not be concerned about it. You're such >> a smart guy and I a mere kook, so please explain why I shouldn't be >> concerned about the SPP and all related subject matter. After all, it's >> just kooky to believe that powerful people would sell out the nation for >> personal wealth and power, right? > It's wacky to think it will actually happen. After all, there have > been dire warnings of such events since, hmmm, the beginning of the > republic? LOL. So let's do nothing to stop it then. After all, it could never happen. Only a kook would be concerned about it. It's likely to happen so long as it is dismissed as wacky. The problem is, those who want it aren't wearing tin foil hats in their mothers' basements, they are in positions of power and working towards making it happen. >> > There is nothing in ANY of your cites or quotes that proves your >> > claims. But hey, did you know that Nostradamus predicted Hitler? Some >> > folks on the internet say it, so it must be true. >> Yeah, David Rockefeller is just some guy on the internet. A half-assed >> blogger with no influence or friends in high places and no money to >> use for influence. > Steven Jobs thought his NeXT computer would be the ultimate in > computing. The head of the patent office in 1899 said that everything > that could be invented already was. All kinds of folks with wide open > mouths say stuff. Hell, Art Bell made a radio career out of it! Yet, the CFR is making signficant progress towards their goals while anyone opposing it is just some chicken-little kook. > When there's legislation proposed, get back to me. Until then, it's > the same thing as talking about the little green men and their anal > probes. Why do with legislation what one can do with just executive power? The constitution has been by-passed already. That's a key part of the problem. > > Re-read the thread. It's very clear why I referenced it. > > Good old kookification. Wrong. Since you can't grasp the simple and very straight-forward analogy in question, the other, more subtle issues are completely pointless to discuss. Or, you may be pretending to be obtuse. Regardless, your Chicken Little screeds have very little meaning or resonance with folks who actually think on these subjects. Doomsayers are on every street corner, warning us about this that and the other catastophe. Your street corner is r.a.d. E.P. >> > Re-read the thread. It's very clear why I referenced it. >> >> Good old kookification. > Wrong. Since you can't grasp the simple and very straight-forward > analogy in question, the other, more subtle issues are completely > pointless to discuss. You chose to tie it in with the lockness monster in order to create a perception of kookiness. > Regardless, your Chicken Little screeds have very little meaning or > resonance with folks who actually think on these subjects. Doomsayers > are on every street corner, warning us about this that and the other > catastophe. Let's see regulations are being modified buy trilateral working groups with no accountability what so ever to the congress or the people via an agreement that the president alone signed into. The documents they create and what they are doing is secret unless forced out by lawsuit. And I am the kooky one to think they are up to no good. They listen to and take ideas from the CFR, CFR members are involved and I'm kooky for thinking they are working towards the published goals of the CFR. Stick your head in the sand and claim it will never happen here. Bet you said that about a national ID card a few years back. Sometime around may 2008, all states must make their issued drivers licenses comply with national ID card requirements. If the state does not, they lose highway funds and citizens of the state cannot use it to fly. The typical federal government blackmail that brought us over two decades of the NMSL. I'll bet some years ago you wouldn't think that we would all need permission from 'home land security' to leave or re-enter the country. You would have said that was doomsaying nonsense that would never happen. This month it happens. Sorry Ed, it can happen here, and so long as most people believe it can't they'll be brought to a slow boil and one day they'll wake up and wonder how the hell we ended up living in a north american union and needing to pass through checkpoints just to get to work in the morning. The alternative is to be a 'kook' and think about what certain groups are doing one small step at a time by educating ourselves to what their published long term goals are. I don't see you complaining I am a doomsayer when I say the goal of MADD is neoprohibition. MADD has published their goals to have all vehicle with breathlyzer interlocks and legal BAC levels of .05 just as the groups that want a north american union have published their goals. The only difference is, MADD members aren't in office and no working groups have been approved by the president set federal driving regulations in the direction of MADD's goals. > >> > Re-read the thread. It's very clear why I referenced it. > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You chose to tie it in with the lockness monster in order to create a > perception of kookiness. Wrong. But I'm sure that you, level-headed guy that you are, know my intentions better than I do. E.P. >> You chose to tie it in with the lockness monster in order to create a >> perception of kookiness. > Wrong. > > But I'm sure that you, level-headed guy that you are, know my > intentions better than I do. If your point was to show 'belief' you could have chosen a belief that isn't considered kooky. Like a belief in an afterlife. Considering you used 'kook', 'wacky', etc elsewhere in the posts, it's clear why you chose beliefs considered by many to be wacky and kooky. > >> You chose to tie it in with the lockness monster in order to create a > >> perception of kookiness. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If your point was to show 'belief' you could have chosen a belief that > isn't considered kooky. Instead of embarrassing yourself further, why don't you go back and actually READ what was written, and in what context. Maybe you get some kind of clue. I doubt it, however. E.P. > actually READ what was written, and in what context. > Maybe you get some kind of clue. > I doubt it, however. The loch ness monster has no context wrt to the north american union, unless it's to paint a picture of something being wacky... wait, that's what you were doing, in fact that's the word you used, that was your context. Has your driver's license been changed over to ther Real ID format yet? You know, that national ID card the kooks talked about for years that was backdoored while folks like you said it would 'never happen'? > > actually READ what was written, and in what context. > > Maybe you get some kind of clue. > > I doubt it, however. > > The loch ness monster has no context wrt to the north american union No. It has context WRT the Amero and wiki. If you could read for comprehension. E.P. >> > actually READ what was written, and in what context. >> > Maybe you get some kind of clue. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If you could read for comprehension. You made the wacky link clear as day. So, your state comply with REAL ID yet? What biometric is being used where you are at? > >> > actually READ what was written, and in what context. > >> > Maybe you get some kind of clue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You made the wacky link clear as day. Now you're just arguing to argue. I'll quote the relevant passage: [you wrote] > Amero: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_currency_union (has various links) [I replied] Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical doesn't make it real. Spin some more, LOL. E.P. > Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent > Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical > doesn't make it real. What I find amusing is that you deny doing what you chide others for. Yet, when you pick something, it's not cherry picking, there's no intent, no thought behind it, just pure random chance you picked 'bigfoot' instead of 'giant squid', the 'loch ness monster' instead of 'Thylacine', and 'intelligent design' instead of 'god'. > Spin some more, LOL. Of course it's interesting how you focus on this instead of where 'kooks' and 'wacky' people have been correct. > > Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent > > Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > thought behind it, just pure random chance you picked 'bigfoot' instead of > 'giant squid' Giant squid really exist, unlike bigfoot and the Amero >the 'loch ness monster' instead of 'Thylacine', and > 'intelligent design' instead of 'god'. Intelligent design and God sort of go hand-in-hand. Since you missed the intent, and have to have it spelled out for you (not only in the original post where I mentioned these things, but just about every post thereafter), let me say it yet again: just because there's a wiki entry on something doesn't make it valid or real. Now, if you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine. Your deliberate misrepresentation has now become a red herring. > > Spin some more, LOL. > > Of course it's interesting how you focus on this instead of where 'kooks' > and 'wacky' people have been correct. Because there are many more instances where the kooks have been dead wrong. All through history. Running out of oil, domino theory, witches in Salem, Red scare, etc, etc, etc. The fact that some folks get lucky in predicting something doesn't imply their next prediction is any less wacky, or any more likely to come to pass. HTH. E.P. >> > Err, I found entries for the Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot and Intelligent >> > Design. A bunch of folks talking in circles about something mythical [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Giant squid really exist, unlike bigfoot and the Amero We only have photographs of giant squid and we have only photographs, footprints and hair samples of bigfoot. Unless you mean the monster truck bigfoot, which we really do know exists. And BTW, nice strawman, nobody claimed the amero presently existed. >>the 'loch ness monster' instead of 'Thylacine', and >> 'intelligent design' instead of 'god'. > Intelligent design and God sort of go hand-in-hand. One is considered 'wacky' the other isn't. > Since you missed the intent, and have to have it spelled out for you > (not only in the original post where I mentioned these things, but just > about every post thereafter), let me say it yet again: just because > there's a wiki entry on something doesn't make it valid or real. Nice strawman. > Now, > if you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine. Your deliberate > misrepresentation has now become a red herring. You cherry picked to create the wacky and kooky perception. That was purposeful and with intent as you proved in other portions of your post. >> Of course it's interesting how you focus on this instead of where 'kooks' >> and 'wacky' people have been correct. > Because there are many more instances where the kooks have been dead > wrong. All through history. Running out of oil, domino theory, > witches in Salem, Red scare, etc, etc, etc. Hmm.. I argue that tim osmond is a boogie man (modern red scare) and that the world is awash in oil. That's what todays 'kooks' argue. Today's mainstream tells us about 'peak oil', today's mainstream tells us to be affraid of OBL and friends. You need to pick better 'kooks' Anyway, what I was getting at is best summed up by the three stages of truth. "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) [snip ongoing red herring] > > Intelligent design and God sort of go hand-in-hand. > > One is considered 'wacky' the other isn't. Really? There are normal folks who fervently believe in both. I don't consider either to be "wacky." > > Since you missed the intent, and have to have it spelled out for you > > (not only in the original post where I mentioned these things, but just > > about every post thereafter), let me say it yet again: just because > > there's a wiki entry on something doesn't make it valid or real. > > Nice strawman. What strawman? That a wiki is not an authoritative source? > > Now, > > if you wish to believe otherwise, that's fine. Your deliberate > > misrepresentation has now become a red herring. [snipped red herring] > >> Of course it's interesting how you focus on this instead of where 'kooks' > >> and 'wacky' people have been correct. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hmm.. I argue that tim osmond is a boogie man (modern red scare) and that > the world is awash in oil. That's what todays 'kooks' argue. I don't know tim osmond, and there is debate, HONEST debate on how much oil there really is. So the kook factor goes away on those. > Today's > mainstream tells us about 'peak oil', today's mainstream tells us to be > affraid of OBL and friends. You need to pick better 'kooks' OBL and friends have actually attacked us. And want to again. What's your point? > Anyway, what I was getting at is best summed up by the three stages of > truth. > > "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. > Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being > self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) And some truths never were truths to begin with. You seem to have difficulty discerning the difference. E.P. >> > Intelligent design and God sort of go hand-in-hand. >> One is considered 'wacky' the other isn't. > Really? There are normal folks who fervently believe in both. I don't > consider either to be "wacky." There are folks who "fervently believe" in big foot and/or the loch ness monster. >> Nice strawman. > What strawman? That a wiki is not an authoritative source? I didn't argue it was nor present it as. I used it as a source of further links. >> > Because there are many more instances where the kooks have been dead >> > wrong. All through history. Running out of oil, domino theory, >> > witches in Salem, Red scare, etc, etc, etc. >> Hmm.. I argue that tim osmond is a boogie man (modern red scare) and that >> the world is awash in oil. That's what todays 'kooks' argue. > I don't know tim osmond, and there is debate, HONEST debate on how much > oil there really is. So the kook factor goes away on those. Tim Osmond is the name for the CIA asset known commonly as Osama Bin Laden. >> Today's >> mainstream tells us about 'peak oil', today's mainstream tells us to be >> affraid of OBL and friends. You need to pick better 'kooks' > OBL and friends have actually attacked us. And want to again. What's > your point? You might want to check into that claim some. The hair samples for big foot are more credible than the list of 19. >> Anyway, what I was getting at is best summed up by the three stages of >> truth. >> >> "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. >> Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being >> self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 - 1860) > And some truths never were truths to begin with. You seem to have > difficulty discerning the difference. How's that national ID card working out for you? > >> > Intelligent design and God sort of go hand-in-hand. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There are folks who "fervently believe" in big foot and/or the loch ness > monster. Exactly. Fervent belief in the Amero, or it's coming DOESN'T MAKE IT SO. > >> Nice strawman. > > > What strawman? That a wiki is not an authoritative source? > > I didn't argue it was nor present it as. I used it as a source of further > links. Which also aren't authoritative, and also don't point to the impending change of currency. > >> > Because there are many more instances where the kooks have been dead > >> > wrong. All through history. Running out of oil, domino theory, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tim Osmond is the name for the CIA asset known commonly as Osama Bin Laden. Oh, I see. OBL doesn't exist. (Cuckoo clocks chiming in the background.) LOL > >> Today's > >> mainstream tells us about 'peak oil', today's mainstream tells us to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You might want to check into that claim some. The hair samples for big > foot are more credible than the list of 19. No they aren't. Black-helicopter types have no proof of some big conspiracy theory - just a lot of Art Bell/numerology/astrology bullshit. Not *that's* kook-land. > >> Anyway, what I was getting at is best summed up by the three stages of > >> truth. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How's that national ID card working out for you? I don't have one. Unless you mean a passport. Funny, other countries require that I have one to come in. I guess I could pull a Ted Kazinski and live in a remote shack somewhere - but then where would I get my supply of foil for lining my hat? LMAO. E.P. > Exactly. Fervent belief in the Amero, or it's coming DOESN'T MAKE IT > SO. Yet something more I never argued. > Which also aren't authoritative, and also don't point to the impending > change of currency. impending... damn that makes something easy to knock down. >> Tim Osmond is the name for the CIA asset known commonly as Osama Bin Laden. > > Oh, I see. OBL doesn't exist. (Cuckoo clocks chiming in the > background.) LOL Strawman. Never said he didn't once exist. BTW, The man is almost certainly dead if reports on his health were correct. According to reports he was suffering from end stage kidney disease 5+ years ago. Typical life expectency on 3 times a week dialysis in the USA as perscribed by typical insurance and government coverage is 5 years with a low quality of life. Something tells me OBL wasn't even getting that low standard of care. >> > OBL and friends have actually attacked us. And want to again. What's >> > your point? >> You might want to check into that claim some. The hair samples for big >> foot are more credible than the list of 19. > No they aren't. Black-helicopter types have no proof of some big > conspiracy theory - just a lot of Art Bell/numerology/astrology > bullshit. CBS News report on several of the highjackers being still alive. Then the magical passport. Various reports of several of the 19 having been connected to US military and intelligence. You might want to look into it. > Not *that's* kook-land. It's mainstream news that wasn't on the front page. >> How's that national ID card working out for you? > I don't have one. Unless you mean a passport. Funny, other countries > require that I have one to come in. I guess I could pull a Ted > Kazinski and live in a remote shack somewhere - but then where would I > get my supply of foil for lining my hat? You'll have a national ID by 2008 unless the state you live in rebels and decides to live without highway funds. > LMAO. Google up the real ID act. Start making your hat. > > Exactly. Fervent belief in the Amero, or it's coming DOESN'T MAKE IT > > SO. > > Yet something more I never argued. "Top bankers are talking about the Amero." You wrote that, then went on to try and prove its "reality." Then you said you meant to say something else (other than top bankers), and now you're disassociating yourself from this fictional currency. Good to see you're finally, almost, retracting what you originally wrote. Damn, but you're thick. E.P. >> > Exactly. Fervent belief in the Amero, or it's coming DOESN'T MAKE IT >> > SO. >> >> Yet something more I never argued. > > "Top bankers are talking about the Amero." > You wrote that, then went on to try and prove its "reality." No, I went to show it was being talked about. > Then you said you meant to say something else (other than top bankers), > and now you're disassociating yourself from this fictional currency. It won't be real until it's implemented. Of course if we all just go 'it can never happen' and stick our heads in the sand, that implementation becomes a whole lot easier. Waiting until the work is done is foolish as it is more difficult to undo things than it is to prevent them from being done. But to do that, one has to be aware of the plans, the desires, of those pushing the current steps in that direction. World government and world currency is the desire, the plan is step wise and stoping the regional steps is easier than trying to change it once it's done. This isn't rocket science, it's all written down. It's about as kooky as thinking PNAC members will follow PNAC plans. > Good to see you're finally, almost, retracting what you originally > wrote. I haven't. It is being talked about in circles of banking and finance and such. Just read the plans of the CFR and similiar orgs. > Damn, but you're thick. Pot-kettle-black. > >> > Exactly. Fervent belief in the Amero, or it's coming DOESN'T MAKE IT > >> > SO. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No, I went to show it was being talked about. And folks talk about UFOs, too. So what? By typing the words "sticking your head in the sand", you are attempting to suggest the thing is coming. It doesn't exist, it's not being talked about by top bankers, and only kooks think even a microsecond on it. E.P. >> No, I went to show it was being talked about. > > And folks talk about UFOs, too. So what? By typing the words > "sticking your head in the sand", you are attempting to suggest the > thing is coming. It doesn't exist, it's not being talked about by top > bankers, and only kooks think even a microsecond on it. I'll worry about the aliens plans for earth politically and economically when one a vice president of the USA. I'll be concerned about the amero when a CFR member is the vice president of the USA. Opps, we do have a CFR member for a vice president. Look into who Robert Pastor is and what he has published. > >> No, I went to show it was being talked about. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > CFR member for a vice president. Look into who Robert Pastor is and what > he has published. > >> No, I went to show it was being talked about. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I'll worry about the aliens plans for earth politically and economically > when one a vice president of the USA. So, this so-called "threat" will last another 2 years and 2 weeks (or so) and nobody will think any more on it. Well, some folks will - just like those who are convinced that a cruise missle is what hit the Pentagon. Well, I for one am relieved to hear the Amero is just a pipe dream of some radical fringe folks who will retire to their bunkers in two years and some. Why didn't you just say that in the first place? I guess it really isn't as bad as you've made it out to be. I guess one could say, the sky *isn't* falling. E.P. >> I'll worry about the aliens plans for earth politically and economically >> when one a vice president of the USA. > So, this so-called "threat" will last another 2 years and 2 weeks (or > so) and nobody will think any more on it. That depends |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message