The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

i REALLY do not understand what's so difficult about this.

1. The globalists' timeline has been centuries long. They have been an exceedingly patient lot.

2. They move puzzle pieces incrementally into place advancing their plan.

3. They are understandably loathe to do anything too dramatically in one moment unless it's their CREATE A CRISIS to make a big change . . . e.g. 9/11 to remove a lot of our travel freedoms and other freedoms.

4. Understandably, the DEPOPULATION thing is a hyper sensitive thing for the public to really begin to realize is thoroughly real and in place and inexorable.

5. THEREFORE, they are minimizing info about it as long as possible.

6. AND they have evidently staged such forces and factors to

BEGIN TO OVERTLY BEAR FRUIT more or less all at once or maybe in rapid succession say concurrent with or after a super devastating WW III.

7. BECAUSE, they do NOT want informed serfs and slaves rising up too soon--with any real power--to appear at their doorsteps and bunkers with effective pitchforks to sabotage their tyranny.

8. But hey, you sound like you are convinced that you are smarter than all the highest IQ's money can buy at the service of the globalists for many decades . . . just keep whistlilng past the grave yard. All will be well.

. . . until it rather suddenly very isn't.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
1. The globalists' timeline has been centuries long. They have been an exceedingly patient lot.

Stop. This is major common sense failure #1 in the whole alleged plot.

So, some guys, thousands of years ago, sat around and came up with a plan to take over the world.
Just not in their lifetime.

Or their children.

Or their grandchildren.

Or their grandchildren's grandchildren x 1,000.

How very magnanimous of them and rather thoughtful that, at some point in the far, far history of the world, which they would have no part off, their distant offspring, who they would never know, would help usher in the Satanic conspiracy presently being foamed over and reap the wonderful rewards.

So believable.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I bow to your request.

I do earnestly try to do unto others as I'd prefer done to me.

Actually, I've stepped significantly back from the number of hours I devote to monitoring doom porn etc. I do get hooked some, still more than I prefer but not a lot more.

I think the Dominionists will sputter out.

The globalists will trash them.

Or . . . and this I'm not prepared to discuss because it's a somewhat embryonic idea to me . . .

Or . . . some elements within the Dominionist movement will get on the stick with what GOD IS ACTUALLY DOING and neighborhoods or towns or whatever will be supernaturally protected from the globalists and the Christian ethic will be in force in those regions. And those regions will be ran more after the model in Sermon On The Mount, imho.

The only other regions available will be the tyrannical Draconian globalist regions.

But I do not see God allowing the politically manipulative Dominionist movement much long term currency or effectiveness.

He's not interested in a new league of pharisees.

a reply to: Bone75

Some members do NOT understand what "socialism" is. Perhaps it's time for a new thread to actually discuss it.
What happened in China and Russia and Japan - with their killing many millions of people - was not about "socialism."

SOCIALISM IS NOT THEFT.

It is distribution of the collective wealth of a state that ensures NO ONE starves, suffers needlessly, or is rendered helpless, homeless and alone. It's not that everyone has only one outfit, one room, two books, and half a loaf of bread. No. NONONO. It allows for people to have "more" depending on their contributions than others - but at the same time, NO ONE FALLS THROUGH THE CRACKS.

It is humane, altruistic, reasonable, and responsible.

Kali has an excellent grasp of it, and other members do as well. Runaway Capitalism is turning out to be as much a failure as "Communism" (which also IS NOT SOCIALISM) - when people are starving RIGHT HERE, homeless RIGHT HERE, unemployed, unable to vote, imprisoned in ghettos, and generally dismissed as "useless eaters" - THAT IS A PROBLEM.

What we have now is a hybrid Democratic Socialist Republic. The "commonwealth" takes care of building infrastructure, feeding the hungry, remedying (where they are allowed) the suffering of anyone who is a citizen. In my opinion, it is as much a travesty for the GOP to insist on removing the socialist framework that protects the vulnerable, as it ever was for China to impart "equal everything" on everyone.

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM.
While progressives have some strongly socialist ideals, THEY ARE NOT COMMUNISTS. THEY ARE NOT THIEVES.
They look to the "social justice" of no one suffering needlessly.

In light of BO's description of world poverty, hunger, disease, etc. all being curable NOW - it is the Socialists/Progressives who want to implement that - but the GOP balks and crows and insists on wealth-hoarding.




To change the first line - it wasn't Bone that I meant was misunderstanding socialism. Sorry, all.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Are you sure you're addressing the right person? lol

a reply to: Bone75

Hmmm. Maybe not! LOL!!

Someone said (I know ketsuko was one of them) that socialism is theft and offers nothing. But now that you mention it, you being a Bible-thumping Socialist comes to mind!

Okay - how about you just back me up on my understanding of it!
Did you agree?

Indeed: You said this:

Socialism doesn't eliminate individual giving and voluntary charity, it just insures that those things aren't necessary for survival. Not everyone can do for themselves. So again, no contradiction.

My bad.

Let me simplify my point of view. People who have accumulated great wealth and power are most likely highly intelligent and in control of their emotions. I highly doubt that such refined individuals actually believe in gods and demons. Those are the thoughts of the paranoid and romantic. They are the fantasies of the slow and uneducated. The rich just want to have more fun at our expense. It's that simple. Think of it as welfare abuse.

a reply to: gentledissident

People who have accumulated great wealth and power are most likely highly intelligent and in control of their emotions.

in control of their emotions?

Actually, most of them don't HAVE any emotions.....otherwise, yeah, they're known as SOCIOPATHS or, if you prefer, PSYCHOPATHS. Just not all of them overtly homicidal. They just don't give a rip.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Actually, Buzzy, the DEM etc. Regressive globalists are hoarding far more wealth than the GOP globalists . . . interestingly.

Perhaps you should start a new thread on that sort of topic.

a reply to: gentledissident

Sounds like you've bought the MSM propaganda for the last 60+ years hook, line, and sinker.

BTW, I do happen to be highly educated . . . and you can speculate about my IQ, as you wish.

a reply to: BO XIAN

No. You go right ahead.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: BO XIAN

No. You go right ahead.

Thanks, but no thanks, anyway. It's not a favorite topic. LOL.

I think I'll go out and tend to some weeds or plant some goji berries I just got.

Have a blessed day/week.

a reply to: stormcell

Yes, the only one who wins is the government and the oligarchs in control of it - they have the power to do what they will and they pick who wins and who loses. Notice how they exempted themselves while busily writing rules that will bankrupt everyone else?

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
SOCIOPATHS

I avoided the label and used a more expansive, I think, description. I see the behavior a lot in younger humans. It's used for protection and control. I assume some of them get tired of repression, and some of them get used to it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Again, this ruling was NOT about contraception, or even if the government has the right to enforce mandates on the American people. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act says they do.

This ruling was about bestowing human rights on some for profit corporations. It was about SCOTUS setting a dangerous precedent.

In all the history of the Untied States and corporate law, never before 2010 did corporations have the rights to free speech and religious expression. Corporations have no souls, can't be imprisoned or executed, can't vote and can't pray.

I would think that of all people you would see that. But, I guess NavyDoc, you're into protecting corporate interests before natural people's rights. Please don't tell me that the military is protecting my rights ever again.

Oh nonsense--and please don't resort to that silly ad hominum attack. I'm not for big corporations I simply see that history shows us the greatest danger to liberty is big government. I find it fascinating that people hate the unfeeling and bloated bureaucracies that corporations are but feel just fine to turn the reins over to the biggest and most bloated and unfeeling bureaucracy in the world.

As for corporate law, it goes way back before 2010.

In the 1886 case Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, the Chief Justice Waite of the Supreme Court orally directed the lawyers that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause guarantees constitutional protections to corporations in addition to natural persons, and the oral argument should focus on other issues in the case.

Thus, for example, in Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (203 U.S. 243 (1906)), the Court accepted that corporations are for legal purposes "persons," but still ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not a bar to many state laws which effectively limited a corporation's right to contract business as it pleased

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=f alse


The reason why the HL was the correct and Constitutional decision was that it recognized that the federal government must and should have limits on what they can mandate--this is a good thing, even if you hate Christians.

As for "personhood," a corporation is a group of entities with the same goals who come together for a common purpose. If you restrict the rights of said corporation, you restrict the rights of those individuals. Like a union, a corporation represents collective interests of a group of people and, like a union, if you silence a corporation, you also silence the individuals who make it up. I'm certain you think unions also have the freedom of speech and political advocacy or do you think "that's different?"

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: gentledissident

Sounds like you've bought the MSM propaganda for the last 60+ years hook, line, and sinker.

How do you figure? I'm highly skeptical of media.

originally posted by: windword
. . . . protecting corporate interests before natural people's rights.

Under such a ruling, it's not far-fetched to imagine companies (genuinely or disingenuously) claiming religious exemptions in refusing to serve gay customers or denying health insurance coverage to the multi-racial child of an employee. In fact, what would stop companies from saying that their religion makes them opposed to taxes or obeying pollution regulations or you name it? Just what we need in America, more corporations with more excuses to not play by the same rules that ordinary Americans have to obey. www.thedailybeast.com...

But in its rulings, this Court repeatedly gives more power to the interests of already-powerful corporations than the needs of the American people. In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg writes, "The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would override significant interests of the corporations’ employees and covered dependents. It would deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage that the ACA would otherwise secure." Except the majority ruling makes clear the interests of those women simply don't matter as much as the whims of corporations. www.thedailybeast.com...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Bone75

Some members do NOT understand what "socialism" is. Perhaps it's time for a new thread to actually discuss it.
What happened in China and Russia and Japan - with their killing many millions of people - was not about "socialism."

SOCIALISM IS NOT THEFT.

It is distribution of the collective wealth of a state that ensures NO ONE starves, suffers needlessly, or is rendered helpless, homeless and alone. It's not that everyone has only one outfit, one room, two books, and half a loaf of bread. No. NONONO. It allows for people to have "more" depending on their contributions than others - but at the same time, NO ONE FALLS THROUGH THE CRACKS.

Except for one thing - the STATE does nothing to produce wealth. Name me one thing our government does to produce wealth. Even if you presume that the STATE owns all, it still does nothing to produce. Only we do that. I produce by working, my husband produces by working. WE are not the STATE, unless you also presume that the state also owns US. In that case, you advocate slavery.

It is humane, altruistic, reasonable, and responsible.

So much so that all those children are being sent here by their parents to escape the socialist paradises set up by their own governments ... So much so that names like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot will live in infamy forever.

Kali has an excellent grasp of it, and other members do as well. Runaway Capitalism is turning out to be as much a failure as "Communism" (which also IS NOT SOCIALISM) - when people are starving RIGHT HERE, homeless RIGHT HERE, unemployed, unable to vote, imprisoned in ghettos, and generally dismissed as "useless eaters" - THAT IS A PROBLEM.

Except this is NOT runaway capitalism and has no chance to be thanks to the government. You and I have no idea what that system might actually look like. You claim that we're ignorant of what socialism really is? Well, you're just as ignorant of what capitalism really is.

What we have now is a hybrid Democratic Socialist Republic. The "commonwealth" takes care of building infrastructure, feeding the hungry, remedying (where they are allowed) the suffering of anyone who is a citizen. In my opinion, it is as much a travesty for the GOP to insist on removing the socialist framework that protects the vulnerable, as it ever was for China to impart "equal everything" on everyone.

You're getting closer, so did you just contradict yourself by calling our system runaway capitalism if it's actually a hybrid Democractic Socialist Republic? That hybrid Socialist meddling has infected the economy, too. The bigger the STATE becomes, the more it drags on and infects the economy.

SOCIALISM IS NOT COMMUNISM.
While progressives have some strongly socialist ideals, THEY ARE NOT COMMUNISTS. THEY ARE NOT THIEVES.
They look to the "social justice" of no one suffering needlessly.

In light of BO's description of world poverty, hunger, disease, etc. all being curable NOW - it is the Socialists/Progressives who want to implement that - but the GOP balks and crows and insists on wealth-hoarding.

No, it's just the stepping stone. Socialism eventually starves the economy and kills it which ushers in the communist state because by then, the people NEED their state handouts. Socialism the gilded cage.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs

Okay - how about you just back me up on my understanding of it!
Did you agree?

Yes, wholeheartedly. But your approach is all wrong. We're not gonna get there by hating Christians into a corner, that is the fatal flaw of the "progressive" movement. You'd be much better served by appealing to our sensitivities and compassion instead of pretending like we don't have any.

My fear is that the progressives have already royally screwed up any chance we may have had at establishing a socialist society. If you folks can't even recognize that forcing a Christian baker to make a cake for a gay wedding presents a major problem for the baker, then you are by no means compassionate enough to decide who is going to do what in a system where jobs are delegated.

My hope is that Christians wake up and lead the way, otherwise we're all (Christians that is) gonna wind up in re-education camps in the middle of a totally fascist system pretty soon.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Uhhhhhh hello?

I studied such in 1965 . . . before there was a known internet for the public.

The NWO THEOCRACY has been building for a LONG time.

Because any respectable (and therefore dangerous) NWO agency is going to be stupid enough to let a civilian catch up to them.