Final Warnings, Listen to them.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: tigertatzen
But everyone else just comes across as being selfish and unwilling to share with others...

One thing I have noticed and it's about americans, not bashing just an observation, is that many will talk about how great the US system is, at least in comparison to other systems but, the same system being applied in the form of the UN suddenly becomes the worst thing ever.

The reason I bring it up in response to your post is because it almost seems like they don't want to share the system that has worked so well for them with others. Good thing is that it's being adopted. About 70% of the countries in the world are constitutional republics. They may not all be doing it right but at least they're trying.

I don't think most Americans think we have such a great system. I mean, it IS a great system, but it can be coopted just like any other kind of gov't, if the people are lazy, or too trusting. Because it has most definitely been coopted. And people are waking up to this fact because of the email leaks, and the blatant corruption in the Democratic primary. But make no mistake, the SAME kind of thing has been happening in US elections for centuries, as has been discovered in the JFK/Nixon election, and the Bush/Gore election with the 'hanging chads'...and I'm sure a host of others.

But we've been lazy and just ignored it, to the point where we now realize that the 2 party system is not a good system, and there is most definitely NOT TWO PARTIES in this system anymore. It's all one party, and should be renamed to the 'Globalist Party', because that's what it is. And it's all been done behind the backs of the American people.

Who, I hope, are finally waking up. What we need is MORE PARTIES. But of course, the Reps and Dems have put all kinds of laws and rules into place, that make other parties almost impossible to create and flourish. Something has to be done about this, once and for all, to stop these criminals from taking over our political system in the future.

And as long as Clinton does not see the inside of the White House...personally I don't care if it's Jill Stein or Trump, but the Clintons and Bush cronies (like Gary Johnson/Bill Weld) need to see the inside of a prison. Not the inside of the White House...

In theory, a one world government doesn't sound that bad. Everyone united, working together in the best interests of mankind. The problem is that those in charge have no desire to work in the best interests of mankind. They only care about gaining more power and more control, so unless you are going to be in control of this world government, the outcome is likely to be very bad for you.

You don't believe me? Just look at the governments of every country in the world right now. Do any of them act in the best interests of the people? No, they always act in the best interests of large corporations. That being the case, the more decentralised government is, the more control you have over your life and the better your quality of life.

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: Krazysh0t
So aslong as the government only squashes free speech but does'nt make it a law that is fine.

No. The government isn't allowed to squash free speech at all. The general interpretation of "Congress shall make no law..." is that it applies to the TOTAL government, but if you want to be a strict Constitutionalist, then yes that WOULD be how it would work.

Tell me what the difference is.

If you have a problem with the way things work then why aren't you complaining about how you have to obey the T&C's on ATS. That is a censorship of your "free speech" right?

Well thats bull# because that was a video of many clips showing it happening. What so it has to be on CNN or something before we can believe it? Do be serious.

No. It has to be a physical law, written by Congress, a decree from the President, an enforcement of a department under the executive branch, or a ruling from a court. I don't want to see ANY videos. Videos are easily edited to show agendas.

I forgot I was dealing with someone who will excuse anything to protect the government and its presidential candidates. Your picking at straws.. They are in charge of managing the future presidents. Thats as good as being a part of government when your rigging elections. To rig: To give an unfair advantage to one side of a conflict. The two party system is a sham and both sides are just a governmental as any other government institute even if not deemed so offically.

Irrelevant. They are STILL a private organization. Do you complain about Trump throwing hecklers and protesters out of his rallies?

And they are in charge of nominating the person who will run for President for their political party. They really aren't part of the government.

Their manipulations has helped to ensure a candidate that is'nt neccessarily wanted by popular opinion will get in.

You would think those kind of corrupt and deceitful actions would worry most people.

Voter fraud is non-existent.

Ill accept your right to a certain degree it is mainly about congress passing laws. But it is also a individual right. The DNC prevented freedom of speech at a very important event that is directly linked to the government. Dont sit there and say "well their not apart of the government so destroying freedom of speech to ensure who they want as president becomes elected is fine".

Anyway your obviously a big believer and supporter of government so I wish you luck.

YOU are the one grasping at straws here.

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: Krazysh0t

When you are talking about a one world government you are not only talking about the US or the EU for that matter. We would be lucky if a one world government is patterned after the US. It would be more likely be patterned after China. After all not everyone will agree with a one world government. The only way I see it happening is that the people would be disarmed and all resistance will be suppressed most like by force. Your idea of a one world government borders on utopia and not set in reality in my opinion.

Why would we be lucky? For all intents and purposes it is likely going to be patterned after the UN. In fact, it'll probably BE the UN. I imagine that eventually all the nations in the world will join it.

YOUR idea of one world government is an assumption because you fear change. MY idea of a one world government is predicted based off of historical trends as well as the state of the world in the present.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wonder what the criteria are for being considered one of these elite. It seems so vague and open-ended. Like a list of scapegoats that anyone can be placed on, should they fall under whatever unspoken requirements fit the bill for some reason. More of the "them vs. us" mentality that is doing no one any good.

Exactly. There are billions of people in the world. With all those people, it's NOT going to be hard to find someone you don't like. Especially if they live in a completely different social environment than you. Finding a rich guy you can blame the world's troubles on is like finding a rock on the ground. It's not exactly tough.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Voter fraud is non-existent.

Wtf.....Even ranking government officals have said its a sham. You think that one website proves it? These officals would say your wrong. A Programmer testified in front of a panel if someone asked him he could rig it "Anyone could rig it" Quote.

originally posted by: nomoredemsorreps
THAT'S the problem. Just look at the nefarious means they have been using to CREATE their 'one-world' gov't! The wars, the numerous false-flags, the blatant lies, the shrug at millions murdered. These people do not care one whit about justice, or fair-play. They are all freaking INSANE. As anyone discovers once you start to research what is really going on, and who is behind it.

Who is "they" or "these people"? To me, it looks like you are just pointing out the problems of societies living together. This stuff has been going on forever. It's nothing new.

Do you think the fact that Dennis Hastert, the ex-Speaker of the House, was outed as a pedophile is a coincidence? What, with all the other pedophiles and sexual deviants that have been discovered in Congress in the last 20+ years? Read the two books about the Franklin Scandal, which PROVE that parts of the Federal Gov't, DoD, CIA and FBI have been involved in child trafficking, and using said children to blackmail politicians in political parties! This is not some 'conspiracy theory'. It's conspiracy FACT that has been buried by the above people, which shows the kind of power they wield in this shadow gov't.

What does being a pedophile have to do with trying to rule the world? Creepy perverts exist in ALL class levels. You are surprised that people with money and power are able to manipulate these things to facilitate their perversions? Fun fact: They use their power and money to score drugs and prostitutes too.

I just see zero correlation between being a pedophile and seeking world conquest. Care to establish some with some scientific studies?

If you are still not convinced, then do some research on 'The Finders CIA Tallahassee', where you will discover, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the CIA is involved in child porn and child trafficking, and actively squelched an investigation by the DC police, citing 'national security'. Right.

Again. Prove correlation between pedophilia and world conquest. Just because there is a single case of the CIA or the police covering up these things doesn't mean this is a rampant and throughout the government. I can just as easily post tons of links to police organizations selling drugs. Hell the CIA has been complicit in running drugs too.

If that's not enough, do some research into Jimmy Savile, and his close relationship to Prince Charles, the Queen, and Margaret Thatcher. Or of ex-prime minister Edward Heath, who was outed as a murderous pedophile, taking children from the orphanage, Haute de la Guerenne, out on his sailboat, and coming back to land WITHOUT THEM. Or the evidence that Savile liked to diddly with dead bodies and was a Satanist, as was Heath. And there are a TON MORE British politicians that have been outed and accused of pedophilia.

And of course, it continues here. Just read about David Epstein, and his nefarious use of this Bahamas island, and his mansion in Florida, that when police raided the place, discovered hidden cameras IN EVERY ROOM. You think that was for what? Burglars? And the fact that people like BIll Clinton and that shyster lawyer Alan Dershowitz. All of these people are part of the 'elite', and what they do when you are not looking would make your toes curl. We are talking complete evil.

Seriously. You have a disturbing fascination with pedophilia.

I mean, haven't you ever wondered why we jumped from the whole Cold War thing, to terrorism? It's all an act, meant to inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt. Do you really think our gov't cares about terrorists, when they've had completely open borders for the last 20+ years? What they DON'T TELL YOU is that you have a better chance of being struck by ten bolts of lightning, at ONCE, than you ever would of being harmed by a terrorist. Yet, how much airtime has 'terrorism' rec'd? How many tens of billions of dollars have been thrown at the *woowoo* 'terrorist problem'??

I agree. Terrorism is a red herring being used to further people's agendas. However, we disagree on the reasons behind those agendas. My reasons are very simple. Money. People with power are trying to make more of it.

Just like you're not hearing about the current court case going on in Virginia, where the CIA is being sued for fomenting wars in other countries. There is not ONE 'journalist' from mainstream media in that courtroom. And that is by design.

If I'm not hearing about it, why haven't you posted a link where I can go read about it. How do you even know about it?

One last thing I want to leave you with. There is an organization that has been associated with the United Nations, since their inception. The name of that organization is 'The Lucis Trust'. Now, the Lucis Trust is responsible for ALL UN PRINTING, and has been since inception. They even have OBSERVER status in the UN.

And guess what the original name of The Lucis Trust was? The Lucifer Trust. Don't believe me. Look it up yourself. lucistrust.org. And if you think all that is just a benign coincidence, well, you're a lot more naive than I am anymore. This is something that if someone had told me this 5 years ago, I would have laughed and said they were crazy. After 5 years of researching this, and reading hundreds of books (like 'FDR My Manipulated Father-in-Law'...read it and be shocked. You can find a copy of it free online. Read the interview at the end with the ex-Admiral in charge of Pearl Harbor when it was attacked), I no longer believe it is some coincidence.

Oh you believe in the biblical NWO... No wonder why I cannot follow your logic. I'm an agnostic, so you aren't going to reach me with this reasoning.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

One website? Did you even click on that link? And you are going to try to counter that link with a Youtube video?

A Programmer testified in front of a panel if someone asked him he could rig it "Anyone could rig it" Quote.

First off. Prove it. Where are the court transcripts for this testimony?

That doesn't mean that it IS being rigged. I can go shoot a random guy in the middle of the street and probably get away with it because we don't know each other. That doesn't mean that everyone in the country is out there shooting random strangers on the street in the middle of the night. Your logic is unsound.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't change your tune. You said it does'nt exist, period. This video shows alot of people whose opinions are more valid than yours individually and worth even more collectively, saying otherwise.

Better than a transcript read his history, he took polygraphs and passed, he testified and he has the knowledge and background.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WanderingNomadd

I've always wondered. What's so bad about a one world government/the NWO? Why is it supposedly bad for such a thing to exist? Does anyone know?

How do you think the NWO will be put in place ? I'm thinking the people of the world will not be voting , but will have this rammed down our throats after a financial collapse and or WWIII. I think the NWO will be offering food , water and security in exchange for total compliance. Not so bad, I guess unless you value freedom and liberty.....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do not understand your complete dismissal of any content which is hosted on Youtube, each video stands on its own merits and should be judged for it content and any citations provided in the show more info tab. One bad video on youtube can not make them all bad by association, not even a million bad videos they are each separate objects dependent on their individual content.

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

Changing my tune? I'm not changing my tune. It is non-existent. Again just because you are ABLE to do something doesn't mean it is being done, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it is being done on a widespread scale.

Why haven't you clicked on my link yet that goes to a website that SPECIFICALLY tracks, monitors, and researches campaign fraud? Nah. That would require denying ignorance. Why do that when you can just post edited youtube videos that confirm your biases?

originally posted by: CatandtheHatchet
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I do not understand your complete dismissal of any content which is hosted on Youtube, each video stands on its own merits and should be judged for it content and any citations provided in the show more info tab. One bad video on youtube can not make them all bad by association, not even a million bad videos they are each separate objects dependent on their individual content.

Because there are no editing restrictions on Youtube videos. Anyone with any editing software, with ANY agenda can post a video saying anything they want with 100% anonymity. It is literally the least credible source you could post on the internet; right up there with using a forum post as evidence. Even Wikipedia is a better source. Hell, I'd accept a blog over a youtube video. At least blogs tend to link their sources...

originally posted by: WanderingNomadd
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yeah and we saw them caged and the news avoid them. Keep believing the system is worth defending.

I was not defending anything, though I do believe the values expressed in our constitution and bill of rights are worth defending. I was trying to help you understand "free speech". I am interested to know what you think about private property rights? Would you allow someone to create a disturbance at your residence? Your house your rules correct?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Changing my tune? I'm not changing my tune. It is non-existent. Again just because you are ABLE to do something doesn't mean it is being done, and it CERTAINLY doesn't mean it is being done on a widespread scale.

Conversation ended, last reply. Anyone who says something is non-existent then says yeah you can do it but its non-existent. Your a Hillary supporting MSM loving individual and thats fine, but people like that are not debatable. They believe any old rubbish aslong as its "offical".

a reply to: WanderingNomadd

I see you are looking for excuses to exit the conversation now. Can't argue against my link can you? Here's some more evidence of your delusions:
9 Facts That Blow Up the Voter Fraud Myth - Motherjones
Voter Fraud Is Rare, but Myth Is Widespread - New York Times
The Misleading Myth of Voter Fraud in American Elections - Scholars Strategy Network
Voter Fraud: A Massive, Anti-Democratic Deception - Forbes

There is a few sources from left and right leaning sites for you, but keep telling me about this HUGE voter fraud problem and your sources telling me it is possible to do.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I see that as valid concern when relating to video purporting show a visual event, but that is not the singular content of Youtube. There are many videos of people discussing information and providing links to the articles and studies being discussed. I do not dismiss anything just for being on Youtube, I look at it case by case.

It would be like me sharing a piece of info with a friend and when I say I read it on ATS, them scoffing and saying that makes it untrue. Just because I initially saw in on ATS does not invalidate the content, I then follow the OP's citations and look at the info direct etc. So talking with my friend I had the necessary caveats, I do not read and believe, who would do that?

a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

No. You don't understand me. ALL videos are subject to editing. You can cut a video off before a key piece of information is said to manipulate the context of the speaker. You can cut out events preceding an event to distort the perception of the events occurring in the video. You can splice a bunch of unrelated events together to create a false narrative. Hell you could show a video then type some text talking about something else. You could literally make a Hollywood movie and put it on Youtube. They do it too. This is what I'm talking about. Your ideas of video editing are a bit too basic.

One other thing, since you brought up reading citations and following links. The way that Youtube videos present information makes it hard to fact check their information. Since it all comes to you at talking speed (or presented in readable text that eventually falls off the screen), unless you literally PAUSE the video every time a claim is made to go source it, there is no way to know if the stuff being told to you is factual or not and you likely won't followup on it after the video is over. This being the case, I'd rather read things at my own pace instead of being dictated information at a pace set by someone else.

Now what I'm saying here doesn't mean that there ISN'T factual information on Youtube. That is certainly the case, however since the credibility of any given video is extremely low due to the 100% anonymity then that means you are likely going to believe the videos that already agree with your biases. You can play the case-by-case thing, but it is much better to just find a source with better initial credibility.

It's shocking how fast people have been dumbed down and brainwashed over the last 10 years.

People have actually gone from not believing the NWO conspiracy to defending it! That's just nuts, never thought people could be so stupid.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: CatandtheHatchet

No. You don't understand me. ALL videos are subject to editing. You can cut a video off before a key piece of information is said to manipulate the context of the speaker. You can cut out events preceding an event to distort the perception of the events occurring in the video. You can splice a bunch of unrelated events together to create a false narrative. Hell you could show a video then type some text talking about something else. You could literally make a Hollywood movie and put it on Youtube. They do it too. This is what I'm talking about. Your ideas of video editing are a bit too basic.

One other thing, since you brought up reading citations and following links. The way that Youtube videos present information makes it hard to fact check their information. Since it all comes to you at talking speed (or presented in readable text that eventually falls off the screen), unless you literally PAUSE the video every time a claim is made to go source it, there is no way to know if the stuff being told to you is factual or not and you likely won't followup on it after the video is over. This being the case, I'd rather read things at my own pace instead of being dictated information at a pace set by someone else.

Now what I'm saying here doesn't mean that there ISN'T factual information on Youtube. That is certainly the case, however since the credibility of any given video is extremely low due to the 100% anonymity then that means you are likely going to believe the videos that already agree with your biases. You can play the case-by-case thing, but it is much better to just find a source with better initial credibility.

You could easily replace the word 'youtube' with 'MSM' and your post would still make a lot of sense.