These are NOT scandals... they are criminal conspiracies!

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by alldaylong
There have been corrupt governments all around the world since the birth of national governments hundreds of years ago. If people really think that this is going to change, they must be on substances. If one corrupt governments is removed, it's replaced by another. And on it goes repeatedly.

Then its time to look at what is causing the corruption. Is it money? Is it masonry? Is it the pope or other religious heads? Is it malevolent aliens? Is it bilderbergers? A combination of all the above? Sure why not!

Take a look for yourself what causes it. Here is just one list. Others are available:-

en.wikipedia.org...

You simply provided a list of political scandals in the usa. What does that prove, other than scandals occuring?

Its like saying someone has acme without addressing what is causing the acme.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by alldaylong

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by alldaylong
There have been corrupt governments all around the world since the birth of national governments hundreds of years ago. If people really think that this is going to change, they must be on substances. If one corrupt governments is removed, it's replaced by another. And on it goes repeatedly.

Then its time to look at what is causing the corruption. Is it money? Is it masonry? Is it the pope or other religious heads? Is it malevolent aliens? Is it bilderbergers? A combination of all the above? Sure why not!

Take a look for yourself what causes it. Here is just one list. Others are available:-

en.wikipedia.org...

You simply provided a list of political scandals in the usa. What does that prove, other than scandals occuring?

Its like saying someone has acme without addressing what is causing the acme.

Read my previous posts.
All will then become clear.

You have to understand something here.

1. Many of us here (intuitively) knew this was going on for years. They haven't told us anything we didn't know (suspect) all along.

2. Those who didn't know it probably suspected it too but they are foolish enough to believe that the ends justify the means. The government now knows how to manipulate these people. No matter what kind of nonsense they're up to, they can justify it with the same old BS excuses (terrorism, security, etc).

3. Curiously enough, they always have a more than adequate supply of recent "terrorist" type events with which to bully the public into accepting their excuses (Boston, Sandy Hook, James Holmes, etc). If these things didn't already make you suspicious, work on your nose. They all have the same vaguely suspicious stink about them.

Now. You have to also realize that there has to be a reason they're broadcasting this stuff at this time. The MSM is not a crack team of watchdogs whose sole purpose is to get at the truth and keep them honest. No. These people are just the government's mouthpiece. They couldn't disobey orders if they wanted to. Propaganda is their job.

The next logical conclusion from there is that Fox News is only going to go so far in reporting on "scandals". There must be a purpose behind what they're doing here. Sadly, it looks like they're slowly introducing Big Brother to the public.

At first, the rant and rave about how "shocking" and "outrageous" it is. Then they start "debating" about it (Am I the only one who doesn't think the Fourth Amendment is debatable?). They always start with the bad part and then they try to persuade you that it really isn't so bad after all. Little by little. Could almost be subtle if you actually trust the MSM. It's very slick, actually. A lot of people think the people at Fox are just right wing idiots but that's far too simplistic. There is a lot of subtext buried in every minute of a Fox broadcast.

We do not have any friends in the media. Remember that. We know from experience that there will be a next step. And when that happens, it too will be normalized before they move on to the next step.

This whole thing reminds me of a little game I would play with people over the phone who vehemently defended the wiretaps and saying that they weren't spying on regular citizens. I would play a game to see if they were willing to say illegal phrases over the phone because they're safe from being monitored. No one would ever say them, because deep down they knew it was happening, they just didn't want to recognize it. Thanks to Snowden, people can't ignore it any longer.

Problem is - what attorney would touch it? What federal judge would prosecute? Check out your Court appointed attorneys. For the most part they don't want to go against judges and don't even truly work hard for their clients (not like a private attorney). If it happens so close to home it for sure happens higher up. I simply don't see how it would happen and its not because I don't think there's a way. I just can't see it yet.

The problem is nothing he has done so far is technically illegal. The reason it isn't illegal is because the US is still operating under a "state of emergency". It has been since even before September 11th, but 9/11 expanded upon how much the government was doing. Before we can change anything we would have to end the state of emergency which was set to continue until "the threat of terrorism" is completely diminished.

Originally posted by alldaylong
There have been corrupt governments all around the world since the birth of national governments hundreds of years ago. If people really think that this is going to change, they must be on substances. If one corrupt governments is removed, it's replaced by another. And on it goes repeatedly.

I'm sure they'll get around to arresting themselves eventually... har har har.

reply to post by TheEthicalSkeptic


That just made me sit upright. Scary if true. Considering the state of things, it's looking pretty credible.

Originally posted by TheEthicalSkeptic

Originally posted by benrl

1984 wasn't meant to be a how to book...

Call it a scandal and only that, Scandals are things celebrity's get into, something that we have been programed to believe is minor and easily overcome through a minor act of attrition, like rehab or apologize.

edit on 16-6-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Now we do have to wait for the evidence behind these allegations. But I love this quote benrl.

Corruption: citizen or group pays an official or officials, to derive undue influence on legislative, judicial or execitive issue which benefit a private group.

Treason: citizen's actions to overthrow, make war against, conspire against or seriously injure a constitutional government basis, (even if no foreign country is aiding or involved by such an endeavor).

Coup d'etat: official institutions are assembled, changed or re-employed to coerce opposing officials or public groups to betray their former constitutional government basis.

These are Coup d'etat allegations.

The military and courts are tasked to defend and protect the constitution. And the NSA monitors the military, military intelligence, and the courts. This is the pathway.

just sayin'

edit on 16-6-2013 by TheEthicalSkeptic because: (no reason given)

and don't forget ..there is ..

high

treason..

I've been reading & reading--literally for hours. I don't comment much because much of what I have to say has already been said.. again & again. What I really want to know is, when are we going to act, in what manner or form. We still have the right, but where to begin? I do feel that the real trouble will start when we make the decision to speak out (in large numbers).

'scuse me, I'm a bit tired.

reply to post by madmac5150


No we shouldn't imprison those murderers. Why would anybody in their right mind think that it is ok to just let the government take our money to house these pos's that are killing people. You want shock therapy for the criminals to make them think twice? Someone who has admitted to or been proven without a shadow of a doubt to take ones life needs to be dragged outside and shot right in the middle of the street. People kill people everyday and we are just assuming its just normal. No behavior like that is disgusting and just like the cowboys did it hang' em high and don't give them the chance to hurt another person. I know its off topic and I am sorry.

Originally posted by Deadlychicken
The problem is nothing he has done so far is technically illegal. The reason it isn't illegal is because the US is still operating under a "state of emergency". It has been since even before September 11th, but 9/11 expanded upon how much the government was doing. Before we can change anything we would have to end the state of emergency which was set to continue until "the threat of terrorism" is completely diminished.

The problem with this is that it effectively turns the Bill OF Rights into a joke. If the government can manufacture an "emergency" on the sly and then use it to cancel the Bill Of Rights (selectively or completely), it's only a matter of time before it happens. It is basically a surefire way to make sure that your rights will be taken away precisely when you need them the most.

This is what our Founding Fathers understood, and why the Constitution (as well as the Declaration of Independence) is such an important document. They knew government was a necessary evil - they knew it as both *necessary* and as *evil* (in the way you point out).

They did their best to find a way to limit the level of corruption that would take place, and they left the future in the hands of the American citizenship. "...if you can keep it." They knew it would take active participation by us.

And the communists knew this; they knew there had to be a corruption of the people before the corruption of the government could take place. Now, after generations (the key original players got things rolling in the 1930s), too much of America lacks understanding of this danger. Educational systems de-emphasize the value of critical thinking and reasoning skills, and emphasizing simple "rote knowledge" ("parotting" or "memorization" - a tactic which can be observed in people who are caught in cult mentalities; when asked a question, they can give the words that the organization answers, but can only "explain" by re-using "cultspeak" phrases).

In short - you're right. And 200(+) years ago, somebody tried to do something about it.

Originally posted by alldaylong
There have been corrupt governments all around the world since the birth of national governments hundreds of years ago. If people really think that this is going to change, they must be on substances. If one corrupt governments is removed, it's replaced by another. And on it goes repeatedly.

Originally posted by Dianec
Problem is - what attorney would touch it? What federal judge would prosecute? Check out your Court appointed attorneys. For the most part they don't want to go against judges and don't even truly work hard for their clients (not like a private attorney). If it happens so close to home it for sure happens higher up. I simply don't see how it would happen and its not because I don't think there's a way. I just can't see it yet.

Anyone who holds any hope that the courts will do a damn thing ought to look at the Obamacare decision. The highest court in the land has turned a fine into a tax (thereby confirming what we knew all along - progressive taxes are punitive in nature).

Courts do not go against the status quo. And if they do, you can bet they have been given the OK behind the scenes.

Originally posted by BrianFlanders

Originally posted by Dianec
Problem is - what attorney would touch it? What federal judge would prosecute? Check out your Court appointed attorneys. For the most part they don't want to go against judges and don't even truly work hard for their clients (not like a private attorney). If it happens so close to home it for sure happens higher up. I simply don't see how it would happen and its not because I don't think there's a way. I just can't see it yet.

Anyone who holds any hope that the courts will do a damn thing ought to look at the Obamacare decision. The highest court in the land has turned a fine into a tax (thereby confirming what we knew all along - progressive taxes are punitive in nature).

Courts do not go against the status quo. And if they do, you can bet they have been given the OK behind the scenes.

edit on 17-6-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

There are rumors abound that Justice Roberts was blackmailed (by the NSA under WH direction) to tilt the Supreme Court in favor of Obamacare. If this plays out and is proven, the entire White House is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Introduce them to the govt's favorite prosecution tool... RICO.

Originally posted by madmac5150


There are rumors abound that Justice Roberts was blackmailed (by the NSA under WH direction) to tilt the Supreme Court in favor of Obamacare. If this plays out and is proven, the entire White House is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. Introduce them to the govt's favorite prosecution tool... RICO.

I'm aware of the rumors but I seriously doubt they would need to blackmail Roberts. He's a Bush appointee, after all. My assumption was that he was already dirty.

Complaining never changed anything. People are AFRAID! #EndOfStory

I think its how you personally are interpreting the English used.

Example: a "747" is also a "plane"
The "President" of the US is also a "politicican"
An "apple" is also a "fruit"
etc, etc...and both may be used, and are used.

When in reference to "scandals" and "conspiracies", a "scandal" can come from a "conspiracy", as well as a "conspiracy" can cause a "scandal".

Both are correct in reference to each other. ie: "Apples and oranges"="fruit"

And the "conspiracy" involving the shootings of both John and Bobby Kennedy...caused "scandals"...indicating there were major "conspiracies". Both would be correct.

reply to post by mysterioustranger


Scandal has a significantly milder connotation than conspiracy. A scandal normally refers to unethical/immoral behavior which is often LEGAL, whereas a conspiracy is A FELONIOUS CRIME punishable by imprisonment of at least 2 years.

Why misuse terms? It is agenda driven nonsense and some can see through their attempted brainwashing.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Okkk....So...you say..." A scandal normally refers to unethical/immoral behavior which is often LEGAL".....so this recent "scandal" about the gov listening in, getting copies of, and monitoring our everything....is by your interpretation.."LEGAL"?

And my son being plotted of the high school soccer team by your definition..."whereas a conspiracy is A FELONIOUS CRIME punishable by imprisonment of at least 2 years"...demands the 8th graders who wanted him off the team and conspired to do so...committed a felonius crime indicating a punishment of these14-15year olds 2 years in prison?.

Why misuse terms? It is agenda driven nonsense and some can see through their attempted brainwashing. I get your drift....er..POINT..(sorry).

But mine stands as well. For example...you cant identify "flying saucers" as "UFOS"...when the very term refers to that object as "unidentifiable and flying as an object".

There are conspiracies that cause scandals, and scandals that are conspiracies. And my neighbor is an alien...from Pakistan. Thats my only point. Is the scandal now conspiracy-driven? Has the conspiracy now become a scandal?
It can be referenced both ways.

So, in no way...did I misuse any terminology.

Thanks