Thread: TRILATERAL HELL

Originally Posted by April

UnemployedAmerican wrote:

I am a firm believer that george bush was appointed to the White House in 2000 to facilitate the NAU. He did not win the white house, it was given to him.

Bush is a puppet of the Carlyle Group et al.
Cheyney was supposed to be his keeper.
Iraq was supposed to keep our minds occupied.

..and the American public was lulled to sleep by apathy! Thank God we are awake and POed! I don't think that was is in their plans!

Heaven knows that neither Clinton nor Gore, nor the effete internationalist Kerry had any interest in facilitating the NAU. I'm sure that some vast right-wing conspiracy brainwashed Clinton into signing NAFTA and negotiating GATT and numerous other free-trade deals since we all know what a paragon of integrity he was otherwise.

The only reason to "fix" an election is if one or another of the candidates would not do the bidding of the "fixers." The last major candidate for President who even vaguely fit that description was Ross Perot, and the last real one was a former insider whose unanticipated independent streak earned him a bullet through the brain.

I guess I have to clarify everything.

I was saying bush was put in to end it up, not start the process, but to facilitate the last of it. Get it done.

Originally Posted by UnemployedAmerican

I guess I have to clarify everything.

I was saying bush was put in to end it up, not start the process, but to facilitate the last of it. Get it done.

But you suggested that his victory over Gore was necessary for this to happen, did you not? You say that he was "appointed" to the White House and that he did not win but that the office was "given to him." That would seem to suggest that he was willing to do something that his opponent (Gore) was not. Surely you are not so foolish as to believe that Gore would not have perpetuated the free trade policies of the Clinton administration.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the best way to avoid having those opinions challenged when you go public with them is to make sure that they make some sort of sense. Specifically, why would the mysterious powers capable of "giving" someone the Presidency go to all the effort to overturn an electoral result over an issue on which both candidates agreed?

Great stuff Kate.

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by UnemployedAmerican

I guess I have to clarify everything.

I was saying bush was put in to end it up, not start the process, but to facilitate the last of it. Get it done.

But you suggested that his victory over Gore was necessary for this to happen, did you not? You say that he was "appointed" to the White House and that he did not win but that the office was "given to him." That would seem to suggest that he was willing to do something that his opponent (Gore) was not. Surely you are not so foolish as to believe that Gore would not have perpetuated the free trade policies of the Clinton administration.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the best way to avoid having those opinions challenged when you go public with them is to make sure that they make some sort of sense. Specifically, why would the mysterious powers capable of "giving" someone the Presidency go to all the effort to overturn an electoral result over an issue on which both candidates agreed?

But at the same time you are willing to suggest that Al Gore and the son of George HW Bush and a member the Carlye Group who's aim is to integrate the North American Continent had the same agenda. Jr. was going to win that election one way or the other. It so happened he got appointed by the Supreme Court, it was always possible that he may win a popular election, it just didn't work out that way.

Gore and Bush may have similar views on free trade, but free trade and a NAU are not the same thing are they?

I understand that you disagree with me on it seems most of what I say, and I can live with that. I don't feel any need to back up everything I say with evidence, it's opinion. My views are my views, and your are yours, and I can live with that.
I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking me on these boards.
or do the ones with the finger on the ban button do what they want.

Originally Posted by UnemployedAmerican

Originally Posted by CrocketsGhost

Originally Posted by UnemployedAmerican

I guess I have to clarify everything.

I was saying bush was put in to end it up, not start the process, but to facilitate the last of it. Get it done.

But you suggested that his victory over Gore was necessary for this to happen, did you not? You say that he was "appointed" to the White House and that he did not win but that the office was "given to him." That would seem to suggest that he was willing to do something that his opponent (Gore) was not. Surely you are not so foolish as to believe that Gore would not have perpetuated the free trade policies of the Clinton administration.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but the best way to avoid having those opinions challenged when you go public with them is to make sure that they make some sort of sense. Specifically, why would the mysterious powers capable of "giving" someone the Presidency go to all the effort to overturn an electoral result over an issue on which both candidates agreed?

But at the same time you are willing to suggest that Al Gore and the son of George HW Bush and a member the Carlye Group who's aim is to integrate the North American Continent had the same agenda. Jr. was going to win that election one way or the other. It so happened he got appointed by the Supreme Court, it was always possible that he may win a popular election, it just didn't work out that way.

Gore and Bush may have similar views on free trade, but free trade and a NAU are not the same thing are they?

I understand that you disagree with me on it seems most of what I say, and I can live with that. I don't feel any need to back up everything I say with evidence, it's opinion. My views are my views, and your are yours, and I can live with that.
I would appreciate it if you would stop attacking me on these boards.
or do the ones with the finger on the ban button do what they want.

Your claims are pure fantasy, and you can't provide one shred of evidence to support your coup d'etat claim, nor does the theory you espouse make sense. And as far as the NAU goes, the groundwork for the NAU and the SPP were laid BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION. As early as 1994, Clinton appointee Jame Gustave Speth authored a UN report titled "Global Governance For the 21st Century" which began,

"Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system."

The White House brief found at this link demonstrates the Clinton administration's dedication to globalization. And remember that Robert Pastor, the author of the SPP, was a Clinton advisor who was held over by Bush. Clinton counselor and chief of staff Thomas F. McLarty III is also one of the prime movers behind the SPP.

What *I* understand is that you have an issue with the Bush administration, as do many of us, but that unlike many of us, you appear to desire to turn Bush into some mythical Darth Vader while absolving the equally disastrous traitors and tyrants from the other side of the aisle of their equal evil.

As far as your nonsensical claim that I am "attacking" you, you appear to fail to distinguish my comments questioning your suspect posts with attacks on your person. I defy you to identify an attack on your person. ANY comment you make here may well be subject to rebuttal by myself or by someone else, as are all of my posts. So long as those rebuttals are confined to factual or philosophical debate and avoid ad hominem attack, they should be within the spirit and scope of this discussion site. And as far as any personal issue goes, I'm not very good at remembering usernames and am not aware of having taken issue with any of you posts prior to the last 24 hours. To my knowledge, the one comment made in the "OTHER TOPICS" section and this one in this forum are the firs ones made by you that I have been aware of. In each case they offer unsupportable claims of a deeply partisan nature. Anyone who is familiar with the body of my posts here knows that I am an equal-opportunity attacker when it comes to bad politicos from either party or no party. Partisan bickering and wild claims of some vast right-wing conspiracy do nothing but distract from the non-partisan nature of the global threats faced by the people of this nation.

Well, cutting right to the chase, Klinton, gore, kerry and bush are all on the same page concerning the NAU & SPP.

The Carlyle Group is more, much more that bushies.

also, according to the Constitution, the CONGRESS should have been the next step in solving the election results. They DID NOT and passed it onto the Supreme Court.

CONGRESS laid down on the job and it's CONGRESS that should be held responsible for not accepting their Constitutional duties!!

Both sides are corrupt and both sides should be made to take responsibility. Gore was screwing around and the Florida Supreme court should never have taken that case in the first place. Blame Gore for that underhanded, unConstitutional maneuver. Wonder who bought off the Florida court?

End result = enough CORRUPTION to go around the table.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

Well, cutting right to the chase, Klinton, gore, kerry and bush are all on the same page concerning the NAU & SPP.

The Carlyle Group is more, much more that bushies.

also, according to the Constitution, the CONGRESS should have been the next step in solving the election results. They DID NOT and passed it onto the Supreme Court.

CONGRESS laid down on the job and it's CONGRESS that should be held responsible for not accepting their Constitutional duties!!

Both sides are corrupt and both sides should be made to take responsibility. Gore was screwing around and the Florida Supreme court should never have taken that case in the first place. Blame Gore for that underhanded, unConstitutional maneuver. Wonder who bought off the Florida court?

End result = enough CORRUPTION to go around the table.

We should also remember that Clinton violated the Constitution by submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than as a treaty. It would have never passed with the 2/3 vote required for a treaty. For that reason, there will always be a slim hope that we can get out of NAFTA on procedural grounds should we ever get a President or Congressional majority that so desires.

We should also remember that Clinton violated the Constitution by submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than as a treaty.

I had forgotten that little detail!

He did SO MUCH to help dismantle the Constitution. But, so did papa bush.

Papa Bush made sure that Klinton was primed to move NAFTA through. Klinton being the gutter trash that he is and desperate for power & to be "accepted" by the blue bloods, was long entrenched into the seedy, corrupt back rooms.

Interestingly, Fulbright was Klinton's mentor when Klinton dodged the draft. That was the big in! Fulbright must have known that he found a real snake who would sell his soul to the devil for power when klinton showed up refusing to REPORT TO BASIC!

Oh yes! There's enough blame to go around.

Originally Posted by 2ndamendsis

We should also remember that Clinton violated the Constitution by submitting NAFTA as an agreement rather than as a treaty.

I had forgotten that little detail!

He did SO MUCH to help dismantle the Constitution. But, so did papa bush.

Papa Bush made sure that Klinton was primed to move NAFTA through. Klinton being the gutter trash that he is and desperate for power & to be "accepted" by the blue bloods, was long entrenched into the seedy, corrupt back rooms.

Interestingly, Fulbright was Klinton's mentor when Klinton dodged the draft. That was the big in! Fulbright must have known that he found a real snake who would sell his soul to the devil for power when klinton showed up refusing to REPORT TO BASIC!

Oh yes! There's enough blame to go around.

Agreed. In pointing out Clinton's outrageous behavior, I am in no way excusing either Bush. My entire point here is illuminating the folly of trying to make this a partisan issue. This is not a matter of Republican versus Democrat. It is a matter of globalist elitists versus the free people of the world. The elitists control enough of the politicians whose faces we know to control the process, and they make sure to maintain that control by creating a false dichotomy so that we are caught up taking "sides" in a staged battle between dirtbags who are in fact on the same side, which is the side that opposes all honest freemen.